0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 06:41 pm
Good read, Gel, thanks. I'm sure you'll understand if I find more parallel with the activities of The Opposition than with those of The Current Administration, however ...

To my mind, the Big Lies are:
1) Its about oil, revenge, and hegemony
2) Imminent Threat was falsely claimed
3) There was no plan
4) Its going badly

But then, that's how I see it. I sense I have more company than do those who see otherwise.

Consider this, from that paper:
Quote:
Factors To Be Considered:

* Plausibility. The testimonial must be plausible to the target audience. The esteem in which an authority is held by the target audience will not always transfer an implausible testimonial into effective propaganda.

* False testimonials. Never use false testimonials. Highly selective testimonials? Yes. Lies (fabrications)? Never. Fabricated (false) testimonials are extremely vulnerable because their lack of authenticity makes them easy to challenge and discredit.


Pretty much says it all. And I think that's the part The Dems have overlooked.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 06:58 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Good read, Gel, thanks. I'm sure you'll understand if I find more parallel with the activities of The Opposition than with those of The Current Administration, however ...

To my mind, the Big Lies are:
1) Its about oil, revenge, and hegemony
2) Imminent Threat was falsely claimed
3) There was no plan
4) Its going badly

But then, that's how I see it. I sense I have more company than do those who see otherwise.

Consider this, from that paper:
Quote:
Factors To Be Considered:

* Plausibility. The testimonial must be plausible to the target audience. The esteem in which an authority is held by the target audience will not always transfer an implausible testimonial into effective propaganda.

* False testimonials. Never use false testimonials. Highly selective testimonials? Yes. Lies (fabrications)? Never. Fabricated (false) testimonials are extremely vulnerable because their lack of authenticity makes them easy to challenge and discredit.


Pretty much says it all. And I think that's the part The Dems have overlooked.



Ineffective parry Timber ... had you found one section that would be reflected in Bush's presidency Your assertions would have the slightest validity ... as is is your's was a completely defensive post ... a parry.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 07:11 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I don't "ignore" that at all, Kara. I said I thought it pertinent to '91, not the current situation. I dispute that Iraqi insurgency has broad, or even statistically significant indiginous popular support. I do not see that what you perceive to be the current condition in fact pertains. What I see in Iraq is a desperate, determined, and increasingly pressured resistance comprised of former Regime Figures, other die-hard Ba'athists, and 3rd-Nation Jihadis and wannabees. I see a PR problem, not a military problem. I expect the next couple of months or so will see the peak and then the inevitable decline of the insurgency. I expect Iraqi internal security to increase exponentially, I expect Iraqi autonomy will grow both more rapidly and more democraticaly than many suppose will be the case, I expect the Iraqi economy to bring real opportunity to the Iraqi people ... in short, I expect this will work. It will take time, and will have both unexpected successes and unexpected setbacks, but it will succeed.


So you don't expect even one of the relatives of those murdered to harbour some resentment to the US? And what planet are you inhabiting?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 07:32 pm
Wilso, it is an absurdity to propose that no individual, even group resentments, will be formed and will persist. I see no reason to suspect Anti-US resentments, few as will hold them in comparison to Iraq's population, will be an obstacle to the successful rehabillitation of Iraq.
I'll say I see the insurgents as the murderers, especially murderous of innocents caught in crossfires between insurgents and Coalition Forces, or cut down by indiscriminate suicide bombings, BTW ... something else I'm sure you'll have trouble with. I expect the Iraqi populace will take an increasingly dim view of the insurgents as time goes on, too.

