posted
I am a little confused by what feels like too much optimism in OSC's World Watch article "Iraq -- Quit or Stay?" I do not feel yet the author's take on propaganda, I haven't read enough of him. The author's own words in the article about what is and what is not appropriate to say publicly during war got me thinking though. Is mr. Card genuinely convinced that the situation with war in Iraq is as good overall as he describes, or he feels necessary in this time of war to advocate somewhat tailored to look more hopeful than it is?
Please do not take me wrong, I do not imply that mr. Card is lying. I do not mean any offense, I have great respect for OSC. There is always a way though, especially for a person skilled in writing to present the facts in a more or less favorable way. When I was reading the article, a few times it felt like a conscious effort to advocate for the president or depict the war in a pinker light than the facts suggest.
I am not qualified to argue about this war or the president, so I am not going to. Here's just an example what I didn't like: several comparisons of something bad to something even worse that happened in the past as means to justify the bad. The statement that the war is the least costly in lives and is the most successful among other wars is ok (if true, and it might be). However, the statement is a conclusion in a chapter named "Has This War Been Badly Run?", and to me it implies that the war has been run ok. Of course "the best war compared to others" does not mean "a good war" but it feels like it in the article.
There is a very similar argument about domestic spying: "If there has been some edging toward the boundaries of civil liberties, it does not compare to what Lincoln or Wilson or FDR did." Surely the fact that previous leaders did wrong does not entitle the present administration to do so.
I've been too lengthy. Again, I do not bash the article, I am only trying to gauge my perception of mr. Card's writing.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's comparing the current situation to those in the past, not saying that the war is going well because it's better than the Union during the early Civil War. The point of that section is that leadership is often faulty at first and needs improving.
Its entirely factual that by almost every standard this war is being fought better than those of the past, considering that its a very different kind of war. The war is going well when viewed from a whole. That's what Mr. Card is attempting to do by juxtaposing it with the past. That's the problem with the mainstream media in America. They're looking at the war in Iraq for the trees and missing the forward progress. Mr. Card shows the forest of the war thus far and uses examples from the past to support his views.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
dantesparadigm, thank you, I have taken that much from the article itself. That was not my question though.
I do not question the war here, I question the article.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Im more worried about "http://www.ornery.org/essays/2006-01-26-1.html" is this guy a mysoginist antiliberal neoconservative or what? I liked Mulan.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how you can question the points Card is making when you clearly state you don't know nearly as much about the situation as he does. To address some of your points, however, he compares the Iraq war with previous wars to point out it is going much better, that in fact there is no comparison. He does this because a common comparison is with Vietnam, and that comparison is wholly unfounded.
You also mention the civil liberties aspect, and assert that past suspension of liberties during wartime was wrong. There is a whole discussion that could be made from that, but I'll suffice it to say that many consider those measures to have been effective during WWII and the Civil War, and compared to what happened then, the effect on our liberties is small. So someone who didn't have a problem with those actions shouldn't have much of a problem with what is going on now.
On a side note, I was going to make a thread about this, but I'll put it here instead. I was pretty interested to see Card's article because I just read this editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (aka Red Star): http://www.startribune.com/561/story/208154.html
I'd love to have Card's take on it, though I guess his take is in the recently published essay. I find it remarkable though how it is completely at odds with OSC's recent essay.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Optimism - I'm actually NOT optimistic. So much can go horribly wrong. My only point is that it hasn't gone all that wrong YET. That the war is being condemned while the issue is still in doubt; and that the anti-war orators are in fact encouraging the enemy to continue killing Americans, thereby increasing the chance of a horrible outcome.
There are so many ways that this can turn out badly, and I will be happily surprised if they don't happen. But the war, so far, has been shockingly well conducted, with shockingly low casualties, and with shockingly good success on the political front in Iraq and surrounding countries in the middle east. We may yet lose it, but to condemn the way it has been conducted so far is ludicrous - another case of the "anointed" (to use Thomas Sowell's phrase) insisting on seeing what they expect instead of what the evidence actually shows.
But ... to call me an optimist ... that really depresses me. I'm a doomsayer! I must quickly write an essay that reminds people that I believe western civilization is destroying itself and that the excesses of the power elite today will probably lead to truly repulsive responses when the backlash happens. All shall be punished (to paraphrase the Prince in R&J).
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's be clear that the Narnia essay (the anti-Mulan one mentioned above) is not written by OSC.
Surprisingly, I agree that people who say for unsound reasons that the war is a failure are encouraging the enemy; if you were fighting a war and weren't sure you were winning but then discovered that the enemy civilians were demoralized and talking about when to give up, wouldn't you be encouraged to keep fighting? Probably the president shouldn't say this, though, since when someone that high up says it it's easy to think that his/her next step will be to lock up dissenters.
Hey OSC, if you think Western civilization is destroying itself, maybe you could write a column about how Europe (and to a lesser extent the U.S.) needs to get its birth rates up above replacement level.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Whoops, sorry if I wasn't specific. Just that I do agree with Cards article that in terms of comparrison we are fighting the war a whole lot better then previous wars with the exception of vietnam which I think is the only way the US "lost" with the exception of the war of 1812.
The Mulan article why I mentioned it is that I think we need to be more concerned with todays right wing jingoists, which I find a little more alarming since I heavily disagree with every single one of his points then whether or not the US is losing the war on terror witin Iraq.
