VP Cheney is scolding the Democrats for failure to “support the troops” simply because they’re disinclined to give President Bush an indefinite amount of money for an indefinite amount of time…in other words, because they won’t let Bush do whatever he wants. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.
The thing is, when I think of supporting the troops, I’m thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities. I support their right to keep sucking oxygen. I support their right to an honest government that should admit they were sent over there on a political pretext, to search for weaponry that wasn’t there, and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that’s going to be waged whether we’re there or not.
As opposed to Cheney, for whom “suporting the troops” is code for “giving Bush carte blanche.”
I think I’ll take my definition over Cheney’s, thanks.
PAD
• 
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 18, 2007 10:07 AM
It’s way better than my usual ones (“Oh yeah?”, “No YOU suck!”, and “Hey, that’s MR. Úšhølë to you, fella!”)
As someone who has been on the receiving end of your rapier wit from time-to-time, I have to disagree. 😉
Posted by: Manny at March 18, 2007 02:26 PM
Bill Myers, you were a tad harsh on Iowa Jim. Ten lashes witha wet noodle, and two viewings of “Battlefield Earth”. There will be a quiz.
*Sigh*
I’ve apologized to Iowa Jim.
Twice.
I’ve said 14,543 Hail Mary’s.
I was beaten with a rattan cane.
Worst of all… I was forced to look at Ann Coulter… totally nude.
Totally.
Nude.
For the love of God, haven’t I suffered enough????????????
Posted by: Alan Coil at March 18, 2007 05:55 PM
My brain has trouble keeping track.
As does mine.
So… if you’re not keeping track of what I’m saying… and I’m not keeping track of what I’m saying…
Oh Lord… this could result in a mix-up on a par with one of those jokes that ends with the punch line, “Wait-a-minute, if these are the brownies — then what happened to the stool sample???”
“He’s correct that the Spartans were hardly a society most of us would want to be a part of but if the ancient accounts of Xerxes Persia are correct they were the lesser of two evils.
One famous story of Xerxes is that of Pythius the Lydian, a man of great wealth who offers his fortune to the king. Xerxes refuses his aid and instead gives him an even greater fortune. When Pythius asks that the oldest of his 5 sons be allowed to leave the army to take care of him in his old age Xerxes, enraged by this request from a mere vassal, releases the other 4 sons instead and has the oldest and most favored one torn in half so that the army can march between the halves of his severed body.”
Is this from Herodotus? I think you have to take stories like that with a grain of salt, or at least think about them like healines in our newspapers: they do not reflect everyday life of most subjects of the Persian Empire.
“The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot.”
I’m not so certain. If I remember correctly, Sparta was pretty tyranical place to live in even for the male citizens. For the helots it was probably even worse. The Spartans treated them badly if I recall correctly. It was, well, very Spartan. Democratic Athens was obvously much better — when I’ve finished my time machine I’d like to visit. But that’s only if you were a citizen, not a slave.
“300 may offer a simplistic idealized view of West vs East but I don’t know that it’s one that is all that bad for Easterners. The idea that the Greeks won in large part because they were free men fighting for their land against slaves to a tyrant is better than the alternative explanation that the Persians quite frankly sucked at war, getting their áššëš repeatedly kicked by the Greeks and, later, Alexander the Great, despite always having superior numbers.”
You should be careful about reading the present into the past. The way of life of the Greeks probably was partialy responsible for their military successes, but summing it all up with the phrase ‘free-men’ might create a wrong impression. The Greeks were citizens in small, close nit communities with strong cultural ties. Some of the city states were ruled by tyrants (the word is greek), but they were independent. The citizens were trained as warriors, in a culture that admired physical prowess, and they were fighting for their own communities. Also, the poverty of their land hardened them and caused them to look outward. And let’s not forget that military technology also played a role — their tactics of phallanax infantry and heavy warships was the right one in the right place, then but not later. Also, the Greeks were mountain people. mountain people historically tend to be fierce warriors.
The persians on the other hand had an army of mercenaries or slaves or conscripts (you know better than I do), less committed. They were fighting for a distant ruler. The subjects of a vast empire have much less interest who rules than the citizen of a small independent community. Also, you have to remeber that even great empires have their limitations and have their down cycles. One day you’re the toughst warriors in the world, a few centuriess later you are rich fat slobs with great culture but dependant on foreign mercenaries. Another thing you should remember is that the Persians were still a super power for a century after the Persian wars, that they were able to subjugate some greek cities, and that the Greeks did not build the great Empire, it was Alexander, himself a tyrant king, but also a military genius. And his father did defeat the Greeks. That’s the cycle of Empires.
I wonder if we were to propose an interpretation of 300in which the Persian Empire does not represent the Muslim east but instead it represents the United States, would everybody reverse their attitudes toward it — the ones who loved it would hate it, and the ones who hated it would love it?
—————–
It is factualy false that PAD is against any war any time. I know of one war he supported.
—————–
“Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then.”
That’s a conjecture. we thought there were WMD’s. we didn’t find them. Either Saddam didn’t have them or he moved them somewhere else. We don’t know, but if we had to guess which guess would we find more appealing?
—————–
About Bastogne. There is tendency to measure all wars against WWII. There’s also a desire in some to return to the supposed certainty of WWII. But most wars are not like WWII. The war in Iraq is not like WWII. The war on terror is certainly not like WWII. It is more like the fight against the Soviet Union. There will be no day of victory. It will be years of fighting, prevention, diplomacy, propaganda. It is essential to learn to adapt tactically, strategically and mentally.
—————-
The connection claimed to have existed between Saddam and terrorism is based on two cases.
1) A group called Ansar Al-Islam that was connected to Al-Quaida but whose connection to Saddam is disputed. In any case, this small group was stationed in Kurdish Iraq, an was mostly fighting the Kurds — it did not warrant a full invasion.
2) Saddam gave money to the Palestinian suicide bombers. This is a local matter that is not the business of the US and does not warrant a full invasion.
The real reason for the invasion was the bad idea to solve the problem of terrorism by reshaping the middle east starting with Iraq. Iowa Jim is correct, Iraq is a front in the war on terror, but only because Bush turned it into one.
Whether you think the war was right or wrong, whether you support staying or leaving, you must recognize that the was handled badly, that currently things are not working. so, staying the course is not an option. If you support continuing, you should be the first to hold Bush accountable for mismanaging the war and demanding that he present a credible plan to change the situation. Continuing with the same will embolden the enemy (or rather enemies) even more than leaving.
Bill Myers, in view of what you viewed, I’ll reduce your sentence to merely explaining how the hëll “Battlefield Earth” ever got greenlit in the first place.
As for why the Greeks kicked Persian ášš, free men fighting for their homes works, to a degree. The retreating Germans, the Poles, just about every losong side was fighting for their home.
The role of technology is relevant. However, purely technologically, Germen tanks were superior to just about anything the Allies could field. The other end of the equation is sheer numbers. The allies could build and field more Shermans than the Germans could King Tigers. Pound for pound, the KT could kick the šhìŧ out of the best Sherman variant in the field.
The last part of the equation is competance of leadership. How capable is the level of leadership from which strategic decisions flow.
During WWII, the German leadership in 1939 was superior to the Allies. After Hitler assumed direct control of the German war effort, this situation was reversed.
In the current situation in Iraq, the US has the technical edge and the economic edge. As to who feels they are fighting for their homes, yer guess is as good as mine.
Now for competence. Since it appears that the fate of any officer who questions the conduct of the war is career over, to be replaced by someone who “stays on message” the question of competence must be answered by el Presidente.
