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
• 
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.
Maybe it’s just my headache, but I’m not entirely sure what angle you’re taking with this comment. Is it meant to be insulting, considering the subsequent comment about Canadians and Canada in general?
But, for what it’s worth, I’m not Canadian. But I like Canadians, even the ones who say “eh” way too often for their own good.
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.”
That’s rather ironic considering Bush’s extensive and extreme use of signing statements, which amount to his giving the finger to Congress and saying “I shall do whatever I want, no matter who has to pay for it, and even if the law says differently.”
For all your bìŧçhìņg about democracy and the left (and yes, I do realize that our country is actually a Republic, which means we elect representatives), the right is trying to run this country like a dictatorship.
But then, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court gets to decide who is president when the laws of Florida were more than sufficient for the task, had they been given time to take their course.
And this was held up by a liberal Supreme Court.
I love Wikipedia:
“The nine members of the Supreme Court voted along ideological lines in the split decision, with five conservative justices (Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas) outvoting the Court’s four liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer).”
Liberal Supreme Court, indeed.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Mr. Myers: I stand on formality here and anywhere else.
Most people here don’t. When in Rome…
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
That being said, I hope you’ll forgive my use of profanity earlier. Conversation should never disintegrate that far. I apologize.
Apology accepted.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
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.
I actually laughed out loud when I read the above sentence. You really overestimate your ability to intimidate people, y’know that?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
No where is that document is the “Right to Vote” guaranteed.
That’s false. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are to be elected by “the people.” That guarantees the right of the people to vote for their Congressional representatives.
Unless you can think of some other way that “the people” can “elect” their representatives without actually voting.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
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.
No, it is not. In modern usage it simply refers to forms of governance where leaders are elected by the people.
You are somewhat correct that the term was used differently when the Founding Fathers were still around. Back then, “democracy” was indeed understood to mean “majority rule,” pure and simple. A modern example of that would be the “initiative and referendum” process in some states, where citizens vote directly on legislation rather than having their elected representatives do it of them.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and vice versa. Therefore they opted to create a representative democracy wherein people could vote for representatives whose ability to govern would be restricted by the parameters in the U.S. Constitution. This is today known as a “constitutional republic.:
Today, however, the word “democracy” has evolved to mean any form of representative government. It makes absolutely no sense to use an archaic definition of the word and makes intelligent communication impossible.
I remain unconvinced, however, that you care about intelligent communication.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Al Gore and John Kerry were not duly elected. End of Story. Get over it.
I never brought up either of them. You did. Unless you enjoy being a laughingstock, you would be wise to cease projecting your own fixations onto others.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Also, in my opinion, the XVII amendment should have been repealed long ago.
Well, it wasn’t and probably won’t be in the foreseeable future. Get over it.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
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.”
If you have to resort to a cartoonish distortion of the “other side’s” point of view, you’ve already lost the argument before you begin.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Those are my words, but if you need any clarification, I will be happy to clear up anything that you don’t understand.
Uhm, no. How about I listen to what people say and if I want clarification, I’ll ask THEM and NOT some clown like you who builds up strawmen so he can feel like a tough guy for punching them down?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
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.
I wouldn’t? How the hëll would YOU know?
I’ve said before that Iran and Syria would’ve made far more justifiable targets for an invasion. The problem is one of logistics. Can we take and hold either country? I doubt it.
At one time we had a window of opportunity to influence Iran by tapping into a groundswell of anti-government sentiment in that country. But of course, George W. Bush doesn’t do anything that subtle and it looks like we’ve lost that opportunity.
War is sometimes necessary. But if there’s a violent way to achieve an end and a non-violent one, the non-violent one is generally the best way to go.
Before you attempt to distort my words: World War II was but one example of a conflict where violence was the only means to achieve the necessary ends of repelling aggression and preserving freedom. The recent invasion of Afghanistan is another example.
In case you’re in danger of slipping back into your misperception that I’m opposed to all war in all forms.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
These also remain a stronghold of our enemies, and perfectly viable targets, both economically, and militarily. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do. Our military resources are stretched too thin. Either we must reinstate the draft, or acknowledged that we can only invade so many nations at a time.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
The military is not there to debate anything, either internally or externally. Perhaps you would prefer that our military were run as a Democracy.
My. God.
What color is the sky in your world?
I’M the one who pointed out that the military cannot, of a necessity, be a democratic institution because to function effectively the military relies on a strict adherence to a chain of command. You then twisted my words and attempted, lamely, to accuse me of calling the soldiers “automatons.”
Now you’re accusing me of WANTING the military to be democratic… after I pointed out that it isn’t, can’t, and shouldn’t be?
No wonder they tossed you off the debate team.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
If you don’t like the people making policy for our soldiers, vote out your represenitives.
Uhm, that’s what the American people did last year in the midterm elections. What’s your point?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I believe Mrs. Clinton is due to run soon for something. Perhaps you can get her elected somewhere else.
Why? Not all New Yorkers talk to Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
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.
Really? Because you haven’t been civil yet!
Instead of talking about being civil, try BEING civil.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I stated earlier that there were exceptions to every rule. Jerry may very well be one of those.
Oh, for cryin’ out loud…
“Exceptions to every rule?” Jerry Chandler, Craig J. Ries, myself, and Peter David are but four examples of people who do not fit the box you’ve lamely constructed for us. Oh, and how about mike weber? He FOUGHT in VIETNAM for God’s sake!!!!
What, does every person here have to lay out for you everything they believe before you stop making ridiculous assumptions and insulting generalizations? We shouldn’t have to bother and I’m guessing many are opting not to do so.
Let me be clear:
YOU.
ARE.
WRONG.
Not just a little wrong. Not just kinda in the vicinity of “Wrong City.” You are completely, drop-dead, absolutely wrong in your assumption that “no one” who posts here would have the guts to lay down their life for another, or that opposition to one war is tantamount to opposition to all. You are so wrong that your wrongness is now the yardstick against which all other wrongness will be judged.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
No insult was intended to him.