As for the situation itself, I am very skepticle of Rumsfeld and I think he shoud be fired, he's more concerned with the PRC then with terrorists and pays little attention to the actual war. I've heard in a recent interview that only 700 Iraqi security forces were able to take on the responsibility of protecting the country SEVEN HUNDRED! And Rumsfeld avoided the issue answered vaguelly.
I think the war was Illegal and Immoral but I agree that now that the US is in Iraq that they should stay until tey clean up their mess. If a kid is told not to go into the fridge and do so anyways and spills the fruit juice they should clean it up.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I'm not sure that saying, for example, that the Yankees have higher scores when playing against a high school team as opposed to playing the Red Sox means that they played better. Comparing the current Iraq War to the Civil War or World War II or what have is seems a trifle disingenuous.
There were plenty of mistakes made. Even the Bush administration admits this. And many of them aren't just a case of Monday morning quaterbacking...more like Saturday afternoon predictions. The planning (at least as we were told) centered around the idea that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and open arms. Donald Rumsfeld even said he could see the troops job taking 6 days or 6 weeks but he'd be suprised if it took 6 months. Nearly everyone not inside the administration said that this was a ridiculous idea, but they went ahead with it. Heck, the current President's father wrote a book partially on all the difficulties that would be involved, which the President proudly said he didn't need to read nor consult with his father.
They failed to secure vital parts of the infrastructure. They failed to provide the troops with adequate supplies, logistical support, or with people who even spoke the language. They failed to secure the borders. Oh, and by the way, Abu Ghraib.
There was at least one persistent, indisputable lie told during the run up to the war. We were told, over and over, that they knew that Iraq had WMDs and plans for making more. This is a falt out lie. They knew no such thing. There were plenty of other examples of dishonesty and irresponsibility and a large part of Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. was based on information that we now know has to not only be false but in fact fraudulent, but this was a definite lie.
The President and his administration have long tried to dodge responsiblity for their actions. I'll agree that to a certain extent pointing out that they screwed up and are screwing up the war is aiding our enemies, but one of the things that it is also doing is forcing this responsiblity on them. It's sad that it has to come this way, but blaming the people for trying to hold the President accountable when he is otherwise unwilling to be so seems to me to be missing the point pretty much altogether. We don't have kings in this country. Our presidents don't get to do whatever they want because they won an election.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There was at least one persistent, indisputable lie told during the run up to the war. We were told, over and over, that they knew that Iraq had WMDs and plans for making more. This is a falt out lie. They knew no such thing. There were plenty of other examples of dishonesty and irresponsibility and a large part of Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. was based on information that we now know has to not only be false but in fact fraudulent, but this was a definite lie.
So you do comletely agree that France, Germany, England, Iran, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, Dean, and on and on were all liars? Every intelligence agency in the world knew that Iraq had WMDs, so that means the majority of the world is nothing but a bunch of liars?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested in you showing me a case where any of these sources stated that they knew that Iraq had WMDs that correspond to the claims of the Bush administration knowing that they had them. Before the war, we knew that they had them, we knew where they had them, but it turns out that they didn't exist, that they weren't where they were claimed to have been, and that the administration did not have adequate evidence to claim to know these things.
For that matter, Colin Powell's presentation before the U.N. contained not only claims of definite knowledge of their existence, but also definite knowledge of a program to hide them (which, we've established, didn't exist) from the U.N inspectors.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Plot to Deceive? Robert Kagan Washington Post June 8, 2003
There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.
This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."
The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.
Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them?
The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."
Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.
Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.
Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.
So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.
Reply | Reply All | Forward Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
posted
I believe that at heart OSC is a realist. This article never gets into if the war in Iraq is morally good or bad, if it was appropriate or inappropriate to invade, but instead simply addresses the fact that -we are at war- and that that war is not going as badly as the media seem to make it out. Further OSC points out that (without mentioning if we -should- or -should not- be there) that pulling out now would do more damage than staying.
This is a hard look at reality as it is and has nothing to do with what should be.
Or, tactics not philosophy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To note that it would be more harmful to pull out would be to say that you can predict an event before it happens. No one can be certain that it would cause more damage. It is an argumentative point.
It is a known fact that the majority of Arabs loathe terrorists and were it not for the U.S. invasion the Iraqis would still be of that mind. A friend of mine recently came back from Iraq. He explained how it felt to be there. "It's like being in a room where nobody likes you and would rather have you dead or gone rather than in the room." Were the United States to pull out, it is impossible to tell what consequences it would have, as it has been pointed out that despite all the intelligence in the world pointing that Iraq had WMDs and that we knew where they were, has not secured these supposed weapons.
The conclusions do not point to a definitive.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the obvious is often overlooked. The Iraqis knew that they were going to be attacked by the United States. Saddam Hussein knew. For a leader who "gassed his 'own' people" to NOT use these weapons against incoming invaders is absurd. Any leader backed into a corner with the power and supposed 'evilness' that he had would use them to take out as many enemies as possible.
On a final note I would like to discuss an issue that I have heard stated on numerous occasions, not on this forum persay, but among supporters of the war. That if you don't support the war, that you hate the troops and by that hate America. Or there is the statement that you are helping the enemy by not supporting the war.
The first statement is outright foolish. Many who do not support the war simply want their children and friends to come home where they are safe. Iraq has not invaded the United States, its the other way around. Wanting the end of the war is the desire to NOT have to bury family and friends. It is a direct love for the troops that makes many people protest the war.