Worst of all… I was forced to look at Ann Coulter… totally nude.
Really? So…is she or isn’t she? You know what I mean…
s this from Herodotus? I think you have to take stories like that with a grain of salt, or at least think about them like healines in our newspapers: they do not reflect everyday life of most subjects of the Persian Empire.
Well, sure, but you takes what you gots. My point is that any representation of Xerxes as a cruel despot is entirely consistant with history as we have it. It may not reflect reality but that’s another, probably unanswerable, question.
Democratic Athens was obvously much better — when I’ve finished my time machine I’d like to visit. But that’s only if you were a citizen, not a slave.
But in a system with a despot EVERYONE is a slave, to one degree or another.
The way of life of the Greeks probably was partialy responsible for their military successes, but summing it all up with the phrase ‘free-men’ might create a wrong impression.
I don’t want to seem as though I think that the Greeks were walking around in an Ayn Rand paradise but I think there is a reason that we still have the plays of Aristophanes and not so much from whoever was the writer of plays in Persia during Xerxes reign (I may well be wrong but I’m betting that a big hit in 474 BC in Persia had a title something like “Hail Xerxes, Ruler of Heroes Part 2, The Quickening”.
The persians on the other hand had an army of mercenaries or slaves or conscripts (you know better than I do), less committed. They were fighting for a distant ruler.
True, although not distant enough; he was right there watching and chopping off the heads of his generals when they did not get the results he wanted. This is apparently less effective than you’d think. I was struck by the contrast between Carthage, which executed its generals when they lost the first Punic War, and Rome, which suffered an almost unimaginable loss at Cannae during the second Punic War but thanked the surviving consul (Gaius Terentius Varro) for his service and later made him an ambassador. Rome, of course, ultimately came out on top in that fight.
I wonder if we were to propose an interpretation of 300in which the Persian Empire does not represent the Muslim east but instead it represents the United States, would everybody reverse their attitudes toward it — the ones who loved it would hate it, and the ones who hated it would love it?
Some have tried and one could argue that the multicultural nature of the Persians is closer to our own reality that that of the racially homogeneous Greeks but some of the people with an axe to grind with this movie just can’t help but root for the darker skinned side, no matter how despotic. Anyway, the ones that love it tend not to take these political interpretations too seriously so I doubt that any new spin is going to blunt the love. The producers already have 15 of MY hard won dollars and may well get more (I’m hoping to see it at IMAX).
Oh check this out–from Variety:“Miller is also prepping a follow-up to “300” based on another mythic tale from Greek history, but he won’t divulge details.”
Oh please, oh please…let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!
Bill Mulligan: The dámņ thing isn’t supposed to be a documentary.
Luigi Novi: Sigh. Why do people have to use this counterargument with those who observe inaccuracies in films? 🙂
If you don’t feel that the inaccuracy in question is such that it takes away from the film (and I speak as someone who really liked 300), that’s fine, but this retort seems to imply that “realism” is the sole province of documentaries? No offense, Bill, buddy, but this idea just grates on me! 🙂
And hëll, even documentaries are not necessarily “realistic”. Look at Michael Moore’s films.
Bill Mulligan: I don’t quite get the “Xerxes is gay” meme. He’s 7 feet tall and has piercings, is that code for gay now?.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I myself got an androgynous vibe from the character when I saw the film, based on his makeup, plucked eyebrows and computer-aided transgendered-like voice, and that was before I found out that Rodrigo Santoro was a drag queen. I found it a cheap shot, because of the possible inferred connection between androgyny and evil, and I wonder how members of the LGBT community feels about that.
Bill Mulligan: The real Xerxes is portrayed on coins as having a big wooly beard. He’d be about as scary looking as C Everett Koop.
Luigi Novi: C’mon, Bill. Because we can point to a cuddly bearded guy means that therefore, ipso facto, all bearded men cannot be frightening characters, even regardless of how they’re portrayed, designed, plotted, etc.? You could just as easily replaced “C. Everett Koop” with “Charles Manson”, and argue the opposite point. If they wanted to portray Xerxes as a frightening guy with a beard, they could’ve have.
Bill Mulligan: The point that the traitor Ephialtes is portrayed as a grotesque hunchback is also consistent with epic tales and/or Ðìçk Tracy comics, where a character’s evil is reflected in his physical appearance.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure why consistency with something acts as justification for it, or why Ðìçk Tracy comics are being held up as the standard; I personally think that attempting to portray villainy solely through grotesque appearance shows a lack of imagination, and is a cop-out. That’s just me. 🙂
If you don’t feel that the inaccuracy in question is such that it takes away from the film (and I speak as someone who really liked 300), that’s fine, but this retort seems to imply that “realism” is the sole province of documentaries? No offense, Bill, buddy, but this idea just grates on me! 🙂
I get what you’re saying Luigi. But it bugs me when a film that is deliberately being presented as very much a stylized representation of a historical event (and an event of which little is factually known as far as the details go) and people suddenly get all frantic about it’s realism. Picasso’s Guernica doesn’t strike me as terribly realistic either but you’d look like a real dope complaining about it. If they’d filmed the movie in some cinema verite style, made it look like someone handed John Cassevetes a camera and plunked him down in the middle of things, ok, then I guess there would be grounds for complaints. Maybe. But this is about as realistic as a Frazetta painting and almost as nice to look at.
I myself got an androgynous vibe from the character when I saw the film, based on his makeup, plucked eyebrows and computer-aided transgendered-like voice
Well…I guess I could see that. I was thinking Egyptian with the eyebrow bit. I didn’t get a gay vibe from the voice at all, more of a 10th level video game Boss thing.
All I have to say is that gays have made great strides if the stereotype has gone from Waylon Flowers and Madame to 7 foot tall man-gods. I know, I know, all stereotypes are bad but some are worse than others. Most guys would rather be suspected of having unusually large pëņìšëš than being, say, frequently drunk or tight with a dollar.
C’mon, Bill. Because we can point to a cuddly bearded guy means that therefore, ipso facto, all bearded men cannot be frightening characters, even regardless of how they’re portrayed, designed, plotted, etc.? You could just as easily replaced “C. Everett Koop” with “Charles Manson”, and argue the opposite point. If they wanted to portray Xerxes as a frightening guy with a beard, they could’ve have.
No, sorry, can’t agree with you there. I’m talking BIG WOOLY BEARD. This isn’t a scary Manson or Castro beard, this is a comical Smith Brothers Cough Drops beard. It’s like he was caught in the act of swallowing a sheep. He’d be trying to look fierce and I’d be having flashbacks to The Mad Adventures of Rabbi Jacob and laughing my ášš off.
I’m not sure why consistency with something acts as justification for it, or why Ðìçk Tracy comics are being held up as the standard; I personally think that attempting to portray villainy solely through grotesque appearance shows a lack of imagination, and is a cop-out. That’s just me. 🙂
I’m not saying it’s the only or best way to do it but the fact that it is consistent with epic takes some of the wind out of the sails of those who seem to think that Miller was, I don’t know, taking out some personal antipathy toward hunchbacks or something.
One thing I haven’t seen anyone mention–most of 300 is essentially a tale told by the surviving Spartan to his men right before a battle to the death with the Persian army. So yeah the elephants are gonna be too big and the heroic acts of the heroes be a bit gravity defying and the bad guys are not only bad but they’re ugly too.
But the important thing is we both liked it and now Zack Miller can hopefully go make Watchmen.