Doesn’t matter. You’re an adult. You’ve had more than enough time to learn that making unfounded generalizations about people is insulting. Get with the program.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not. What do you propose? I’m curious.
I already did propose an alternative in a prior post in this thread. A post addressed to YOU. I don’t feel like finding it and copying and pasting it again.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I’ll make you a deal, Mr. Myers. You and I will keep it civil and to the issues.
I’m not making any “deals” with you. I have no problem interacting with most people who participate in this blog. In fact, in prior threads you’ll see where others have actually changed my mind by offering a superior argument. When I have gotten overly heated, I’ve always known enough to back off and apologize.
And I actually LISTEN to people. You know, read what THEY say and not what I WANT TO BELIEVE they’re saying.
If you want things civil, stop talking about civlity and BE CIVIL.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Let’s see if anyone follows suit.
Uhm, plenty of people are already doing that.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I can’t wait to earn your respect.
I never said you needed to “earn my respect.” That’s YOUR schtick, not mine. All I said was that you lost my respect through your asinine behavior. Want me to respect you? Just stop being a jerk. I’m very easy that way.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
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.
Oh, yeah, and I’m sure all of Canada is on the edge of its collective seat, just waiting for the day when you’ll be willing to listen to them.
It doesn’t seem like that to me.
If you want to say we don’t live in a democracy because we live in a republic, that’s like a high-school debate-club “gotcha.”
But what circumstance are you referring to that you can go around saying “No where [in] that [the Constitution] is the ‘Right to Vote’ guaranteed” without looking like you don’t know what you’re talking about?
Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at March 19, 2007 05:02 PM
The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
Rev, some months ago I attacked you like a mad-dog. In fact, at one point I told you you didn’t deserve your nickname… as though I had any place telling you that.
I later realized that you were likely suffering from depression as I once did. After you confirmed that in one of your posts, you kinda dropped off of the face of the blog. I got worried. I feared my poor behavior may have driven you away… or worse.
Is that arrogant of me to think I could have that effect on someone? Dunno. Perhaps. But I know what it’s like to be in the grips of a severe case of depression. And I’d hate to think I did anything to make it worse for someone else.
The fact that you’ve posted again is a welcome sight from my perspective. I hope you are feeling better.
As far as “the Bills” being “erudite” and “incisive,” you must be referring to Bill Mulligan and some other Bill.
Thank you for your kind words, Bill (Myers). I have indeed been wrestling with some mental issues and four deaths in my family in the last six months and have been behaving more or less like a hermit (One of my “I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand.” phases).
I think you are being a bit harsh on yourself. I didn’t feel like you attacked me like a “mad dog”. You spoke with passion and perception about something that mattered to you. I actually envy your capacity and and willingness to do that. Ennui tends to be my constant companion and passion hard to come by.
By the way, I know that you are being self-deprecating but you were indeed one of the “Bills”.
Cheers, The Rev
By the way, Mr. Preston – every rule does not have an exception. The precise quote you were grasping for is “The exception TESTS the rule”. Any exception, of course, invalidates a rule.
Ok, I made the last post very casually. But as the constitution says you can’t abridge the right to vote based on ethnicity, gender, or age, who is denied the right to vote that “No where [in] that [the Constitution] is the ‘Right to Vote’ guaranteed” is worth saying?
Oh, son of a bìŧçh, I think I just broke democracy.
Over 3100 killed.
Over 23,000 injured, many of them suffering lost limbs.
Isn’t it time to bring the troops home?
If The Rev or any other Canadians feel I am out of line adressing Robert Preston on behalf of other Canadians on this blog, I apologize in advance.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
“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.”
Mr. Preston, on behalf of Canadians on this blog, where do you get off climbing onto a soapbox to tell us about freedom? What freedoms do we deny our people?
Perhaps it is the right to be financially ruined by health care costs. Bad enough someone who has no benefits at work goes through a health catatrophe, now they have to go through bankruptcy to pay for life. All at the behest of multi-billion dollar insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Or the right, according to the NRA, to carry enough firepower to take a small country on one’s own. The right to shoot an unarmed Japanese exchange student who doesn’t understand English.
Maybe you refer to the right we give two people who feel a deep love and commitment to each other to marry, regardless of the howls of outrage from organized religion.
We do not claim to be without flaws. We’re working on them.
As for our military history,we take pride in our military. Our troops in WWI were the one’s sent in to take targets others, including late in the war, American troops could not take. In WWII, until 1945, all our combat troops were volunteers. In both wars, the USA, John Wayne notwithstanding, got into the fight half or more way through. In Korea, Canadian regiments held off Chinese divisions.
We take greater pride in our history of peacekeeping. As stated earlier, completely out of proportion to our population, Canadians have stood in the breech with little more than blue helmets and calm.
I travel extensively in the United States. When I speak, I speak from knowledge. Before you decide to cast aspertions on you’re single biggest trading partner, take the time to come on up and take a look around.
As for taxes, at least here, everyone pays their freight. We have our priveleged few, but not to the obscene levels your country seems to have achieved.
Otherwise, Mr. Preston, take your attitude, your uninformed half assed opinions, and take a long walk off a short pier.
Manny: Please feel free to blast away. I was uncharacteristically moved to respond spontaneously (I tend to be about as spontaneous as your average boulder) and did not consider all those other things you mentioned. Normally, I would have taken the time to hammer out something crafted somewhat better.
Frankly, I will never understand the need to denigrate others to bolster one’s own perceptions – particularly, as in this case, about an element that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion – but it is clearly not that uncommon.
Thanks for the support. I recognize that Mr. Preston is atypical of Americans and frankly, I should just have ignored him.