The second statement has historical reference that I understand. By protesting it shows your enemy that your own people are not standing behind you and is likened to the enheartening of a troop who sees his enemy run away. However, it is the right of every person in a democracy to question their government when they feel that something needs to be changed. I repeat, it is their RIGHT. To many their rights have been heavily affected by the government who is fighting a war that was based on false grounds. Whether the information was faulty or the people were misled, the United States entered into a war, using Weapons of Mass Distruction as their propaganda in a similar way that the Incubator Babies was used to promote the the Gulf War. An atrocity was believed to have been committed. An atrocity that the people rallied behind until they were told that their trust had been betrayed and that they had not found any WMDs. It is for this reason that their is dispute and despite the politial uses that some have made it into, the people themselves are more upset due to the break in trust.
quote: "Furthermore, it seems to me that the obvious is often overlooked. The Iraqis knew that they were going to be attacked by the United States. Saddam Hussein knew. For a leader who "gassed his 'own' people" to NOT use these weapons against incoming invaders is absurd. Any leader backed into a corner with the power and supposed 'evilness' that he had would use them to take out as many enemies as possible.
Here is why Saddam may not have done the obvious thing you mentioned.-----
"Gen. Sada recalled that he was the only one to raise objections, warning Saddam that such an attack would surely provoke a nuclear response from Tel Aviv."
"I told all this directly [to Saddam] and everybody was listening. If a needle was dropped on the carpet you would hear it," he told Crowley.
After presenting a nearly two-hour-long argument against the WMD attack, Gen. Sada said Saddam was finally persuaded to pull the plug on the deadly operation.
I should mention that this account is still being investigated and time will tell if this guy is reliable or not but either way it makes sense. This quote is taken from this article.---
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: It is a known fact that the majority of Arabs loathe terrorists and were it not for the U.S. invasion the Iraqis would still be of that mind.
By whom is this fact known? I don't know this to be true.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mistake, for the word 'terrorist' is yet again a word that can be misunderstood.
For in certain contexts, terrorist is a good thing as in the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. A terrorist organization that became known as 'freedom fighters' by the United States.
Do you honestly believe that the Palestinian people consider their 'terrorists' as that? If they did they would not have elected Hamas leadership as they have done in their last election. Hamas fights for the people.
Terrorist is interchangeable with whatever other word or phrase you'd like depending on what side of the fence you ride. Only those who straddle the fence know the difference.
To reply to you, friscokid, to me it doesn't make sense that he would not have used them. Knowing what Bush had done in Afghanistan, any enemy of Bush would know he would go through with a threat. A nuclear attack would have had devastating results for any country that had the audacity to use it. Logic would suggest that no person in power would risk taking the chance of using a nuclear weapon unless hard pressed. There are more effective means. A cornered animal strikes to escape its enemy, by any means necessary.
posted
Evil is a term used to ignore doing something about the problem. If you consider him evil, do something about it. Too often the result is to say 'well that's how it goes' and move on. Solve the problem.
As for myself, I'm currently attempting to repeal No Child Left Behind.
Johivin Ryson.
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. Those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my big pet peevs about political discussion is when we assume that those that disagree with us are either evil or stupid. There are plenty of serious reasons why one might disagree with the policies of a leader without resorting to that . Instead of Bush being evil to explain his choices--why is it so hard to just believe that he is just an average republican guy from Texas, with similar views to most republican guys from texas. That doesn't mean you have to agree with any of his views. The funny thing is, I think alot of the people we hate in politics might be people we could get along with just fine in real life.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead of Bush being evil to explain his choices--why is it so hard to just believe that he is just an average republican guy from Texas, with similar views to most republican guys from texas.
That's not an improvement, really, because it leads to the natural assumption that most Republican guys in Texas are evil. A better way to look at it would be to actually analyze his premises and motives.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Thanks for proving my point. Thats always a great way to avoid serious discussion. Assume evil motive before the more obvious. The blue state people can just go ahead and assume that the red state people are evil and stupid because they disagree with them on policy. The red state people can assume the same about the blues.
I think most people honestly strive for the same ends but just differ greatly on the best way to achieve them. When we sit around talking about these things with our friends--we may take the point of view of a Kerry or a Bush but we still give each other the benefit of the doubt on motive. But look out, if the same arguments are made by some politician in D.C.! Those guys are guilty until proven inocent. At least if Jon Stewart or Jay Leno accuses them long enough.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not overlook the fact that politicians through their actions compilated with the media's negative standpoints have brought Americans to judge them all as crooks. Granted it is a problem that by stereotyping them you assume they are a crook. However, these are not average people. They are wealthy average people. Their actions are suspected by many to be only to further their own pockets.
When we give the benefit of the doubt to our friends and family it is because they are known to us and we actually get to speak to them. When was the last time your representative or senator actually responded to you, personally? Or better yet, actually responded without a layer of fluff?
I would also point out that in many cases people are guilty until proven innocent. Not just polititicans. Ask any teacher whose been falsely accused of rape and find out what happened with their career as a teacher, even if the charges are dropped. When people stop lying and take responsibility for their actions instead, we'll find we're in a place.
quote:That the war is being condemned while the issue is still in doubt; and that the anti-war orators are in fact encouraging the enemy to continue killing Americans, thereby increasing the chance of a horrible outcome.