The history channel cited a few historians on the Persian invasion. A few of them said other than the battle of Thermopylae he was a capable ruler in the line of Persian kings, and none of the historians described him as a despot. Persian interest didn’t seem to exceed that of collecting protection money, and their various, I guess I’d call them confederate states, were otherwise left alone.
Spartans were raised to serve first the Spartan state and, other than their existence predating the term, seemed to be best described as fascists. The final right of passage for their soldiers wasn’t killing a wolf as depicted in 300, but in killing a slave without getting caught, as soldiers were trained to sneak and steal their food as well as fight.
After watching the history channel episode on Thermopylae, my Rush-Limbaugh-listening brother said the downfall of Persia was that they were a multi-cultural society. The historians didn’t portray life serving Persia as less attractive than life serving Sparta in any way.
In real-life as well as the movie, the Persians would have won on the first day if they had loosed their arrows when the Spartans were engaged in battle, a tactic most closely associated with the Japanese.
Maybe the invasion of Iraq does signal the decline of America just as the Persian invasion unified Greece for Alexander to roll right into Persia with. 25 hundred years from now, Osama bin Laden may be portrayed in holodeck reinactments as shirtless and caped, inspiring The 19 to sacrifice their lives to preserve the Arab freedom they will enjoy in the future.
“Also, the Greeks were mountain people. mountain people historically tend to be fierce warriors.”
Hi, Micha, haven’t been formally intro’d yet. Broadly speaking, just about any ethnic group that comes from a harsh region (mountain, desert) tends toward a degree of ferocity.
Look at the feudal Japanese culture. An island nation with limited natural resources that gave birth to a society which placed a priority on martial ability. Or, the ancient Israelis, my own Alpine Swiss ancestors, the Vikings.
Sorry, little tangent drift there.
As much as I agree with those that say the entire Iraq Misadventure should not have happened, the time for the blame game passed about 1 second after the first boot hit the ground. Every second after that made the mess deeper.
Pulling out of Iraq now would be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Not because “they have to be fought over there or over here”, but because, given the quagmire there, leaving would create a new Somalia.
Compounding the error of invasion with the semantic joke of “liberation” pushes us all one step closer to the absurd. “Liberation” implies there was a foreign invasion force occupying Iraq. The reality is that the US is that foreign invader/occupier. That makes Al-Quada’s recruiting very easy. “We’re gonna liberate Iraq.”
As to the argument that “troops want to be there”, well bûllšhìŧ, from a çráppëd out bull. Yes, a number of the troops in theater want to be there. However, I believe the only people under arms in Iraq who want to be there are the ones working for various security contractors. They make more than your average 11B infantry grunt, and are probably better equipped.
From the official position, the deaths of these people in combat keeps the number of reported US combat casualties down. That helps keep things on message. I don’t know how many of these contractors have died in combat operations, but I’ll bet if those numbers were US military personel, and they were added to the 3200+ dead, a few more questions might be asked.
And questions make W and the boys VERY nervous.
“Oh please, oh please…let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!”
Seconded. 🙂
“And hëll, even documentaries are not necessarily “realistic”. Look at Michael Moore’s films.”
What…. You mean that his documentaries aren’t…. They’re… They’re not true? My faith in the world is gone. 😮
The history channel cited a few historians on the Persian invasion. A few of them said other than the battle of Thermopylae he was a capable ruler in the line of Persian kings, and none of the historians described him as a despot.
My dictionary defines despot as A ruler with absolute power. Which would describe Xerxes quite well. He may well have been a capable despot; the trains ran on time and he quite capably put down rebellions from people who did not appreciate his gentle rule.
After watching the history channel episode on Thermopylae, my Rush-Limbaugh-listening brother said the downfall of Persia was that they were a multi-cultural society.
I don’t think it was their multi-cultural nature that doomed them, just the poor way it was used. Hannibal had a very diverse force and used the various skills and specialties to create a more powerful whole. The Persian army, in contrast, seems to have just been a very large rabble. Against smaller rabbles they did fine. Against an organized disciplined force, even one much smaller than theirs…well, we see how that went. The same thing happened with most of Rome’s opponents.
(I’m reminded of another change from history in 300; they don’t have the Persians carrying their main defensive weapon which was–get ready–a wicker shield! Bwah! I can see why that got booted off, it’s too much to expect audiences not to laugh when you see guys marching into battle holding something that looks like it came from Pier 1.)
In real-life as well as the movie, the Persians would have won on the first day if they had loosed their arrows when the Spartans were engaged in battle, a tactic most closely associated with the Japanese.
I don’t know, in the phalanx formation it was not always easy for arrows to get through–now had the Spartans behaved as in the movie, breaking ranks and fighting in slow motion, well…
The real life Spartans were also better armored than the movie ones, though the ladies in the audience (and a few of the guys, I guess) did not seem to mind this deviation from reality.
But yeah, it seems to me that if Xerxes had just sent wave after wave after wave of missile weapons it would have finally taken its toll. Sending the Immortals in so early (and having the army watch them be defeated) was tactically stupid.
Then, as far as one could not predict the innovation of democracy — in Athens — leading to the comfort we enjoy today, your contention that we would prefer life in Greece, even Athens, over Persian rule would not seem clear-cut at the time. Consider the casualness today in curbing the burning of fossil fuels to preserve environmental conditions.
I’m guessing to everyone here, there would be no difference between either situation in the quality of life.
As far as their defense against arrows was described as holding their shields above their heads, and their defense against direct assault was described as holding their shields between them and their attackers, I don’t imagine them defending themselves from both fronts at the same time.
As far as the Japanese were capable of fighting until they were killed, they would have taken advantage of the Spartans inability to defend both fronts at the same time. If, as implied by the name “immortal” (where the fall of each soldier was replaced by another, indefinitely), each immortal accepted his own death in the same fashion as the Japanese soldier, they could have performed such an attack and walked through Greece.
Regarding Manny’s post comparing tanks, for some reason(could be that I’m tired and I’m taking care of a sick boy) I found comparing Shermans to Germans insanely funny.
“(I may well be wrong but I’m betting that a big hit in 474 BC in Persia had a title something like “Hail Xerxes, Ruler of Heroes Part 2, The Quickening”.”
Bill, THAT just gives chills. To think that travesty has been around so long….
Oh, man. Mulligan made me think again. Ðámņ smoke alarms. Under a despot could it be that the people aren’t aware of their situation? I mean, I’m sure that they know that certain things are no-no’s. But could it be that they feel like this is how EVERYONE lives, and that’s how the despots get even more power?
“Oh please, oh please…let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!”
Somewhere, Blutarsky is muttering in ever increasing volume, “Toga! Toga! Toga! TOGA! TOGA!” My head is a dangerous place.
Iowa Jim –
The people in Iraq recently agreed in a poll that things are better now than under Sadaam
Another poll is being reported this morning, conducted by a combination of ABC News, USA Today, the BBC, and ARD German TV, and it *severely* disagrees with the link you provided, Jim.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll
Luigi Novi –
but this retort seems to imply that “realism” is the sole province of documentaries?
I think one distinction to be made here from many other historical pieces is that while 300 is certainly based on a real battle, it never goes out there in the advertising and exclaims “Based on a true story”, which is something I find fault with with many historical movies (King Arthur, for example, purported itself to be “THE true story”, etc).
So, I give more leniency to films that don’t try to claim to be something they’re not. 🙂
Posted by Sean Scullion at March 19, 2007 09:15 AM
“Regarding Manny’s post comparing tanks, for some reason(could be that I’m tired and I’m taking care of a sick boy) I found comparing Shermans to Germans insanely funny.”