Regards, The Rev
“You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia.”
I really wasn’t go to offer anything in response to any of these posts unless I had something to offer, be it a witticism that probably only the voices in my head would find amusing or something that could further the discussion.
But then I saw this statement. A statement I’ve heard all to often. Now here’s a thought.
Maybe, just MAYBE, Bush shouldn’t have invaded ANYONE.
“OK. I’m sorry. I’m going to make a wide over-generalization and exaggeration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based on historical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civil war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there’s no distinction between history and fantasy.”
Except for maybe things like…..
JFK
Just about any western
Half the Civil War films I’ve seen
The Patriot
Bonnie & Clyde
Hëll, most mob films
U-571
Hawaii (Ok, I’ll give that one some slack since it was a silly film.)
Most films that deal with the Frontier Days and our clashes with the Native Americans
Any number of films set in the Colonial Period of U.S. history
The Jesse Ventura Story
…to name just a few.
Hollywood has never been very good at getting ANY history right. I think that most the people in Hollywood feel that all they need to do is get the general dates and names right and the rest is all fluff that gets in the way of their story.
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.
C’mon, that joke did Democrats a tremedous favor; it got Kerry out of the race. That’s why more than a few of his own party were there to twist the knife. But Coulter ran out of good material a long time ago. I’m not sure that it’s wise to stoop even lower with the insults about her looks and all (I think Rosie O’Donnell is insane but I would hopefully express this better than tossing out one fat joke after another) but there’s little question that she has not much left to offer serous thinkers.
(I’d forgotten that slur against the 9/11 widows. Yeah, that’s vile. The last thing conservatives need is their very own Ted rall.).
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.)
Rev, don’t let one guy goad you into a USA vs Canada Who Has The Biggest Peninsula argument. And what’s this about running out of water? Not where I am, that’s for sure. Besides, according to the well researched documentary THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, Canada will soon be buried under about 12 feet of ice. You’ll pay us to take some of that water off your hands, if only so you can get to the dirt.
(The only gripe I would have about living in Canada is the limited free speech rights.)
Robert Preston, Bill Myers is someone who one can have a perfectly reasonable conversation with, even if you disagree with him. Obviously you’re doing something wrong.
The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
Erudite? ERUDITE? Why, when I find a dictionary you’re gonna be in some trouble, fella! Here it is…oh. Boy, are my cheeks red. I guess this also means incisive isn’t defined as the ability to chew through rope…
Oh, son of a bìŧçh, I think I just broke democracy.
Well now you have to buy it.
Touché, Mr. Mulligan. Threeché, even (to quote that great philosopher, Snagglepuss). Actually, with the winter we’ve been having in my neck of the woods, I wonder, “Whither global warming?” However, I find when I go about 1000 miles due North (which I do frequently), it’s actually warmer and the locals are complaining that it isn’t cold enough to haul supplies over the normally rock-hard iceroutes, the fish are too mushy to eat because the water is not cold enough and the pelts on our local fur-bearing animals are too thin to be of any commercial value (much to their dismay, I’m sure).
Actually, my comment about water was not meant meanly. I understand that the Ogalala aquifer is dropping about 30 metres a year and that there are going to be some real water problems out West in the near future. I hope that’s not the case.
Actually, if you are contemplating invasion, we do have Saudi Arabia-levels of oil in our tarsands in Alberta and quite a bit of natural gas even further north (if only the various Aboriginal Nations can agree to set aside their differences and agree on building a pipeline), we might be able to tell the Middle East: “Look, you guys work it out. There’s a good movie on TV we want to watch.”
(Yes, I know I’m being simplistically simplistic but some days, it feels like it would be nice to just cocoon with all our Western toys and pretend the world just ain’t there no more).
I am pleased, however, that you will henceforth no longer hesitate to speak your thoughts, comfortable in your newly-recognized and universally acknowledged erudition.
Cheers, The Rev
The political attitudes of Mr. Preston seem to me to Libertarian. He sounds a little like the one Libertarian I ever talked to. But that guy was against the Iraq war even before it started. So maybe it is a different ideological sub-group, when you get to the fringe the nuances become more pronounced. But it is characteristic of people who belong to political fringe groups to cast everybody else as belonging to the other extreem. The Liberterian I talked to spoke of Bush as a socialist. This might explain the attitude toward the Left and Canada.
—————–
“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.”
You/we are fighting several interrelated wars with different enemies on different fields. Getting them confused will get you nowhere.
You are in an ideological conflict with a Radical Islamic ideology that has become widespread in the Muslim world, and which has many manifestations — legal political opposition parties, government parties, illegal parties, organizations, governments, armed groups. They may be only part of the Islamic world, but they have ideological influence, and exist all over the world, attaching themselves to any Muslim grievance anywhere. Your war with them involves making sure they don’t gain more power. It’s a little like Communism, an ideology with many strands and manifestations. However, you are not going to engage all these groups in battle, nor should you. Sometimes they are perfectly legal political groups, althugh you may dislike their Islamic ideology. You might even make alliances with some of them against more extreme groups (because if you wait to deal only with seculars or Christians you are going to wait a long time). Ethiopia did a good job taking care of the Islamic group that took over Somalia. They were smart enough not to stay.
You are also at war with a group of loosly associated international terrorist Islamic groups — Al Quaida — that have decided to target Western targets directly. They used to have the support of the Afgani government when it was the Islamic group known as the the Taliban. You attacked that government and the facilities of the organization stationed there. Good for you. But then you didn’t stay with enough force to coplete the job. Except for that Al-Quaida does not have a government or a state of their own you can invade. They are in Europe, North America, South America, the Phillipines, Russia, China, Singapore, India, Africa, and all the Muslim countries, but they are not the rulers, so invading is pointless at this stage, which is not to say you might not later need to invade countries or stage other kinds of military attacks against them. Fighting them involves different skills than conventional war. Neither Iran, nor Syria nor Saudi Arabia controls or gives patronage to Al-Quaida, and invading them will affect it very little.