There are so many ways that this can turn out badly, and I will be happily surprised if they don't happen. But the war, so far, has been shockingly well conducted, with shockingly low casualties, and with shockingly good success on the political front in Iraq and surrounding countries in the middle east. We may yet lose it, but to condemn the way it has been conducted so far is ludicrous - another case of the "anointed" (to use Thomas Sowell's phrase) insisting on seeing what they expect instead of what the evidence actually shows.
If this is shockingly well-conducted, I'm curious as to how many deaths, or how much instability, would constitute a less shocking success. In general, I'm worried that you think that it is the press's job to print propoganda instead of their true opinions. This strikes me as not only immediately paternalistic and anti-thetical to life in a free democracy, but also, this advocacy of media repression is exactly the sort of attitude that leads to wide-spread, subtle malignacies because it eats away at public trust.
I'm not saying that I'm right and you are wrong, but I am saying that this is needs to be considered. In addition, these are the sorts of issues where erring on the side of paternalism is terribly dangerous.
posted
Actually, I don't belive in evil. I believe in ingorance. It does seem pretty ignorant first to finance and train Osama and Saddam and then try to kill them.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
George W. did not finance Osama and Saddam. The U.S. did. That raises an interesting question. Should we have sided with Stalin to fight the more immediate threat in Hitler? Should we not have supplied the Taliban while they fought the Soviets during the cold war? Should we not have supplied Saddam as they fought the new Iranian threat?
Its always so easy to second guess decisions like that later on. Is it never acceptable to make deals with the Devil when faced with more immediate threats? I don't know the answer to those questions but I am glad I am not the one to call that shot. Either way, if the U.S. does bare some responsibility for what Iraq became--doesn't it make sense that we should also be the ones to clean up our mess???
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that the United States has played that role over and over again throughout the course of its history. Making deals and later breaking them when it suits you is bad business and causes bad blood. Both Saddam and Osama were left to their own devices and caused the current problem. You cut & run on someone and it causes anger and frustration. The action should have been fully carried out.
posted
Americans like Scott and yourselves (sorry if you are not)are exceedingly naive politically. When I said Osama and Saddam where financed by Bush, I ment the CIA under Bush Sr.
The fact is that the USA is desperately trying to create ´fortress USA´. History shows us this is a fatal mistake for any superpower. Look at Rome and you see clearly that when the ´national´insterests of a people exceed the interestes of the nations around them, they get sacked. Waging a war on so many fronts always ends in a catastrophe.
I live in Mexico, so I see the US problem with a Mexican filter. We have a saying here:
´pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los USA´. (poor Mexico so far from God and so close the the USA).
The US is trying to fight a new Cruzade. It will loose, the same way Rome lost the first Cruzade. Osama is the tip of the iceberg. We are talking about something far more dangerous for the US and for Democracy in general. We are talking about a real Jihad. Bush and his pirates are trying to make oil money. The Irakies are fighting for God. Who do you think will win?
I am half-American. My American side cries in anguish at the fate of the stars and stripes. The Mexican in me wouldn't at all mind seeing California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and maybe Florida return to Mexican hands. AFter all, the environmental record of the USA is the worst in the planet and most of the really bad environmental destruction in Mexico is caused by US firms.
If it's WWIII, folks, you should be careful not to inspire the wrath of the Latin Americans. Building a huge wall between Mexico and the US when you have most of your troops searching for Jihadists halfway across the world is both arrogant and profoundly stupid.
Scott, I will repeat what I said. The Invasion of Irak was wrong, staying there is wrong, and trying to stop Osama instead of really trying to enter into a dialogue with the radical muslims is political suicide. Especially with fokls like Hugo Chavez just waiting for the USA to make a big mistake.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I checked out this Hugo Chavez on wikipedia and he seems like quite a legend. What exavtly does he have against the U.S?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[responds to rant with rant] Wow Robin, you could write news articles for Univision. That's exactly the same rhetoric I hear from them every day. "Don't upset us Latinos, you'll be sorry." "There are enough of us in the USA to vote our own Latin people into office now." "America is ours, we have a right to be there, immigration laws or no immigration laws." "Pollution in our country is caused by Americans."
The combination of statements made from wounded Mexican pride and the blame of all its socio-economic problems on this country is part of the problem. The wall you mentioned, although silly, is a backlash resulting from statements similar to those you've made. It's not just the quantity of illegal immigration, but the blatant sponsorship of it by foreign governments and news media that has made it into such an issue.
What I'm saying is saying stuff like 'fear raising the wrath of Latin America' isn't really going to make things better, or make the USA back down (I can't believe the world hasn't figured that out yet), it's just going to piss a lot of people off and polarize the debate. And as the debate becomes more polarized (as you can see from everything from abortion to Iraq to gay marriage), the chance of any improvements happening is very slim.
I want to see us take on as many immigrants as our society can handle. However, I'd like to see that immigration be the legal kind. Right now legal immigration is so difficult in a large part because of the vast amount of illegal immigrantion. Its a cycle that gets worse and worse. Everyone is a victim. The illegal immigrant must live in the shadows, in fear. Taxpayers must foot the bill for the dramatically increased strain on social systems. The list could go on. My point is that placing all the blame on the USA is ignorant and in no way helps move toward a solution. [/end of rant]
Edit: Seriously, the rants don't get anywhere. If you want to start a thread in the other forum, and have some facts to back up your accusations, please do so and I'll be happy to respond.
posted
Robin--You are freaking me out man! I don't even know where to start with that last post. Maybe I am too naive to even try.