Howzabout Germans named Herman fighting Shermans? Sorry, up all night with a cranky 5 week old. I’ll just go in a corner and wait for the nice people with the nets.
No, wait–Germans named Herman fight Shermans with dreaming of Ethel Merman….
I think your corner will be the second stop for the net guys after my corner.
I said that casually, but after sleeping on it, I’m wondering if a historical analogy such as this is what drives continued support of the war, if unconsciously. Americans aren’t capable of abandoning the paradigm of the role of America as the last superpower — as any people are incapable of abandoning their inherited culture.
(My indentity is not inherited from one culture, but pieced together from the building-blocks of a handful of cultures to suit my temperament. The casual insistence people “be themselves” has always rung hollow for me, and I know no solution lies in such an insistence. It’s like the trauma people born blind endure upon having their sight restored. Expecting such a brain to suddenly devote most of its resources to a new function changes the subject’s relationship with the world — people do not change their identities in such a manner casually.)
The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable. In a sense, if the Democrats never find an alternative for Xerxes to retreating from the invasion of Greece, the working paradigm to preserve the US for pro-war Americans will always be to crush the insurgency, perhaps up to and including employing nuclear weapons. It’s wrong, but I have to admit — that isn’t necessarily being unreasonable.
Having invaded Greece, and to preserve the Persian Empire, what alternative then did Xerxes have than conducting total war?
Posted by Sean Scullion at March 19, 2007 09:27 AM
“No,wait–Germans named Herman fight Shermans with dreaming of Ethel Merman…”
“…in for permin’ during the sturmin’ of the vermin by Chris Berman.”
Sorry, I need the net guys now.
“But in a system with a despot EVERYONE is a slave, to one degree or another.”
“My dictionary defines despot as A ruler with absolute power. Which would describe Xerxes quite well. He may well have been a capable despot; the trains ran on time and he quite capably put down rebellions from people who did not appreciate his gentle rule.”
You should be more careful about reading history with modern eyes. Most ofhumanity lived under the rule of despots for most of history, and you do not want to paint all of history until 1776 with black paint. Some despots are better some are worse. Some better in one thing and worse in another. In any case, even in a despotic society there is a significant difference between being a slave and a citizen. The fact that to our modern eyes they all seem like slaves should not cause us to ignore this if we are to understand history.
“My point is that any representation of Xerxes as a cruel despot is entirely consistant with history as we have it. It may not reflect reality but that’s another, probably unanswerable, question.”
But when you read a historical text you have to know how to analyze it. A king could treat badly a faction of courtiers, and they’ll say he was a despot, but for a merchant in a distant province it will not matter so long as there is peace, business is good, his culture is not affected, the gods get their due so the weather is good and the seas calm, and the taxes are not too oppressive. He would say this was a good king.
“I don’t want to seem as though I think that the Greeks were walking around in an Ayn Rand paradise but I think there is a reason that we still have the plays of Aristophanes and not so much from whoever was the writer of plays in Persia during Xerxes reign (I may well be wrong but I’m betting that a big hit in 474 BC in Persia had a title something like “Hail Xerxes, Ruler of Heroes Part 2, The Quickening”.”
The contrast between the freedom in Athens and the oppression in Sparta is one of the reasons for Athens’s amazing cultural contribution. Although Athens is amazing by any standard. Slavery and money extracted from the other Greek States were also factors. I believe the Persians did make some significant cultural contributions of ther owm — more than Sparta. Certainly other despotic regimes were responsible for amazing cultural contributions too, in lietarture, architecture, art, government. I also believe some segments of the Old Testament were written or collected during Persian rule.
“True, although not distant enough; he was right there watching and chopping off the heads of his generals when they did not get the results he wanted. This is apparently less effective than you’d think. I was struck by the contrast between Carthage, which executed its generals when they lost the first Punic War, and Rome, which suffered an almost unimaginable loss at Cannae during the second Punic War but thanked the surviving consul (Gaius Terentius Varro) for his service and later made him an ambassador. Rome, of course, ultimately came out on top in that fight.”
Like Manny said, good leadership is also a factor in miliitary victories and defeats.
“As for why the Greeks kicked Persian ášš, free men fighting for their homes works, to a degree. The retreating Germans, the Poles, just about every losong side was fighting for their home.”
Correct. Fighting for your home, in and of itself, is not sufficient to win wars. It helps.
The Poles sent against the german’s cavalry in 1939 for god’s sake.
“After watching the history channel episode on Thermopylae, my Rush-Limbaugh-listening brother said the downfall of Persia was that they were a multi-cultural society.
I don’t think it was their multi-cultural nature that doomed them, just the poor way it was used.”
A multi-cultural society with out any sense of unity of purpose might be a disadvantage. So can language or cultural barriers. The Duke of Burgundy tried to create an army with the best soldiers of his time — swiss pikemen, English archers, and I don’t remember the others. But they were apparently unable to work together.
“If you don’t feel that the inaccuracy in question is such that it takes away from the film (and I speak as someone who really liked 300), that’s fine, but this retort seems to imply that “realism” is the sole province of documentaries? No offense, Bill, buddy, but this idea just grates on me! 🙂
I get what you’re saying Luigi. But it bugs me when a film that is deliberately being presented as very much a stylized representation of a historical event (and an event of which little is factually known as far as the details go) and people suddenly get all frantic about it’s realism.”
OK. I’m sorry. I’m going to make a wide over-generalization and exageration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based onhistorical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civii war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there’s no distinction between history and fantasy. Real history has such good complex stories. Look at Rome (the TV series), that’s how historical films should be made.
“No, sorry, can’t agree with you there. I’m talking BIG WOOLY BEARD. This isn’t a scary Manson or Castro beard, this is a comical Smith Brothers Cough Drops beard. It’s like he was caught in the act of swallowing a sheep.”
It’s a valid life style choice.
“He’d [Xerxes] be trying to look fierce and I’d be having flashbacks to The Mad Adventures of Rabbi Jacob and laughing my ášš off.”
Why do you think he was such a despot?
I haven’t seen the coins you are talking about, but I’m sure Xerxes had servants who took care of his beard so he’ll loook fierce.
“Hi, Micha, haven’t been formally intro’d yet. Broadly speaking, just about any ethnic group that comes from a harsh region (mountain, desert) tends toward a degree of ferocity.”
Hi. I agree with you completly. ‘Dune’ made use of that.
“As much as I agree with those that say the entire Iraq Misadventure should not have happened, the time for the blame game passed about 1 second after the first boot hit the ground. Every second after that made the mess deeper.
Pulling out of Iraq now would be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Not because “they have to be fought over there or over here”, but because, given the quagmire there, leaving would create a new Somalia.”
I agree with you completly. I’m in a little bit of a bind here. As a person living in the Middle East, I am very worried about what will happen when the US leaves Iraq. But I want the American to stay or leave as a result of rational deliberation, not manipulation. I also don’t know how, as things stand now, things are going to improve in Iraq. ‘Staying the Course’ is not going to do it. Wanting victory is nice, but not enough. For me it might be better if the US stays, even if things don’t improve, rather than face the results of US withdrawl. But this is not something I can ask the Americans to do. They must make their own decisions, this time with more rational thinking and less manipulation.
“But yeah, it seems to me that if Xerxes had just sent wave after wave after wave of missile weapons it would have finally taken its toll. Sending the Immortals in so early (and having the army watch them be defeated) was tactically stupid.”