Al-Quaida is also involvd in a war against the American forces in Iraq. That’s what it does — attach itself to local conflicts to promote itself. But you created the conflict in Iraq. You are also involved in a different war with Iraqi insurgents who are also Muslim or even Islamic, but whose concerns are mostly local, and who are not part of the war of Al-Quaida againist the west. If and when the war in Iraq ends, something similar to what happened in Afganistan will occur, and some of these guys might join Al-Quaida like groups to fight against the west.
You are also involved in a conflict of regional domination in the middle east with Iran. If Al-Quaida is the Soviet Union, Iran is China. Iran is Islamic too, but it’s main concern is to expand its prestige and influence in the regional and international arena. Syria is allied with Iran right now for its own regional reasons. Iran has symbiotic relationship with the Shia groups in the Middle East like the Hizballa in Lebanon, the Shiites in Iraq, and Shiites in Arabia. It aids their local political asperations and by so doing extends its leadership position in these countries. A similar thing is happening to some degree with Palestinian groups althogh they are not Shia. Thanks to the US Iraq, that has kept Iran in check is gone, and America’s influence in the region has weakened, as its abiility to threaten Iran or Syria, the Shiites in Iraq are coming into power, the Sunnies in Iraq are terrified, and the neighboring Sunni Arab states are very worried. The Sunni Al-Quaida is playing into that fear too.
At the time of 9/11 there was no point attacking Iran, who may be jerks, but who had nothing to do with Al-Quaida. Syria had nothing to do with it either. Invading it would only have caused a rise of Islamists there, which would have made her an even greater threat. Saudi-Arabia might be a disgusting extremely islamic state, but what’s the point of invading it? The 9/11 terrorists and Osama might be Saudi, but they were not working with or for the government.
Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quaida or even the wider Islamic ideology until after the invasion (which is not to say it was secular). You foothold there is like having a foot in a pool of piranhas. You do not have any foothold, you have made a greater mess out of things, strengthened the Islamic groups you were supposed to fight, strengthened the ideology you were supposed to oppose and weakened your abiility to act when necessary both on the military or diplomatic level. And this has also alienated the American people themselves, which probably result in US withdrawl, with who knows what consequences to the region. That’s just wonderful.
Jerry, Luigi, I stand corrected. Hollywood doesn’t care about any history. But I stil feel when it comes to non American history they treat it like a disney fairy-tale. There’s an actual term: distory.
“But I stil feel when it comes to non American history they treat it like a disney fairy-tale. There’s an actual term: distory.”
You mean like they did to the story of John Smith and Pocahontas a few years ago?
I don’t really have the time or the inclination to deal with Mr. Preston right now. Someone let me know when he’s ready to talk to people without resorting to gross generalizations and assumptions about the opinions of others.
C’mon, that joke did Democrats a tremedous favor; it got Kerry out of the race.
We can all be thankful for that. My point, though, is that, while Kerry’s joke was both assinine and, worse, not funny, it was taken completely out of context and used as yet another way to tar everyone who isn’t in Bush’s camp as anti-military and unpatriotic. Coulter, on the other hand, is a known quantity. Anyone who invites her to speak knows that they’ll have to wade hip deep through her bile in order to get out of the room. And yet conservative groups still invite her to speak. And then the act surprised when she says something offensive.
The Ted Rall comparison might be appropriate. He certainly has let his hatred of Bush purge all remnants of rational thought from his mind. What bugs me about Coulter is that she always wants things both ways. At the C-PAC conference where she hurled personal insults at several democrats and called Edwards a “fággøŧ”, she then faced questions. When a liberal blogger (who aparently snuck in) asked her about her three broken engagements, she huffily replied “way to respect my privacy”.
So, in Ann’s world, she can cast innuendo on the sex life of a democrat, but her own private life is above reproach. She make jokes about givin a justice poison or advocates shooting liberals as a warning to others, but then cries when she gets hit by a pie.
To me, the woman has no redeeming qualities as a political commentator, comedian, or human being.
Posted by The Rev. Mr. Black at March 19, 2007 08:49 PM
“Actually, if you are contemplating invasion, we do have Saudi Arabia-levels of oil in our tarsands in Alberta and quite a bit of natural gas even further north..”
SHHHHHHHH!!! DOOOOD!!!!! Don’t tell them about the magic caves in BC!
A friend went out to Alberta to work the oil sands 3-4 years ago. He’s bought a new house near Toronto ($345G CDN), a Harley, and still has bucks in the bank. The problem is that rent and housing prices have skyrocketed in Ft. McMurray. Apartments that would go 600 a month in civilization run 1200+, houses are priced out of reach of long term residents, and rampant homelessness.
According to an NPR report, if oil drops below (I believe) $40/barrel, Athabaska becomes unprofitable, and they just shut it down.
As for good old H20, casinos in Lost Wages truck tons of water down daily for fountains.
Robert Preston,
“Dear Mr. Myers, – and Manny (I’m sorry, I don’t know your last name),”
Hey, I’m neither, but we do tend to just jump in and throw opinions around even on post specifically directed at others around here if we see enough to spark our interest.
“Please forgive the haphazard manner in which this posting is put together. I’m still rather new to this whole blog thing.”
That’s fine. We’re all over the place a quarter of the time ourselves. One newbie mistake (that I made myself when first coming here) stands out though. Hit the “enter” button twice at the end of your paragraphs in order to create a space between them. It breaks the body of your post up a bit and makes it easier to read. And that Hotmail trick that I mentioned makes that all the easier to do.
“Mr. Myers: I stand on formality here and anywhere else.”
“I hope you’ll forgive my use of profanity earlier.”