Ohhhh----you meant Bush SR. when you said Bush was just plain evil. It is now so obvious what you meant.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Don't worry, kids, I'm not here to cause a panic, or to start a war. In fact, I am a firm believer in the power of Non-Violence. In fact, my role models in order: Panoramix, Ghandi and MLK.
But it is imperative that 'stupid' Americans like yourselves know what is really going on in the rest of the world. If you don't, you might just back yourselves into a corner from which there is no more solution than Hiroshima and Nagasaki II, the sequel.. Chicago and L.A.
If you were to understand the world as I, you would se that Democracy is kind of a sham. The real world lives in a state of undeclared anarchy. So called 'democratic' nations cannot, in good justice, blow other nations to kingdom come and then 'hide' behind the veil of 'international law', because international law is only enforcable by brute force, and the use of brute force against large groups of people violates the first and most important 'human right' we all have, which is the one of life.
In fact, my studies of Mormon, the Jehova's Witnesses and other various philosophies lend me to believe that the only logical form of government is that of the benevolent dictator or 'philosopher king'.
(here I loose my train of thoughts because there's a beautiful Styracosaurus about to be shot by a German U-Boat commander on the t.v.)
Well, anyhow... The world is in flames and we are living the last days of the known system. THings will probably collapse for all of us because of our lack of perspective and cohesiveness... (don't help that I just smoked a damn good spliff) ....
I like ranting. Sorry, kids. Find your own wisdom of things, just remember, not only America can use nukes. Everybody can use nukes. They just need to get some.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, do you really believe that the USA has to 'win a war on terror' in Irak? Seems kind of like saying you want to 'win a war on poverty' with deficit spending.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My views of world politics are based entirely on my knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons.
Hrm. Unless you're using one of the optional add-on books, a non-violent approach in Dungeons and Dragons is absolutely worthless. You don't even get any bonuses for it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
What I see of Politics is basically Dungeons & Dragons ...
The parallels are too numerous to mention. MLK and Ghandi make the best of it as 33rd level Enchanters.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but I am sadly still a purist. First edition rules. Fact is the only book on relgion that I can take really seriously is the Dieties & Demigods tome, the first edition, of course. That was the first time that I saw comparative religions displayed side by side. Sadly, there were no stats for Jesus, JVHV, Alla or Mohammed, but even back then, the meisters at TSR knew better than to answer the South and it's Gods.
Fact is, the fist edition contains stats for Vishnu, which, if I am not totally mistaken, is worship today by millions of Hindus. That makes the book valid as a religious text...!
Now, as far as politics, generally, politics and relgions cannot be disentagled. The idea to have a separate church and state is minimally mononic, and at best, a good intention (and we all know what good intentions do)... How can you have a moral statue that does not comply with Sin? Think about it, if morality is not based on religion, on what then? Psychology? Philosphy? Biology?
Of course, corrupt religious leaders have been influencing politics since time immemorial. And to think that we can have a trully atheist state is kind of facile.
So, we are back to Dungeons & Dragons, where the God with the most hit points always wins. This is a sad state of affairs for humanity, but it is the reality which which we must all deal sooner or later, because after all, the USA is fighting a Holy War.
A Cruzade in the middle of 2006. And guess what?
POT IS STILL ILLEGAL! PEYOTE, who to some people is considered a God, is also still illegal. What kind of shitty ass holy war is that!? Ethogenic Inquisition? I don't much care for the Koran or the Bible or the Talmud for that matter. I care about Peyote, and if it turns out to be 'with us or against us', in what concerns Pot and Peyote use, I must be for and against anyone trying to stop me from it! See?
Holy wars suck.
So there...
Mescalito will win the holy war. He has the best potions. And good potions have always the winning edge using 1rst edition rules.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read the article, and I can't sleep, so I might as well throw my two cents in.
OSC seems fond of comparing the current situation to history, putting things in context. He holds Iraq up against the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II. Which is fair; I mean, the stakes in those wars don't compare to the Iraq war. That's not to say this war isn't important. It IS to say that they are all incredibly different, it would be a mistake to judge one by any of the others. It's as wrong of OSC to say this is a well run war because it's better run than the Civil War as it would be for me to say that horribly run war because it's worse than the Persian Gulf War. The truth value of those statements don't even matter; the comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Instead, a far better approach would be to compare how the war is actually going to what we were capable of achieving. And, no, I don't mean "capable of" as the best, impossibly perfect scenario. I mean a reasonable expectation of what we were there to accomplish, and how well we fared in accomplishing it. Isn't that how you'd measure the success or failure of any other task? Our goals, as I remember, were removing Saddam and his WMDs from power, stopping terrorists, and spreading democracy. They didn't come in that order, but we won't mention that further...
1. Removing Saddam. Brilliant. Well done, the evil bastard.
2. Siezing WMDs. Hasn't happened as far as I know. I do remember hearing a rumor that they all got shipped to Syria or Iran on the eve of our Shock and Awe campaign. Seems unlikely, but if someone can prove otherwise, I'd love to see the evidence. I did note that OSC made no reference to them at all in the article.
3. Stopping terrorists. Dismal. Incidences of terrorism tripled from '03-'04. Judging from the cable news, which can be expected to regularly report this kind of thing - though few others, excepting lotto winners - the attacks haven't decreased.