History and the present are full of this kind of stupidity.
“”Oh please, oh please…let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!”
Seconded. :)”
How about a movie that is not about heroes and villains, but about a group of pretty decent but imperfect people who found themselves stuck in a foreign land?
I was lying in bed and I couldn’t fall asleep. Then at some point I woke up to discover that for at least part of that time I was dreaming that I couldn’t fall asleep.
As far as their defense against arrows was described as holding their shields above their heads, and their defense against direct assault was described as holding their shields between them and their attackers, I don’t imagine them defending themselves from both fronts at the same time.
Those in front are dfending themselves against frontal attack. The back ranks don’t need to do that. I suppose the Persians could have poured arrows upon the ranks of both sides but they would only be capable of killing the very front rank of the phalanx–maybe. The helmets and breastplates would limit damage and the bodies of the Persian infantry would take the greatest brunt of the damage.
In theory it could still work–but the ground that the Spartans and their allies were on was possibly the most favorable imaginable. They did not have to commit their entire force at once. They could afford to absorb some punishement. So could Xerxes but he did not have the same luxury of time. An army that massive can’t stay in one place and one can only imagine the psychological effect it had on them to have to waste 3 days taking out such a tiny fraction of the Greek army.
The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable.
If it’s unthinkable I think it’s because it is so farfetched–it would require two unlkely events. 1- A unified Arab entity. Considering that nobody has done a better job of killing Arabs than Arabs have (except perhaps Persians) it would take a major shift for them to get their act together. It’s like saying the North American Indians could have defeated the Europeans if they had fought as a unified whole. Perhaps, but that would never have happened. Some of the most effective Indian fighters were Indian. Had Custer listened to his scouts he…well, he would probably be an obscure figure, but one with a likely better end.
2- They would then have to take over the world. I don’t think they have it in them. Looking at the Arab countries, looking at how they have used their wealth–a wealth that will one day be gone, by the way–one does not get the sense that this is the future. Their inability to defeat Israel time and time again also does not inspire confidence.
Of course, one cannot say for sure–a charismatic, intelligent, competant military leader could rise up and bring about major changes. The political structure of the Arab nations as they are now does not encourage the cultivation of such men but who can say?
OK. I’m sorry. I’m going to make a wide over-generalization and exageration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based onhistorical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civii war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there’s no distinction between history and fantasy. Real history has such good complex stories. Look at Rome (the TV series), that’s how historical films should be made.
Well, isn’t Rome an American TV series?
One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it’s all fairly recent. It’s easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy.
I might add that I’ve seen lots of people complain about Rome. Someone said that Cleopatra was too good looking, that in reality she was frumpy. This is another case of where I’ll take the possible myth over the probably reality, thank you very much and hold the mayo.
“Well, isn’t Rome an American TV series?”
I thoght it was British. All the actors are British. I have a theory that every British household has in the closet several periodical costumes — especiall early 19th century — in case somebody wants to make a movie or a miniseries or an adaptation of Jane Austin.
“One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it’s all fairly recent. It’s easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy.”
I’m talking less about technical stuf as the attitude toward the story. Look at the three musketeers. I know it isn’t real history, but it is historical fiction. In the book you have this cynical game between the king and Richelieu, and you have the Musketeers who are fighting for fun mostly, for romance. But the movie had to make it into the kind of story in which there’s an evil, mustache twirling counselor who is trying to become king. And look at Braveheart, the Kingdom of Heaven, Troy.
“The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable.”
Only that Greece was only unified partially and temporarily more than a hundred years later when it was conquered by the Macedonians. And their Empire broke down pretty fast.
“I might add that I’ve seen lots of people complain about Rome. Someone said that Cleopatra was too good looking, that in reality she was frumpy. This is another case of where I’ll take the possible myth over the probably reality.”
Agreed. You shouldn’t be too realistic, all I am asking is a little more respect to history. The way they handled Cleopatra in Rome was rather clever. They didn’t lok for a new Elizabeth Taylor. They took someone who was a little strange looking, but in a sexy kind of way.
“”One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it’s all fairly recent. It’s easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy.”
I’m talking less about technical stuf as the attitude toward the story. Look at the three musketeers. I know it isn’t real history, but it is historical fiction. In the book you have this cynical game between the king and Richelieu, and you have the Musketeers who are fighting for fun mostly, for romance. But the movie had to make it into the kind of story in which there’s an evil, mustache twirling counselor who is trying to become king. And look at Braveheart, the Kingdom of Heaven, Troy.”
There’s a tendancy in some movies to make historical, or fictional-historical characters into cardboard puppets in simplistic fairytale like stories that usually reflect rather obviously modern attiudes and considerations.
But I am making a very gross over-generalization.
Manny–
While of course going to the hairdressers for some permin’ and being afraid of rodents due to the squirmin’ and some other pun that has yet to be determined…
HA! Net guys in my court now, Mister!
“‘Staying the Course’ is not going to do it.”
Is it my imagination, or +have politicians seen that the American populace is so influenced by catch phrases from commercials that they just throw out a phrase hoping that we’ll say, “Hmmm. Stay the course. Coke is it.” Looking back through history, they’ve always blocked things under certain phrases, but where the New Deal might have been a catch phrase, there was something behind it, not just jingoistic rhetoric to cover that they in power have no idea what the heck to do to get us out of this situation.
Bill Mulligan: I get what you’re saying Luigi. But it bugs me when a film that is deliberately being presented as very much a stylized representation of a historical event (and an event of which little is factually known as far as the details go) and people suddenly get all frantic about it’s realism. Picasso’s Guernica doesn’t strike me as terribly realistic either but you’d look like a real dope complaining about it. If they’d filmed the movie in some cinema verite style, made it look like someone handed John Cassevetes a camera and plunked him down in the middle of things, ok, then I guess there would be grounds for complaints. Maybe. But this is about as realistic as a Frazetta painting and almost as nice to look at.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think people necessarily get that it’s being deliberately presented as a stylized representation of history per se, or that this viewpoint in itself is being used by the creators to address the question of its inaccuracies. From the publicity about the film, they will probably hear or read that it’s based on a real event. Nor do I see how this is “sudden”. It’s what happens with pretty much every popular movie that plays fast and loose with history. Me, I feel that creators of such adapted stories should try to adhere as close to the empirical truth as possible, and veer off only in areas where it’s absolutely narratively necessary.
Bill Mulligan: No, sorry, can’t agree with you there. I’m talking BIG WOOLY BEARD.
Luigi Novi: Why would that preclude the use of the character’s actions, voice, the actor’s acting ability, etc., to create a frightening character? The beard alone would completely negate the ability of the creators to create an effective character? Hëll, the Xerxes that’s in the film isn’t really that frightening so much as a representation of the Persian Army, which is the true enemy in pragmatic terms. Oh well, to each his own, of course.
Bill Mulligan: I’m not saying it’s the only or best way to do it but the fact that it is consistent with epic takes some of the wind out of the sails of those who seem to think that Miller was, I don’t know, taking out some personal antipathy toward hunchbacks or something
Luigi Novi: Well, obviously that’s subjective. Those who might find the choice questionable are probably still going to find it thus regardless of whether you point out that it’s consistent.
Bill Mulligan: But the important thing is we both liked it and now Zack Miller can hopefully go make Watchmen.