We don’t stand on formality. We tend to treat this a bit like having guys over for dinner or B.S.ing around the bar. Hëll, we’ve even come up with odd names for each other from time to time. And we’ve all slipped up on the odd profanity here. No biggie.
“No where is that document is the “Right to Vote” guaranteed.”
Article I: Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Amendment XV: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment XVII: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
Amendment XIX: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Amendment XXVI: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
That does kind of lay out a clear concept that voting is a right. The repeated use of the words “The right” over and over again do tend to bolster that idea.
“Also, in my opinion, the XVII amendment should have been repealed long ago.”
Well, it hasn’t been. And you’d have to excise and repeal a few other bits as well. No dice.
“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.”
Wow. Another foolishly broad brushed statement.
Anyhow, that does sound a hëll of a lot like the Right’s definition of democracy during their last run as the majority and the POV of the Right’s most ardent supporters. It’s also not entirely untrue for either side. Any group can have those types of idiots, but they’re rarely the true majority. I’d also point out that using the level of broad brushing you used can come back to smack you in the face. I know quite a few people that who could argue quite compellingly that you yourself subscribe to that definition from the posts you’ve made here in support of Bush and the Iraq folly and the remarks you’ve made about others who do not subscribe to your beliefs.
“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?’
Depends. Are you talking about after Afghanistan was properly dealt with or are you talking about just substituting one mistake for another. It also depends on what real facts (VS Bush facts) could be provided for their overall threat levels and their involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It was pointed out by many before we went into Iraq that Iran had more to do with assisting the 9/11 highjackers (whether or not they knew their actual plans is still open to debate) and that was ignored by Bush until after he got us stuck in Iraq. And then he had the gall to act surprised by that “revelation” by the 9/11 committee.
It also depends on what can be done non-militarily VS the risks of all out war. Lots of people are all hot and bothered to go into or bomb Iran right now. Not a good idea. There’s a 50/50 chance that military action against Iran would would gain Iran the, possibly military, support of Russia, and maybe even China, against us. There’s also the little thing of what a land war in Iran would be like. Think Iraq is creating problems? Iran’s military isn’t in the crap state that Iraq’s military was in when we went in there.
Wise men actually think about those things, look at the costs, military needs, benefits and value of the soldiers lives and then try and make the best decision possible. Any fool or simpleton can talk tough about invasions and military action and then proceed to destroy our countries credibility or just outright waste human lives.
“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.”
A foothold to do what? Grind our military into the ground through foolishness and mismanagement? Test the will of the American people? Prove that Bush and Company have no idea of what they’re doing? There isn’t one single pipedream idea that Bush has stated about Iraq that we can do in our lifetimes. Maybe not even the lifetime of our children. We’ve actually made our road harder in Iraq through three years of bad decisions and we’ve even managed to give Iran more clout with its neighbors and Iraq.
Plus, we HAD a foothold in the Middle East. It was called Afghanistan. That’s where the people who attacked us were and that’s where we should have stayed in full force until the job was done. But nooooooo. We had to go and march into Iraq, let opportunities slip through our mismanaged fingers, pull resources from the Afghanistan campaign and then watch as Afghanistan slowly slides back into a similar state to where it was before. Joy.
“If you don’t like the people making policy for our soldiers, vote out your represenitives.”
See Reference: November – 2006. Thank you.
“I stated earlier that there were exceptions to every rule. Jerry may very well be one of those. No insult was intended to him.”
No insult was intended to me? Don’t just stop with me. You have a number of posters here who put a lie to the statement you made. We have regular, semi-regular and infrequent posters here who disagree with the Iraq War and/or its handling by Bush and Company who have worn the uniforms of doctors, policemen, firemen and soldiers. All of those lines of work put you in danger for the sake of another at one time or another. We have teachers and lawyers here. Not the most dangerous professions all of the time, but I know quite a few of both who work around environments that I won’t go into unless I’m armed. There are people here who value the belief that you help others when and where you can and have done so often. To walk in here and state as fact that people here would do the things you stated just because they hold a different point of view from you IS an insult to them AND to me as some of these people are my friends.
There are lots of exceptions here to the statement you made. Hëll, there are a lot of exceptions to a lot the statements you made.
We wouldn’t support any war at any time? You’re just flat wrong with that statement. Most of the people here who disagreed on the need to go into Iraq in the first place and who are the most critical of its handling supported the invasion of Afghanistan right here in writing in this very website. Many also pointed out that there were any number of other targets, post Afghanistan, that would have made far more sense to go after other then Iraq.
And, hey, lets talk about Bill Myers since you pointed him out specifically for your post. You wanna know the name of one of the most reasoned and articulate supporters of the need to stay in Iraq and finish the job and not just pull out as so many on the left advocate? Too bad, I’m going to tell you. His name is Bill Myers. He’s laid out very rational and reasoned arguments for the need to stay in this blog and on his own blog. Wanna know something else? I and others here have said the same thing here as well, but he’s been more consistent in that belief then some here have.
You came in with no knowledge of the people here or their beliefs and made some insultingly broad brushed statements about us right off the bat. I don’t know how you can say that no insult was intended from what you said. That would be like me saying to you that Bush supporters and Iraq War supporters are all just a bunch of gutless, clueless Chicken Hawks who don’t care how many soldiers have to die or live with lifelong injuries for Bush’s blunder so long as they can claim to be right in this argument, but, hey, no insult intended. Doesn’t work like that.
“You ask me a question, and I’ll answer. I ask you a question, and you answer. You go first.”
Fine. I’ll jump in. Lets get an idea of where you’re at on some issues. What do you actually believe that we’ve accomplished in Iraq and what do you believe we’re going to accomplish? What do you think has gone wrong and how should it be fixed? Lots of us have batted those around before and we have some idea of where the others stand on these issues.
Canada: “As a nation, there is a reason why they haven’t been annexed.”