4. Spreading democracy. Jury's out on this one. Yes, there's a democracy there now, but there's also a civil war brewing.
Another thing that was constantly jumping out at me is a huge lack of any kind of referencing. I understand it's an op/ed piece, but please, OSC, I'm begging you, don't write the WHOLE thing like you expect the reader to agree with it all beforehand. The whole section where you try to refute the claim that our troops were undermanned during the immediate aftermath fell apart before my eyes.
He basically argues - against generals - that "we don't know what the consequences would have been," if we had put more boots on the ground from the beginning. So on one hand, I have the opinion of several generals, that there weren't enough boots, and on the other, the opinion of a science fiction writer*. The rejection of their claim by finding fault in their training holds up until you remember that these generals SMASHED Saddam in the actual invasion. It was in the aftermath that stories like this came out. OSC then goes on to talk about how Iraqis needed to see Americans beeing decent people. Which is true, but I don't see how it bears on the issue of how many troops are necessary to guard ammo dumps and checkpoints and the like. All in all, most of the piece is political demagoguery, or tries to be. What does the wiretapping have to do with this besides being a terror issue, anyway?
And on the issue of whether or not Bush lied to us before and during the war, I'll just say this: I almost hope he did lie, because the only other explanations I can think of for missing WMDs, fudging Osama links, and the handling of the reconstruction are negligence and incompetence of an unprecedented level.
All that said and out of the way, OSC's main point is spot on. We can't leave yet. But instead of eleven pages and specious arguments, it only really takes a few words. Like it or not, agree with it or not, then or now, we invaded the country, and we are now responsible for what goes on there. It would be the height of selfishness to pull out now, and leave those Iraqis that are caught between terrorists and insurgents and zealots to their fate.
*And don't get me wrong. Science fiction novelist is an eminently admirable occupation. I joined this forum on the strong reccomendation of a good friend, but had been lurking about reading anonymously for a while because OSC, I thought, had managed to create two of the most realistic, imaginative, and interesting characters I've ever read about in Ender and Bean. Ender's Shadow may be my favorite book ever.
And that's why it hurts so much to read something like Iraq -- Quit or Stay?.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how many of you were ever in the military or during what time period, but just listen to my little story for a moment. I joined the US Navy in 1998 as a member of the submarine force. I saw with my own eyes the state of affairs not only of the navy but also the army since my brother and sister followed me shortly into service. The Clinton administration in every branch of govt had handicapped every branch of service so this goes both for the Republican Congress at the time and our Democrat Executive. Eight years of replacement part delays, insufficient project funding, and lowering personnel numbers and handing over many jobs to civilians. The Cold War was over and we acted as if 'all would be well with the world'. We were mistaken, we were not paying the price of freedom, rather we thought that endless debt was paid in full. We were wrong, on the morning of Sept 11, 2001 early that morning while my submarine was getting underway we received the news. My crew consisted of 14 individuals from New York City all of which had no idea the condition of their families and loved ones and their duty sent them out to sea for six weeks.
The main problem was we were not ready for the war. Many officers in all branches rose to their authority through political manuevering and were ill-suited for their position in war time. Our equipment was in poor condition and our morale was pretty well stamped out. Things started to change a little in 2000. For all of his faults, which their are many, President Bush started to bring life back into the military. Even so one year cannot make up for nearly a decade of atrophy. However, we were motivated to fight this enemy and that in itself made up the difference.
Many of you right now wonder what this has to do with Iraq? The answer is painful and simple. When we invaded Afghanistan the terrorists fled and wisely so. So we sought new targets that posed potential threats and low and behold we find Iraq. It had many things that made it an attractive target 1) There were terrorist agents already there 2) Every intelligence network reported WMDs as highly probable 3) Iraq's govt obviously was unfriendly to the United States 4) Iraq is a place the terrorists would fight for unlike their former haven due to its natural resources and the threat democracy their posed to their agenda.
To fight a war you must destroy the enemies ability to wage war. Their material, manpower, and morale. Destroying a Terrorist networks material is tricky they like to cache things away till they are used. Their manpower fades away after a strike making hitting them back a difficult process. As for their morale, their dedication to their cause is definately nearly impossible to break down.
Iraq changes things. The thought of a free democratic Iraq is something they cannot let happen it undermines everything. It is at the heart of the Muslim world geographically and has the capacity to one day be a wealthy paradise. This new Iraq would threaten Iran as it is now simply by existing. The people of Iran would see the prosperity of their neighbor and desire the same. Other governments in that region would also have to face up to the reality within their own kingdoms and countries. This is why the terrorists have gathered into the battleground of Iraq. This is why they fight so fiercely and the people of Iraq suffer. This is also why it is vital we stay. Not only do we need to stay to ensure our own goals are met, but also in some respects to atone for using Iraq as our battlefield. They provided us the means to draw out these terrorists and as such daily they suffer for it. We have a responsability to see this through and to ensure Iraq has a free and prosperous future by supporting their government and it's fragile infrastructure for as long as it takes.
If you want perspective on how long it takes to rebuild a country following WWII we still have military bases in Japan and Germany to this day. Sorry about this little rant'o'mine and hopefully it makes sense it is 3am and I felt compelled to say something.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."-Thomas Jefferson. If you ignore this price you will get stuck with interest.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very well said, Juxtapose. But what worries me further is "The Iraqis really want us to stay" and "The Europeans claim to hate us because of their liberal intellectual traditions"- rough paraphrase.