Luigi Novi: Wow, have Frank Miller and director Zack Snyder been fused into some sort of monstrous comic creator/film director creature? 🙂
Micha: OK. I’m sorry. I’m going to make a wide over-generalization and exageration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based onhistorical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civii war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there’s no distinction between history and fantasy.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think that’s the case. You could find plenty of films on America history that are not accurate. I think one of the things upon which the success and believability of the films you think are realistic hinges is the ignorance of the audience. You mentioned Titanic as an example of an accurate film. But why is this? Do you honestly think a first-class passenger like Rose would ever have come into contact with a steerage passenger like Jack? Or that after slogging through water just a few degrees above freezing, that Rose would be able to effectively swing that axe and free Jack from those handcuffs, when realistically, she’d be unable to coordinate her muscles? Now you might react by saying, “Oh, okay, I didn’t know/realize that,” but then that’s my point. I didn’t know quite a bit about the inaccuracies in 300 until I read about them.
Just about every movie about a historical event is inaccurate in some way. I am reminded of the criticism of the Mel Gibson film The Patriot, which was accused of presenting the British in an inaccurate and overly cruel manner. But then again, does that count as American history? British? International? And how about Gone with the Wind? Birth of a Nation Or just about any Western? All of those are on periods in American history, but they’re hardly considered accurate.
Micha: I haven’t seen the coins you are talking about, but I’m sure Xerxes had servants who took care of his beard so he’ll loook fierce.
Luigi Novi: You can see him at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tresury_relief.JPG
Bill Mulligan: Well, isn’t Rome an American TV series?
Luigi Novi: I believe it’s a joint venture by HBO and the BBC.
Bill Mulligan: One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it’s all fairly recent. It’s easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy.
Luigi Novi: But there are plenty of aspects of the Battle of Themopylae and the cultures of the two powers who fought there that are part of the historical record, and not controversial, yet presented incorrectly in the film.
One thing I forgot to add in the first quote-and-respose exchange above is that Picasso was deliberately making a political statement when he painted Guernica, and any viewer can see by looking at it that it’s not a representational painting. By contrast, there is a psychological tendency to absorb information seen on the screen or in print and assume it as accurate, as is the case with movies. This certainly happened when I first saw Oliver Stone’s JFK, and it wasn’t until I began reading critical material on the subject that I discovered that it was all bunk. (And again, Micha, that was American history. 🙂 )
I was going to respond to Iowa Jim but I am angry about something and do not want that anger to spill over.
Tom DeLay, former member of the House of Representatives (R-TX) and a thoroughly unprincipled individual, had the unmitigated gall to call war protestors, Democrats in Congress calling for a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, and anyone else who believes we should pull out of Iraq “unpatriotic.”
On “Meet the Press” yesterday, he grinned smugly while he asserted that once the decision to go to war has been made the nation should cast aside all doubts and, you know, “support the troops.”
Never mind that the War Powers Act, despite its blatant unconstitutionality, allows a president to commit our troops to combat without Congressional approval, thereby eliminating chance for a debate. Never mind the fact that during the debate leading up to the current war in Iraq, George W. Bush knowingly misled us about the quantity and quality of evidence that Iraq was a threat. Once the decision’s been made, we should just keep our mouths shut, smile, and tie a yellow ribbon to a tree.
Except that DeLay had a decidedly different view of things when Clinton committed U.S. forces to fight in Bosnia. DeLay wanted to limit funding, called for a pull-out date, and all of that good stuff that he now condemns.
I do not know how DeLay can live with the dishonest, unprincipled, spineless, opportunistic thing he has become. But I do know that this is why I am sick of hearing people parrot the phrase “support the troops.”
Politicans love to hide behind that phrase, because who among us with a human heart can think about our servicemen and women, many of them quite young, fighting and bleeding and dying for us, and not want to support them?
But we must not allow politicans to conflate their own interests with those of the troops. The bottom line is that when it comes to war, our leaders have historically been unable to acknowledge when they’ve made a mistake. They’d rather see soldier upon soldier continue to die while they hold onto the vain and rather delusional hope that somehow an ill-advised ane ill-conceived war will magically turn itself around.
Some wars are necessary. Others are not. No amount of slogans will turn one into the other.
Bill Myers,
I, for one, would love to se Ann Coulter nude. Even though I don’t agree with a few of her statements/sctions in the past year) Maybe it’s the tall, blonde thing. Or the powerful, confident woman who isn’t afraid to be a bìŧçh thing. Or that she has a brain and a fat checking account. MMMMM..
Sean,
I said: By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless”
You said:
“No”
Yes
“It isn’t and to say that if a person doesn’t support the war…is empty rhetoric.”
No. It’s really not. I see a lot of “empty rhetoric” in the daily pounding of the President. No one – except maybe McCain has been coming out and saying we must win and here’s why.”
And there is a huge difference is hating the troops – although I do believe many on the left do – and not supporting them. Parents may love a child, but if Melvin Belvin wants to try out for the basketball team and they tell him it’s a silly idea and he’ll never make it, that’s not SUPPORT.
“And who is doing the invading and occupying? The Girl Scouts? The New York Giants?”
Well, those on the fringe Left have advocated doing away with the military altogether and Kucinich makes some swoon when he brings up the idea of a Department of Peace. These are idealists not living in the real world, in which we have plenty of real and otential adversaries.
But the fact that you accept the “invaders and occupiers” label means a great deal. Instead of constantly mocking Cheney for his “We will be greeted as liberators” line, wouldn’t it be great if more people and more stories focused on the fact that they HAVE LIBERATED 50 million people and allowed elections to occur? THAT’S support. Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust and trying to paint all soldiers with the same brush is NOT support.
“Anti-war types I know have family in the military. Yeah, they’re likely to look down on the troops.”
And I know many who support it. The huge reason a lot of people don’t support the war is because they don’t understand it. I blame the President a great deal for this. he has been a horrible Communicator in this regard. But a media who won’t air a video form Iraq showing Iraqis thanking America and other positive developments is partly to blame as well.
In short, there is plenty to be proud of our troops for. Why aren’t these stories being told? That would be support.
Tom DeLay?
He’s the guy who’s been indicted for multiple felonies including campaign fiance irregularities and moneylaundering, right?
Why are we taking anything he says seriously again?
I, for one, would love to se Ann Coulter nude.
I’ll skip the obvious tranny jokes and just say that even if she wasn’t a batshit crazy hatefilled harpy from hëll, I still wouldn’t want to see her nude. I’m not into bony bottle-blondes with hawklike features.
Now, if you want a batshit crazy hatefilled harpy from hëll who is also a hottie, give me Michelle Malkin.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Not 6 days, not 6 weeks, not 6 months.
It’s now 4 years and counting.
Somebody want to tell me again why I should support the madness of King George?
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
I, for one, would love to see Ann Coulter nude.
Uhm, yeah, thanks for sharing…
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
Even though I don’t agree with a few of her statements/sctions in the past year) Maybe it’s the tall, blonde thing. Or the powerful, confident woman who isn’t afraid to be a bìŧçh thing. Or that she has a brain and a fat checking account. MMMMM…
I think you need to get out more. There are far more intelligent women out there. Coulter is to politics what Andrew Dice Clay was to comedy: nothing more nor less than shock value. It always wears off. Eventually, she’ll be forgotten, relegated to the dustbin of history.
There are far more intelligent women out there, including conservative women. And there are WAY more attractive women out there.
Women, by the way, SHOULD be “afraid” to be “bìŧçhëš.” A woman can be an assertive go-getter without being a “bìŧçh,” just as a man can be an assertive go-getter without being an “áššhølë.” People often mistake poor character for ambition. They often coexist but one is not a pre-requisite for the other.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
I see a lot of “empty rhetoric” in the daily pounding of the President.