Yeah, they don’t want to be annexed by the U.S. What, you want to invade them next to bring them American style democracy?
_________________________________________________
Den,
“She make jokes about givin a justice poison or advocates shooting liberals as a warning to others, but then cries when she gets hit by a pie.”
No comparison there. You’re talking about words VS actions. I’ll express my distaste for her words, but she has the right to prove that she’s an idiot if she wants. Assaulting someone, even if it is with something as benign as a pie, is crossing a line and unacceptable. And you have to know by now that I hate the b***h, but she’s right in that matter.
Jerome Maida: …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?
Luigi Novi: It might if that were the role Bush and Cheney were elected to do.
Jerome Maida: Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust and trying to paint all soldiers with the same brush is NOT support.
Luigi Novi: Can you point to sources that support the notion that anyone has done either of these things?
Jerome Maida: In short, there is plenty to be proud of our troops for. Why aren’t these stories being told?
Luigi Novi: I’ve heard and read plenty of stories focusing on those positives.
Robert Preston: 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.
Luigi Novi: That is not what they determined. The conservative wing of the Court simply wanted to make sure that their guy got into office, and made a ruling completely at odds with legal precedent, as Vince Bugliosi outlined in detail in The Betrayal of America.
Robert Preston: And this was held up by a liberal Supreme Court.
Luigi Novi: The conservatives in the Supreme Court outnumbered the liberals, which is why the conservative’s opinion was the majority.
Robert Preston: 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.
Luigi Novi: If they’re your words, then why do you say that the definition is “the Left’s”? Can you provide evidence or reasoning that illustrates this assertion? Because it just seems like a distorted Straw Man.
Robert Preston: The military is not there to debate anything, either internally or externally. Perhaps you would prefer that our military were run as a Democracy.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps you misunderstood Bill’s point. His point is that criticism of the war is directed at the administration because it—not the troops—bears ultimate responsibility for its prosecution, and that that is why such criticism has nothing to do with “not supporting the troops”. The point was made that troops cannot “bìŧçh” that they do not like their orders, and have to follow the chain of command, so they are not responsible for a disliked war. This doesn’t make them “mindless automatons”, it just makes them what they are, and is the reason that criticizing the President for the war has nothing to do with criticizing the troops.
Robert Preston: Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. One can complain that someone has done a poor job at something, the validity of which is not predicated in the speaker doing a better one themselves. If we accept this idea of yours, then we cannot call the Edsel a bad car, can’t complain when a repairman does a bad job, we cannot criticize our politicians if we are not politicians ourselves, we can’t form unfavorable opinions of books, movies and tv shows, and so forth. It’s little more than a relative of the ad hominem argument.
But if you really want an alternative, how about implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group?
Den: 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.
Luigi Novi: I thought her remark that a nude spread in Playboy was their next logical step was far worse.
Robert Preston: 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?
Luigi Novi: So because one miscreant threw a pie at her makes her the victim as a whole, and characterizes all liberals? For the most part, criticism directed at her is valid, and is not made simply because she “speaks her mind”. She is criticized because she is a dishonest, bigoted propagandist who cannot form coherent logic. I don’t know if Franken or Garofalo or Michael Moore have ever been the target of pies, but I can assure you I don’t buy their assertions at face value any more than Coulter’s, and I’ve elaborated on my criticisms of them here and elsewhere, if that makes you feel better, Robert.
The Rev Mr. Black: 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.
Luigi Novi: I’m not a Chevy, nor an exploding star. It’s Novi. Not Nova. 🙂
And thank you.
Micha: Jerry, Luigi, I stand corrected. Hollywood doesn’t care about any history. But I stil feel when it comes to non American history they treat it like a disney fairy-tale. There’s an actual term: distory.
Luigi Novi: Ooh, I like that! That’s a neologism that’s just dying to be added to the Oxford Dictionary!
My apologies, Luigi. That is why I rarely write things in haste. (Would you believe that I think of you as a shining star on this blog? Would you believe you write so often that I figured there must be two of you {One Nova, two Novi??} Would you believe I should leave humour to people who are actually funny?)
Regards, The Rev
No comparison there. You’re talking about words VS actions. I’ll express my distaste for her words, but she has the right to prove that she’s an idiot if she wants. Assaulting someone, even if it is with something as benign as a pie, is crossing a line and unacceptable. And you have to know by now that I hate the b***h, but she’s right in that matter.
That’s a good a point. Although Luigi is also correct is that Robert’s overly broad statement was absurd. One person hit her with a pie, yet everyone to the left of her is somehow responsible for it?
Of but of course, we’re not supposed to infer anything about the opinions of the people who invited her to speak, knowing what she’s like and then cheered when she spewed her bile, right Mr. Preston?
Posted by Bill Myers
Uh, no – whenever i mention Nam, i try to point out that my tour in Nam was in a rear area (within sound of the guns on a bad night, but still as “rear area” as we had in that war).
{just as whenever i post a review of a David Weber book on Amazon or elsewhere, i make sure to point out that Dave is my brother.}
OTOH, i missed by about three days being sent to a Naval station within shouting distance of the DMZ where they *did* see action fairly regularly. (A guy i went to tech school with who had specific training on the gear they needed a tech for came in Just In Time and wound up up there…)
And i recall contemplating a piece of shrapnel embedded in the front of a radio and the hole in the wall it came in through and reflecting that the line between them would have intersected either my head or some other important part of my body if i’d been there working on the gear a few hours earlier.
But i knew guys who did fight, and i saw some of what was going on.