Are we entitled to ignore what other countries tell us, to say they don't mean what they say, because we're the United States and of course we know best, even when we're fighting in their back yard and they have at least as much at stake as we do?
I agree, having invaded, that we have a responsibility for what happens in the aftermath of that invasion. But rationality demands an ongoing dialogue of what's going on in Iraq, including the possibility of withdrawl, including in public forums. The people who are making the sacrifices- the men and women who fight, and their friends and family as well- deserve no less.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: The Irakies are fighting for God. Who do you think will win?
The Iraqis are not Jihadi. If you think they are, then you don't a) know any or b) know what the hell you are talking about. Who are the Jihadi?
Lets see, one is a Jordanian that now can't go home, because even his own family consider him a traitor and menace. Most of his holy warriors are Syrian and Saudi. Syria is in no position to stop it, because, in the words of one Syrian blogger, their leader is too busy trying to prove he is an asshole instead of a lion cub to have the courage or sanity to oppose factions busy funneling terrorists into Iraq. What isn't coming in from there is coming from Iran. Odd how you find most Jihadi in Iraq using Iran made weapons. Same model, same metals, same everything. If they put serial numbers on them, they would probably have a picture of Hamas next to them.
Tal Afar *was* a major stronghold for this particular group, until Iraqi troops got rid of them with a lot less help from the US than in most previous cases. First thing the Iranians did was drive the local mullah out of their temples and replace them with barely trained pro-jihad priests in training. Second thing they did it force out teachers, replacing them with people that had barely enough education to read the hate propoganda they then proceeded to force on students. This was soon followed by new public works, such as special training camps for RPG units, suicide bombers and jihad propoganda writers, so they could make sure the world press heard "there" version, after they kidnapped, shot up or otherwise got rid of any journalists in Iraq not hiding in a hotel.
The only pro-jihad Iraqi I personally know about is some asshole that recently got his green card, having moved to California, where he continues to post about the glory of the resistance. His last known adress was Syria. Why? Because being the coward he was, he couldn't stand acutally being **in** Iraq while lying about what was happening there every day, instead, from at least a month prior to the invasion, he was in Syria babbling about the glory of Saddam and later babbling about the great freedom fighters killing the US. Now more than half the targets are Iraqi and he "still" insists that everyone being blown up is either a) deserving it or b) actually being killed by some bizarre secret US plot to prevent Iraq from succeeding, while the US steels oil that even Iraq itself can barely ship to its own people right now without one of his freedom fighters blowing it up. Yeah, the US is getting a "lot" of oil from this.... As in little or none.
Stick to making excuses for why Mexico sits next to the richest country in the Americas, but somehow manages to remain so corrupt and incompetent it is practically the poorist on both continents. Explain the conspiracy that is making that true, please. Because I know damn well that in general Mexicans are some of the hardest working people on the planet and they are not stupid, so why the @#$@#$@#$ aren't they kicking our asses in every industry? I bet you don't have an answer, but you presume to talk about what is going on literally on the other side of the planet, in a country where the only information you have about how they think, let alone what, comes from news agencies that are universally prone to spending 3 hours reporting a house fire and 30 seconds mentioning that anyone survived it, if they even bother to mention it at all, or actually get the number, names and even the right bloody location right sometimes. News from people that sit in a hotel behind 5-6 barricades, already fail to check their facts more than half the time and are relying entirely on information from two sources, the military, who by the time they get around to reporting a volcano would probably report it as the general popping a zit and Iraqi they can't always be sure are not compromised, working for the enemy or getting their facts from some Iranian that just *happened* to, "Saw everything that happened and knows it was those damn Shia.", never mind the black clothing and Iranian made RPGs they had with them.
These people went out in huge numbers to vote, got shafted by dipshits more interested in how much power they can grab for their religion and now are blaming it on everyone in sight, because they spent most of their lives knowing no other way to deal with betrayal. But the reality is, most of the real Iraqi insurgents are doing what they do because they don't have work and terrorism unfortunately pays. And like in most countries over there, all you have to do is look for the biggest pocket book with the most insane ideology to figure out who is paying them. Proving it now... That is a different problem. But, when they lose the need to do so, most of them tend to disappeared completely. The rest are usually working directly for some assholes that want to become the next Saddam, and figures democracy is a good way to get there, or actually one of the few morons that fits your description. However, in places where the coalition retreated temporarily, as happened several times, the first thing that happened when they where no longer available targets was that the Iraqi resistance began shooting at the foreign Jihadi.
If they where all the same, that wouldn't have happened. As a rule, jihadi all help each other, because they are all convinced that Allah is on their side and those other dupes will all die first anyway. To them, winning is more important than if the guy next to you is the wrong religious sect. After all, once Islam rules the world, then you can go back and kill all the fools that helped you make it happen.
Try finding out what is actually going on over there, who the players really are and what they really believe, before making the idiotic racist comments that every one of them must be pro-jihad. Bad enough watching all the morons in the US that call themselves liberals, but make such stupid comments prove themselves to be anything but liberal. We don't need someone from outside the US, with access to even less valid information, making the same broad racist generalizations and only adding to the problem.
Sorry for the rant everyone else, but this kind of BS just sticks in my craw. Too many peace lovers seem to think that its OK to apply broad and racist labels to people, as long as it supports their own view, but would drag you into a court over even suggesting that they specifically are lazy, clueless or whatever, on the grounds that you must by trying to claim that all of their "kind" are. This is the exact opposite of liberalism, but much of the left has embraced it as a mantra and it makes me sick seeing it.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: The Irakies are fighting for God. Who do you think will win?