Gel, confirming the weight of point of view, I submit I see rather the opposite ... which I'm sure is no revelation.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 07:38 pm
Timber, in a situation where the insurgents are fighting foreign invaders, it is highly likely that, regardless of "who started it," Indigenous public support will always be wiht the insurgents, especially if the invading forces have been as hostile and insensitive toward the populace as the US forces have.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:11 pm
Geli: Are you sure that piece wasn't written by Newt and his Contract with America boys?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:12 pm
hbob, I doubt the "Invading Forces" have been quite so "hostile and insensitive" as you may believe. Now, no "Occupying Force" is met with unstinting approval and adulation. Hell, there are neighborhoods in major Western cities where the police are viewed with considerable resentment and are from time to time at some risk. Some folks are gonna get pissed off, and some them, fewer, but some, will even have legitimate complaint. I just don't see the real seeds of anything resembling Algeria, Vietnam, or any other high-threat, popularly supported, deep-seated, long-lasting insurgency. I don't even see the potential for a situation analogous to the Israeli/Palestinian troubles, though in the near term, its likely the insurgents will labor mightily to present an appearance suggestive of just that. I don't doubt they might have localized successes from time to time. I expect they will find the challenges facing them to be insurmountable over the longer term, though. At present, I feel that next spring/summer will show a very much more settled and equably bdeveloping Iraq.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:30 pm
Timber, I really hope that you are correct, but I instead think that you are indulging in self delusion. Sad
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:34 pm
I tihnk guessing games are futile, because nobody really knows for sure. Why don't we just wait and see what "really" happens. Arguing pros and cons at this juncture just riles emotions - IMHO, and only reinforces the partisan nature of this issue.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:37 pm
Timber, I am outraged by what you write at times I cannot believe that you can dismiss newly unwarm young bodies and be so cool about how well things are going on the ground.

It was bad enough that we went in there. But we did. And now I am willing to be pragmatic and work toward getting the job done. But the sunny outlook and dismissal of problems does not do it. If you could agree with some of the worrisome aspects of our situation there instead of glossing over the really bad issues, I would find you more credible. If you ever said Yes, but...I would listen better.

There is no way any one can be unremittingly positive about the situation in Iraq. You know that. If you could lay on some of the really big problems and put forth a few ideas that are at all workable, and then add a few little smiley bits toward the end, you would be believeable.

We need more troops on the ground. Lacking that, we need really good intelligence and more Arabists.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:38 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Timber, I really hope that you are correct, but I instead think that you are indulging in self delusion. Sad


A massive self delusion by a person who has never seen his own nation invaded, and has never seen the death and maiming of scores of his compatriots, friends and family.

8000 innocent people were MURDERED by the US. There is no-one in that country who hasn't been touched by Bush's madness.
And don't start talking about Saddam being a nutter. We all know he was, but that's not the alleged reason the war was started.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:46 pm
Wilso wrote:

A massive self delusion by a person who has never seen his own nation invaded, and has never seen the death and maiming of scores of his compatriots, friends and family.

Well..I think Timber has seen friends killed, he was apparently in Vietnam, so that bit of criticism was unfounded.

Quote:
8000 innocent people were MURDERED by the US. There is no-one in that country who hasn't been touched by Bush's madness.

But, ther is a certain mindset that admires war and sees any death but one's own as trivial.

Quote:
And don't start talking about Saddam being a nutter. We all know he was, but that's not the alleged reason the war was started.

No, but its the reason we are being fed this week. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:59 pm
Vietnam. Wasn't that another war the US started for dubious reasons-and then lost?

Once heard a quote by a Vietnamese guy. Something along the lines of "Eventually the US had to leave, but we LIVE here"!
Not that Bush is much of a history buff. I doubt he's got the IQ to tie his own shoelaces.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 09:06 pm
Kara, I am continually at odds with timber's opinions about our involvement in Iraq. I have often wondered at what point American's will consider our sacrifice in Iraq too much in lives and money. It seems many feel that this administration has done and is doing the right thing contrary to the minority of us that have spoken against this war from the very beginning. The media has been pretty good about sharing how many lives are lost, but we do not hear about the other casualties of this war - the men and women that lose their limbs or come back with other handicaps as a consequence of this war. It astounds me to no end to find the American Public's ability to agree with the changing justifications for this war from WMD's to bringing democracy to Iraq without considering the 15,000+ lives we were instrumental in killing. There is nothing more ot say, because this issue plays out on partisan lines even though I am not a liberal by any stretch. I just see the many disconnect between what htis president says and what he does - continually. During his campaign, GWBush promised to take care of our veterans, and instead took away their benefits. Even after this, he continues to tell the world that our military is doing a good job. When he goes to any military base to make a speech, the men and women of our military continue to applaud him. It's a big mystery to me.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 09:08 pm
Quote:
Even after this, he continues to tell the world that our military is doing a good job. When he goes to any military base to make a speech, the men and women of our military continue to applaud him. It's a big mystery to me.