There’s things that a combat guy knows that i only guess at. And i cannot tell you how grateful i am for that, having read David Drake’s SF novels that are heavily informed by his Nam experience. (I partocularly recommend “Rolling Hot”, currently available in the collection “The Tank Lords” for something that will show you, however inadequately, what it is to be a soldier, and what soldiers think and feel…)
But there’s things that someone who never went at all, never went to bed every night, as i did, with the knowledge that tonight might be The Night – The Night when Mr Charles came calling, never answered the “rad alert” siren at two AM and crouched in a foxhole with an M16 waiting to buy time for the radiomen to destroy the secret traffic and the crypto machines as the illumination rounds went out – can only suspect…
(Although my favourite late-night alert story is the time i was sitting in te barracks office on the night watch, listening to the radio and had a front-row “seat” as the roving patrol came face-to-face with a tiger {at least that’s what *they* said it was} in the ballpark…)
“if there’s one thing we’ve learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.”
As opposed to pretty much every other human being on earth, whom are all very, very pleased, content, and satisfied when things do not go their way.
“Although Luigi is also correct is that Robert’s overly broad statement was absurd. One person hit her with a pie, yet everyone to the left of her is somehow responsible for it?”
Hey, don’t you know that we on the left or just slightly left of center are all just one giant, monolithic, vile hate filled group with no worthwhile ideas and even fewer worthwhile people. One extremist nut represents us all while an entire auditorium cheering the suggestion that considering that (then President) Bill Clinton should be assonated is a reasonable thing and the speaker of said statement herself are just merry, happy, love filled people just enjoying a good joke about the history of impeachment in America and England. And don’t forget that NO ONE on the Right EVER spits at or throws things at anti-war protesters (I’ve seen it while on the job and working protests in this area) while the left never do anything but spit and throw things at pro-(“America”)-war speakers or groups.
We’re just so unworthy of the freedoms that we won’t defendwhile despising those that do.
“Robert Preston: Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. One can complain that someone has done a poor job at something, the validity of which is not predicated in the speaker doing a better one themselves. If we accept this idea of yours, then we cannot call the Edsel a bad car, can’t complain when a repairman does a bad job, we cannot criticize our politicians if we are not politicians ourselves, we can’t form unfavorable opinions of books, movies and tv shows, and so forth. It’s little more than a relative of the ad hominem argument.
But if you really want an alternative, how about implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group?”
I was going to leave that one from Robert alone because it’s just one of those eye rolling comments, but Luigi hit a good point that only needs a slight addition.
Robert seems to be missing the fact that we can’t put alternative plans into place for the things that have already happened. Much of what is discussed here as to the failings in the Iraq Campaign is based on the long string of blunders, screw-ups and missteps that have led us to the place that we are at now. We can’t go back and replace the blunders and screw-ups with good ideas now and it does factor into discussions about our present choices in Iraq.
If your house is engulfed in a roaring fire that started as a small flame just after you fell asleep an hour earlier, suggesting to your spouse that changing that dead battery in the detector would really help matters actually does very little real good in regards to the kindling pile that was your home. Likewise, if there comes a point where the fire reaches the level of such a raging and dangerous inferno that it is too dangerous to risk the firemen’s lives to enter or that it has gotten to the point that it is clear that the fire will destroy the home regardless of their best efforts, then you pull back and contain the blaze rather then sending lives pointlessly into the inferno.
Bush’s blunders have brought us to a point where the definition of “victory” in Iraq may have to go through several dozen more changes before it’s something that we can achieve. And any “victory” in Iraq is not likely to yield any long term outcomes that the American people could point to as an improvement over where Iraq was pre-invasion.
Peter David: If there’s one thing we’ve learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.
Blue Spider: As opposed to pretty much every other human being on earth, whom are all very, very pleased, content, and satisfied when things do not go their way.
Luigi Novi: Please stop treating disparate concepts as synonymous. Someone stopping you from doing whatever you want and not having everything go your way are two different things. Are you arguing, after all, that Bush has not fought to expand the powers of his office beyond the appropriate scope required for a proper system of checks and balances moreso than any other President in recent history?
{just as whenever i post a review of a David Weber book on Amazon or elsewhere, i make sure to point out that Dave is my brother.}
Is that the same David Weber who writes SF novels with a strong emphasis on military tactics? Like “Old Soldiers”?
“And don’t forget that NO ONE on the Right EVER spits at or throws things at anti-war protesters (I’ve seen it while on the job and working protests in this area) while the left never do anything but spit and throw things at pro-(“America”)-war speakers or groups.”
I don’t know how it is in the US, but I certainly had people spit on me and throw things at me by people from the right while demonstrating against a different war.
Bush’s blunders have brought us to a point where the definition of “victory” in Iraq may have to go through several dozen more changes before it’s something that we can achieve.
But that is part of the pathology of Bush. When he can’t score a touchdown, he just moves the goal posts closer. We’ve gone from Iraq becoming a shining example of democracy that will spread freedom and liberty across the middle east like wild flowers to hoping we can produce enough stability to get our áššëš out of the way so that the Iraqi military might actually start picking up the slack.
I’ve only heard one noble reason for becoming a soldier, and that’s to know what a hero knows in his act of heroism. If a soldier sacrifices his health or his life for the parade, I think he should have done him and me and you a favor and skipped off to Canada.
I think it’s oppressive to the children meant to benefit from that kind of sacrifice for us to honor those who sacrifice their lives to the point of guilting them into doing the same. It’s something chickenhawks do that those who served typically abstain from.
As far as you have actual faith that there will be noble people, guilting others to serve their country is unnecessary.
Is that the same David Weber who writes SF novels with a strong emphasis on military tactics? Like “Old Soldiers”?
Those would be the ones with the (imo) pulp sci-fi covers? 😉
Going back to Tom DeLay for a second, hypocrisy in action:
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX), on Clinton sending troops to Bosnia.
In fact, here’s a few other gems from Republicans on Bosnia: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/3/17167/05105
It’s always amazing how different things are when the shoe is on the other foot. Take note, Mr. Preston.
So, I repeat my question:
Why are we taking anything indicted money-launderer Tom DeLay says seriously again?