The Iraqis are not Jihadi. If you think they are, then you don't a) know any or b) know what the hell you are talking about. Who are the Jihadi?
(Who the Jihadi? The folks blowing up in carbombs all over the middle east since Israel (the funny little country you didn't really mention in this post) invaded Palestine.)
The only pro-jihad Iraqi I personally know about is some asshole
(I should mention that making him an 'asshole' won't help solve the hatred between him and you, and chances are that you will loose in the end, so you might be friendlier in your terminology)
... Because being the coward he was,....
(see?)
... while the US steels oil....
(true, this is really what this war is about)
Yeah, the US is getting a "lot" of oil from this.... As in little or none.
(You are obviously badly informed, the price of gas might not really go down, but that does not mean that the US won't be controling strategically important oil-fields WITH TROOPS ON THE GROUND TO ENFORCE IT'S HEGAMONY!)
Stick to making excuses for why Mexico sits next to the richest country in the Americas,
(We have a saying, gringo, which is... pobre México tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de USA)
but somehow manages to remain so corrupt
(Thanks to serious undermining efforts by various US agencies, which I have been carefully documenting for quite a while)
...and incompetent it is practically the poorist on both continents.
(lack of Education makes for incompetence. My uncle, Roberto Moreno, who was head of the Humanities at UNAM was once threatened by US Agents because he was impulsing some really good growth programs for the university. The Agent that went to threaten HIS LIFE told him that the USA could not afford a strong Mexico, so he had to stop OR ELSE... Bet you didn't know shit like that happens, eh, bud?)
Explain the conspiracy that is making that true, please.
(I am trying to do just that)
Because I know damn well that in general Mexicans are some of the hardest working people on the planet and they are not stupid, so why the @#$@#$@#$ aren't they kicking our asses in every industry?
(because American Industrialists are devious, evil and extremely dangerous adversaries)
I bet you don't have an answer,
(You bet wrong)
but you presume to talk about what is going on literally on the other side of the planet,
(so do you, and in fact, I don't much know or care about the middle east insomuch that there is so much to do here, at home)
in a country where the only information you have about how they think, let alone what, comes from news agencies that are universally prone to spending 3 hours reporting a house fire and 30 seconds mentioning that anyone survived it, if they even bother to mention it at all, or actually get the number, names and even the right bloody location right sometimes.
(what are you on about?)
News from people that sit in a hotel behind 5-6 barricades, already fail to check their facts more than half the time and are relying entirely on information from two sources, the military, who by the time they get around to reporting a volcano would probably report it as the general popping a zit and Iraqi they can't always be sure are not compromised, working for the enemy or getting their facts from some Iranian that just *happened* to, "Saw everything that happened and knows it was those damn Shia.", never mind the black clothing and Iranian made RPGs they had with them.
(you sound like you were there... please explain)
...terrorism unfortunately pays. And like in most countries over there, all you have to do is look for the biggest pocket book with the most insane ideology to figure out who is paying them.
(Thanks for making my point. OBL and Saddam both were financed by the CIA, during the war with Iran and the war with the Russians... Those deep pocket books were financed primarily by US taxpayers!)
If they where all the same, that wouldn't have happened. As a rule, jihadi all help each other, because they are all convinced that Allah is on their side and those other dupes will all die first anyway.
(kids who blow themselves up really belive they will go to heaven. You think they will win against paid mercenaries using US uniforms? How long do you think the US Army could convince young men to die if they didn't get well paid?)
To them, winning is more important than if the guy next to you is the wrong religious sect. After all, once Islam rules the world, then you can go back and kill all the fools that helped you make it happen.
(I woundn't want to see Radical Islam rule the world, but I don't like to see the Military Industrial Lords rule it either)
Try finding out what is actually going on over there, who the players really are and what they really believe, before making the idiotic racist comments that every one of them must be pro-jihad.
(watching folks blow up makes it clear no? Otherwise, what support do you think these guys would get? Where would they hide if the Irakies really want US troops there?)
Bad enough watching all the morons in the US that call themselves liberals, but make such stupid comments prove themselves to be anything but liberal. We don't need someone from outside the US, with access to even less valid information, making the same broad racist generalizations and only adding to the problem.
(When Mexico declares war on the USA, you might swallow your words, amigo)
Sorry for the rant everyone else, but this kind of BS just sticks in my craw.
(like I said, when Mariachis march down Pensilvania Avenue and arrest Bush, you might have to swallow your bile)
Too many peace lovers seem to think that its OK to apply broad and racist labels to people, as long as it supports their own view,
(so long as they love peace, what matters if they are racist? Better a peace loving-racist that a war-loving ... uhhhh... non-racist)
but would drag you into a court over even suggesting that they specifically are lazy, clueless or whatever, on the grounds that you must by trying to claim that all of their "kind" are. This is the exact opposite of liberalism, but much of the left has embraced it as a mantra and it makes me sick seeing it.
(it sounds to me like you have some serious personal issues that you need to deal with. Your rant is angry and offensive and that means you are angry and offensive, and that is not condusive to productive dialogue. Of course, I bet if you watch the O'Riley show, you just might be angered by what you see. That's usually how 'propaganda' works. It works on your gut-level, not on your mind.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