Then you are extremely ill-informed. Every assumption the President made about this war has been wrong. Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMDs. Ahmad Chalabi was not the “George Washington of Iraq” and couldn’t even win a seat in that nation’s recently elected parliament. We were not greeted as liberators but as occupiers. We could not run this war “on the cheap” and the troop levels Bush was certain would be adequate for occupying Iraq were, in fact, entirely inadequate. Our mission was not “accomplished” with the fall of Saddam. I could go on and on, but I have to get back to work soon.
There is nothing “empty” in pointing out a pattern based on hard cold facts: this President has not made a single correct decision with respect to Iraq. Not a single one.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
Well, those on the fringe Left have advocated doing away with the military altogether and Kucinich makes some swoon when he brings up the idea of a Department of Peace.
Yes, and some on the fringe right advocate a return to the days of Jim Crow… and worse. They’re called the Ku Klux Klan.
What? If anyone who is remotely liberal has to take “ownership” of radical Marxist types, you have to take ownership of the Klan.
Or you could accept that the right and the left are part of a broad political spectrum with many shadings.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
But the fact that you accept the “invaders and occupiers” label means a great deal.
Yes, it reveals that he understands the meanings of those words. It’s not his fault that people like you have invested them with emotionally charged connotations.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
Instead of constantly mocking Cheney for his “We will be greeted as liberators” line, wouldn’t it be great if more people and more stories focused on the fact that they HAVE LIBERATED 50 million people and allowed elections to occur? THAT’S support. Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust and trying to paint all soldiers with the same brush is NOT support.
Liberated the Iraqi people from what? Saddam Hussein was brutally repressive, but on the other hand most Iraqis had a measure of security. Now most have none. More people have died in Iraq in the last four years under our occupation than did prior to the toppling of Hussein’s regime. And I’m not just talking about the Iraqis we’ve killed. They’re killing each other in greater numbers than they could under Saddam’s regime.
In “liberating” them from Saddam we also “liberated” them from conditions of relative security. Removing one evil isn’t anything to brag about if all you do is unleash an even greater evil. And that’s exactly what we did. Saddam was evil. But the civil war raging in Iraq is even worse.
By the way, the insurgency is an outgrowth of promises made and then broken to the Sunnis that they would be dealt into the new government. So it’s not as representative as people such as you would like to believe.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
But a media who won’t air a video form Iraq showing Iraqis thanking America and other positive developments is partly to blame as well.
In short, there is plenty to be proud of our troops for. Why aren’t these stories being told? That would be support.
Oh, get off this “blame the media” crap. One million people have fled Iraq over the last several months, refugees who are running from their homeland to escape the horrible violence. They aren’t fleeing their homeland because they’re watching American news stations or reading the “New York Times.”
See, if somone kills 500 people and then helps an old woman across the street, the media will likely focus on the 500 killings. Why? Proportionality. That’s why it’s asinine to ask why a few smiling Iraqis are drowned out by images of millions of suffering Iraqis.
Sigh… I was too nasty to Jerome Maida, wasn’t I?
Jerome, sorry, but I’m still steaming about Tom DeLay calling people “unpatriotic.” I disagree with you and stand by my argument. I do not stand by the sarcasm with which I expressed it.
In the future, I am going to write my posts using a stand-alone text editor, let them sit for a few hours, and then remove any unnecessary inflammatory language before finally posting them.
Unless, of course, I’m responding to people like Robert Preston. 🙂
Oh, and Manny, I will NOT discuss “Battlefield Earth” or perform any other of your crazy penances, you… you crazy person, you!
Hey, y’know what, Manny? You know what would really teach me a lesson? Having sex with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Can you arrange that?
It’s a frightening punishment to contemplate, but I’m willing to accept it for the good of this blog.
Bill, don’t be too hard on yourself, you’re only human, and this is a very heated subject. If you react emotionaly it’s because you care. And you also care enough to apologize. Many people don’t do either.
——————–
“Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust”
you shouldn’t say things like that even as a hyperbole.
“Parents may love a child, but if Melvin Belvin wants to try out for the basketball team and they tell him it’s a silly idea and he’ll never make it, that’s not SUPPORT.”
Melvin Belvin in this story is Bush, not the soldiers. And he does not deserve support. Supporting he soldiers is not supporting the policy. This is not the soldiers’ war. They did not decide to start it or how to conduct it, so criticizing these aspects in no way diminishesthe support for the troops. And you know what, if there are aspects of the way the soldiers are doing things that are their responsibility (or the officers) they should not be shielded from criticism either.
Also, there is no doubt that some Iraqis were happy when the US came, and were happy to see Saddam toppled, and to see him hanged, and to vote. And that stuff was on the news. But the US has been the primary force in Iraq for four years, personal security is disasterous, the infrastructure is a mess, there’s anarchy and civil war, people are running away from their homes, the influence of Iran and of Al-Quaida is growing, stability in the middle east is down, the American supported government is corrupt and theocratic, the Iraqi army is not ready and often seems more like another militia, and the soldiers are ill equipped to handle it in numbers, resources, intelligence or cultural awareness. Trying to ignore that does not constitute supporting the troops and it will not lead to victory.
Sigh… I was too nasty to Jerome Maida, wasn’t I?
I don’t think so. But then, I can be rather nasty on a regular basis.
And why do I get so nasty? Because I keep reading the same tired and incorrect arguments from those supporting the war over and over again.
The White House spits it out, some individuals suck it up, and then repeat it ad nauseum until they convince themselves its the truth.
Things like Syria having the WMD, or that no liberals supported going to Afghanistan.
Maybe they all just like to conveniently forget that Bush said we shouldn’t be into nation building? Or that Bush said bin Laden was no longer important after helping murder 3000 people?
You know, things that should have everybody up in arms.
Posted by Bill Myers at March 19, 2007 01:58 PM
“Oh, and Manny, I will NOT discuss “Battlefield Earth” or perform any other of your crazy penances, you… you crazy person, you!”
Bill, given your recent exposure to Tom Delay, all penances are manumitted to penance served.
Posted by Bill Myers at March 19, 2007 02:04 PM
“Hey, y’know what, Manny? You know what would really teach me a lesson? Having sex with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Can you arrange that?
It’s a frightening punishment to contemplate, but I’m willing to accept it for the good of this blog.”
Sorry, ya gotta earn it.
Posted by Sean Scullion at March 19, 2007 11:33 AM
“Manny–
While of course going to the hairdressers for some permin’ and being afraid of rodents due to the squirmin’ and some other pun that has yet to be determined…
HA! Net guys in my court now, Mister!”
Only if Ethel Merman spent the night wormin’ to catch fish for Herman ze German fightin’ the Shermans with Chris Berman’s vermins. Very consternin’ we’re learnin’.
PS, PAD, if I’m prying say so, how’s with you and Kathy?
But was a unified Arab vendetta against the US not the worst-case scenario of the Iraq Study Group?
As Jared Daimond pointed out to win his Pulitzer:
Dear Mr. Myers, – and Manny (I’m sorry, I don’t know your last name),
Please forgive the haphazard manner in which this posting is put together. I’m still rather new to this whole blog thing.
Again, in order of importance:
Mr. Myers: I stand on formality here and anywhere else. That being said, I hope you’ll forgive my use of profanity earlier. Conversation should never disintegrate that far. I apologize.