“Assume, for the moment, Bush and Cheney are not doing this for personal profit or power.”
I can’t. Between’s Bush’s stated personal enmity for Saddam based upon Saddam’s history with Bush’s father–an enmity that compelled him to use 9/11 as an excuse for the exact regime change that he contended years earlier that America should never undertake–and Halliburton’s profiteering, I can’t make that assumption at all. So everything else you’ve said goes out the window.
PAD
“Unless you can think of some other way that “the people” can “elect” their representatives without actually voting.”
Putting aside that Bush was elected without the majority voting for him…when we consider the piss-poor voter turnout we see in this country, I think we’ve already GOT a situation with representatives being elected without actually being voted for.
PAD
Bill Myers,
A little late, but I just wanted to say it’s okay that you got “nasty” a while back. You still did so with intelligent, articulate opinions. And we all ahve bad days.
Luigi,
I believe it was a true “neutral” election observer from Philly who, at a banguet televised by C-SPAN said there had been a total of 34 top of the fold front page stories in the Nre York Times, a total which superseded coverage of Auschwitz.
Den,
Wish I could reply to your posts as well. I do actually miss posting here. But I’ve ben getting a lot more work and I have to sleep sometime.
Be well, all.
Thank you for your response, Jerome. I’d wonder if it’s possible to have a source for that provided. I would also point out that the Holocaust was over when it was first reported. The Iraq War is an event being reported on as it is in progress.
Luigi,
You are welcome. While I am aware that the Holocaust was over, the point remains that 34 top-of-the-fold headlines (or anything close to it) is pretty dámņ extensive, especially with an incident that was trivial compared to something like the Holocaust – or even Darfur, for heaven’s sakes. And there were really no new photos, no new revelations, no indication that this was a widespread thing.
But it seems like certain people wanted one of the lasting symbols of this war to be that woman with a leash. Even if it meant making anger run white-hot in the Arab world.
This, from the same media that would not publish danish cartoons for fear of offending Muslims – and possibly putting themselves in harm’s way – had no qualms about beating us over the head night after night, morning after morning – even though it likely put those in harm’s way at the very least- with the possibility of more danger, or at least facing more anger and distrust.
Jerome, I feel that talking about the Holocaust in this context is tasteless and wrong. I think it is wrong when opponents of the war compare Bush to Hitler. It is wrong when you’re doing it now.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 21, 2007 02:34 AM :
“But it seems like certain people wanted one of the lasting symbols of this war to be that woman with a leash.”
Yes they did. Welcome to the odern world of mass media, 24 hour news, propaganda and manipulation. To complain about it is like coplaining that your enemies have guns.
“Even if it meant making anger run white-hot in the Arab world.”
The Arab world is fueled on anger. Do you think your problem is the New York Times? The Arab world is not watching your news. The minute the story came out it was multipled in every Arab or Muslim satillite channel, government control channel, blogs, e-mails, newspapers, posters, on clothing probably, in sermons, lectures, essays, fatwas, and in talks in the market. If you want to be involved in the arab world you have to be aware of that.
“This, from the same media that would not publish danish cartoons for fear of offending Muslims.”
Do you want to impose on American media the same kind of censorship some Muslims tried to impose on the Danish? with the same techniques?
“possibly putting themselves in harm’s way”
the soldiers were put in harms way when they was sent to fight a war in an alien culture without preparing for the consequences.
“facing more anger and distrust.”
Yes, your enemies will do anything they can to multiply this event in order to create anger and distruct. But don’t you think the Iraqi people have good reasons to be angry and distrustful of the Americans?
Jerome Maida: Luigi, You are welcome. While I am aware that the Holocaust was over, the point remains that 34 top-of-the-fold headlines (or anything close to it) is pretty dámņ extensive…
Luigi Novi: Again, that’s because the investigation into it was ongoing.
Jerome Maida: …especially with an incident that was trivial compared to something like the Holocaust – or even Darfur, for heaven’s sakes. And there were really no new photos, no new revelations, no indication that this was a widespread thing. But it seems like certain people wanted one of the lasting symbols of this war to be that woman with a leash
Luigi Novi: Well, obviously whether it’s “trivial” is subjective. While I certainly don’t disagree with you as to the rather arbitrary and flimsy things that the media sometimes turn into news items, I don’t consider this to be one of them, as it was a legitimate incident. The United States is held up as a beacon of freedom, equality and civilization to the rest of the world, and 9/11 gave us a lot of leeway insofar as our foreign policy response to it. Thus, this incident served to damage the image of our country and military as one based on rule of law and respect for human rights.
I don’t think it was about how widespread it was (though I seem to recall that question as one of the points discussed regarding the incident), so much as it was about what it represented, and how far up the chain of command that knowledge of it went.
I just found a very illuminating report issued by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Here is a description of the CNGR from the organization’s Web site:
“The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 established an independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves which is charged by Congress to conduct a comprehensive examination of how the Guard and Reserves are used in national defense, including homeland defense, and to recommend any needed changes in laws and policies governing the National Guard and Reserves.”
The CNGR’s latest report demonstrates that Bush is asking the National Guard and Reserves to ramp up to operational levels while at the same time refusing provide adequate funding so that these troops will have at least a fighting chance to survive in Iraq.
“Support the troops” is a meaningless phrase if not backed up by action. Sending troops to Iraq who are dangerously under-equipped and under-prepared doesn’t sound very supportive to me. And for those who would blame the Democrats for not wanting to continue funding for the war: please try to remember that Republicans had control of Congress until last year’s mid-term elections. I don’t recall any attempts to, perish the thought, raise taxes one dime to help support our troops back when Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress.
The report, for anyone who is interested, can be found at:
http://www.cngr.gov/Worddocs/March%201%20Report/CNGR%20Second%20Report%20to%20Congress%20.pdf