"Now listen up, you will applaud in a military manner when the signal is given, hooah? The first dog-gone knucklehead who does something stupid will be on extra duty until he ETS's!"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 10:43 pm
Wilso, just FYI, I've far more first-hand experience of war, and its impact on freinds, family, and acquaintences than I, or any sane person, would wish to have. And while I don't deny the US became entangled in that mess stupidly, I don't agree we "lost"; we simply "lost interest", understandably so given the inept Washington-based mismanagement by micromanagement. The American military won the battles, but was denied the means and in-theater lattitude to win the war. Though embroiled in the conflict, I was no proponent of the policy.

Kara, I don't trivialize anyone's death or injury. Every single one is a tragedy, a waste, an outrage. it would be infinitely preferable that all could be avoided. Believe it or not, I grieve for the victims, and for their loved ones. I simply do not ascribe to the recent level of casualties, military and civilian, any operational significance. The "Prime Directive" of war fighting is to divorce one's self from one's emotions and to engage one's opponent in as dispassionate and ruthlessly efficient manner as is practicable within the rules of warfare. Casualties, direct and colateral, material and human, are to be minimized to the greatest extent possible consistent with the protection of one's own forces and the accomplishment of the assigned mission, usually, but inescapably not always, in that order. I do not enjoy war, I detest it. I do however know war, I have done it and I have studied it, and I understand its practice. It is by nature the very dirtiest of businesses, but if undertaken, it calls for cold, detached, cost/benefit-driven, efficient, business-like prosecution.
I reserve my condemnation to those who's intransigence and defiance compelled The US to engage them militarily, and who continue to place at risk both American lives and those of their countrymen. I regret very much that war became necessary, I had hoped it would not, but that I cannot change. It happened, and we're at war. I very much would have liked to see more emphasis placed on, and more resources allotted to civil affairs. I would have preferred a more well-thought-out interim government. I wish more effective pre-attack diplomatic groundwork had been achieved. I wish the casis beli had been more accurately presented. I wish people I know and love had not been there. There is a tremendous lot with which I am unsatisfied. None of that alters the fact that now we are there, nor does it absolve us from undertaking everything required to enable the Iraqi people to bring themselves into partnership with the world community. We owe it to them to see this through, and getting upset about it does them, now the focus of the entire matter, no good whatsoever. Regardless why we find ouselves in this situation, it is the situation in which we find ourselves. Wishing it away won't work. We've got work to do.

hbob, sometimes you're a real hoot Laughing Good one!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 10:53 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Geli: Are you sure that piece wasn't written by Newt and his Contract with America boys?


It's probably where they got it .... them boys ain't too good at original thinking .... hell they have trouble with thinking period ....overheard at one of their meeting / possum roasts 'I keep trying to think but nothing's happening!'

If you click on he link you end up on a hyper-linked page with an index. There is a reference to Newt (what the hell were his parents smoking?) and his two word list's.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:10 am
War became necesseary?
Quote:
I regret very much that war became necessary, I had hoped it would not, but that I cannot change.
timberlake

A few million people don't think so. Rolling Eyes

Explain why war was necessesary.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:17 am
War was only "neccesarry" for those who wanted a war. Yes, I said "wanted" as in desired, wished for, etc....
This was in no way a "defensive" war. It is in no way, shape, or form anything but a blatant act of imperialist aggresion by the US.
"We have to stay the course" is frequently heard. yes, I agree that to just leave would drop Iraq into further chaos. But we should all, as Americans (and the English should also keep this in mind) that the deaths of "coalition" troops are all the sole fault of the US government. This was and is a war of CHOICE. It is an act of evil perpetrated by a leader who claims to have been "chosen by God." It makes my gorge rise!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:55 am
The question of the necessity or lack thereof has been hammered into rigid, no longer maleable ideologic icons, an unfortunate state of polarization which renders pointless any further laboring of the points of either position. There are those who hold there to have been clear, compelling, self evident arguments for, and those who subscribe just as strongly to arguments against. Given that neither side will accept as valid the arguments of the other side, and that Iraq has been invaded and Saddam and his regime toppled, pursuing the arguments is simply silly diversion. Even were a resolution one way or the other somehow achievable, there remains the very real and critical, urgent matter of seeing to the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people. The ongoing political posturing does not, will not, and can not serve them in any way. They are what matters, not why or how or by whom they came to their present condition.

And some folks will be far too committed to partisanship ever to carry that into their own personal equations.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 05:00:54