When it comes to The Constitution, don’t presume to lecture me on, or cut and paste only those parts that you feel validate your own opinion. No where is that document is the “Right to Vote” guaranteed. I have worn out a copy or two of the Constitution, and I have yet to see that in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find any such statement within the law of the land? Democracy is by design mob rule. When it comes to the 2000 election, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, rightly so, that the right of the State of Florida to determine their own electoral were more important than being politically correct. And this was held up by a liberal Supreme Court. Al Gore and John Kerry were not duly elected. End of Story. Get over it.
Also, in my opinion, the XVII amendment should have been repealed long ago. I supported Zell Miller’s last bill and still do. Look that one up.
The Left’s definition of democracy can be summed up as follows. “The Majority shall get whatever They want, no matter Who has to pay for it, and even if the Law says differently.” Those are my words, but if you need any clarification, I will be happy to clear up anything that you don’t understand.
Iraq’s strategic position is still open to debate, but our being there is still at least a foothold in a predominately Muslim country. That is who we are at war with. As you so correctly pointed out. Muslim radicals. You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia. These also remain a stronghold of our enemies, and perfectly viable targets, both economically, and militarily. Do you disagree?
The military is not there to debate anything, either internally or externally. Perhaps you would prefer that our military were run as a Democracy. That would give all our men a vote, and in the end accomplish nothing. If you don’t like the people making policy for our soldiers, vote out your represenitives. I believe Mrs. Clinton is due to run soon for something. Perhaps you can get her elected somewhere else.
I do not expect you to jump through any hoops of mine. Just honest answers, to honest questions from now on would be enough. As I said, I’m new to posting my thoughts, and I shall keep it civil from now on. No matter what is said.
I stated earlier that there were exceptions to every rule. Jerry may very well be one of those. No insult was intended to him. Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not. What do you propose? I’m curious.
My poor attempt at humor about my high school debating experience is regrettable. It really does come off much better in person. Kind of like “The Aristocrats.”
Anywhere, anytime and at any length, I will be glad to exchange ideas with you. I’m always up for a good argument. I’ll make you a deal, Mr. Myers. You and I will keep it civil and to the issues. Let’s see if anyone follows suit. Fair enough? You ask me a question, and I’ll answer. I ask you a question, and you answer. You go first.
I can’t wait to earn your respect.
If I read this site correctly, then I should be addressing Mr. Ries or Manny. They will know who should be on the receiving end of this statement.
When the Canadians manage give the people back their rights, stop taxing their own people into dependence, and start police their borders (as the U.S. should both North and South) then I will be glad to listen to them. As a nation, there is a reason why they haven’t been annexed.
I have consulted The Amazing Karnak. Your responses are in mayonnaise jars, in my wife’s purse. No place is more secure. I’m comfortable in that knowledge.
En garde,
Robert Preston
Instead of constantly mocking Cheney for his “We will be greeted as liberators” line,
Maybe if Cheney had been right about just one thing -anything- about Iraq, then maybe people wouldn’t feel the need to mock him for his “greeted as liberators” or “last throes” lines.
That said, I’m immensely proud of the work our soldiers have done on the whole. They were given an near impossible job and have done a lot of positive things with it despite the incompetent leadership that sent them there and they’ve done a lot of positive things despite Abu Graib and the other idiotic things that Bush has inflicted on both Iraq and our prestige.
But, I’m looking at the 3200 of our dead soldiers and billions that have vanished down that rat hole with no end in sight and the damage our ability to stand as a moral leader of world. I ask myself everyday, was it worth it?
Sorry, but I still see it.
BTW, Dennis Kucinich has less chance of winning the Democratic nomination than John Stewart has being elected pope, yet anyone who is on the opposite side of the fence of this incompetent and corrupt administration is supposed to “swoon” over his every word?
I don’t think so.
And yet, Ann Coulter not only gets invited to all the cool republican events, but she gets laughs and applause when she uses hatefilled language towards a presidential candidate and calls for a SCOTUS justice to be poisoned. But hey, she’s just joking, right? Har har har. Where’s your sense of humor? BTW, let’s crucify John Kerry when he tells a bad joke.
Whatever.
Posted by Bill Myers
Which leads me to remember and hunt up this little post from “Huffington Post”:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/tom-delay-tome-of-the-un_b_43593.html
BTW, my favorite Coulterism was this, “how do we know that their husbands weren’t planning on divorcing those harpies” when referring to the 9/11 widows who had to audacity to be politically active, but not for republican causes.
Not having a shred of proof that there were an impending divorces, Crazy Ann can still manage to plant the seeds that these women were so vile their husbands hated them simply by phrasing it as a question. That shows that she has absolutely has no sense of ethics or honesty. If that’s what you want to call having a brain, then you’re welcome to her.
Hey, how do we know Ann Coulter isn’t a meth addict? How do we know she’s not a spy for Al Qaida? How do we know she’s not an axe murderer?
I don’t have any proof to back up any of those allegations, but I think it’s important to raise these issues. It’s okay if I just ask the question, right?
Dear Den (I have no other name appropriate for you.)
Ann Coulter is not a favorite of mine. However, it was Leftists who assaulted her less than two years ago for simply speaking her mind. When was the last time that Al Franken or Janeane Garofalo were assaulted for speaking their minds? Personally, I would really enjoy the opportunity to smack either of them in the face with a pie, just as much as they would.
Freedom of speech is the 1st amendment for a reason. The right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd in the order. Maybe the pie-throwers should be thankful that Ann Coulter didn’t fire back like she should have.
In case you need ammo, I like cherry-cheese pie. If you need the recipe, my wife or mom would be glad to provide with a sample.
Waiting to hear,
Robert Preston
Because shooting someone is a rational response to someone armed with pie…
1 Mr. Preston:
Re: When the Canadians manage give the people back their rights, stop taxing their own people into dependence, and start police their borders (as the U.S. should both North and South) then I will be glad to listen to them. As a nation, there is a reason why they haven’t been annexed.
I read these boards regularly but I rarely participate. The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
However, your comment regarding Canada spurred me to write. Have you actually ever been to Canada? I am frankly baffled by your observations. What rights do Americans have that Canadians do not have? Seriously? On the other hand, we have rights up here that you only dream of. We have the right to health care that doesn’t drive individuals into bankruptcy. And if you do the math, our tax burden is actually less than yours because you are not factoring in what it costs you to get health care.
There is a reason why we have not been annexed? Who, prithee, would annex us? The only nation close enough to do such a thing would be yours. Surely, you are not saying that the only reason we have not been conquered is because we are beneath contempt and not worth the trouble? If so, that is hardly a noble stance. (By the way, I suspect we will be worthy of more attention when your fresh water runs out in the near future.)
Perhaps our country came into existence through negotiation and compromise rather than having to militarily shake off the shackles of a foreign potentate but our military history is not one to be sneered at. We were in both World Wars long before the US joined in. Despite a much smaller population base and often insufficient preparation, our troops have always acquitted themselves well. And, as far as I know, no one has ever accused Canadian troops of war crimes. We have often stood between warring parties with nothing more than a blue helmet and a calm demeanour. Feel free to be proud of your nation, sir, but please do not mock mine. You have not earned that right.
In more general terms, we are starting to feel the same concerns in our country regarding our military in Afghanistan as you are with your troops in Iraq. I wish I had an answer to this dámņáblë situation but all options seem unworkable at the moment. In this as in so many dangerous situations in the past, we are indeed allies and friends and I hope that we can find a way to get all our forces home soon.
Regards, The Rev