The next big thing: patronize Iraqis and call them children

"struck"?

I know what you mean, and you say it well.

0 Replies

aqu and soz...have you read Alterman's "what liberal media"? If not, you really oughta.

It seems to me that these sorts of complaints (carping leftist media) have a pretty clear precedent back during the Nixon administration (Safire's famous 'nattering nabobs of negativism', etc). And we can draw a pretty straight line up through Reagan and Bush 1 as well. The more secretive and deceitful an administration is, the more likely they are going to hate a free press.

But I think we err if we hold only Republican adminstrations guilty of this sort of rhetoric. Both Clinton and LBJ, at least occasionaly, bemoaned the 'liberal press' as well. As did my liberal Canadian hero, a few times, Pierre Trudeau.

If a press is doing its job, I think it is bound to be hated to some degree. Two of the worst indictments against Fox recently have been statements from Cheney and Ralph Reed that Fox is the most fair and factual in its coverage. ALARUM!

Alterman's book is so valuable because of it's analysis not of the Republican party, but rather of the complimentary organizations and individuals functioning as operatives for conservative ideas and politicians. It is from this corner (make that plural, corners) that so much of the 'liberal media' charges have originated. It's been a well organized and astoundingly well-funded group of operations. The thing is, even if Bush is defeated, an increasing liklihood, these operations will continue from day one. Here's a quote from Grover Norquist which hints at what we ought to expect...

Quote:

If after the election Kerry is president but the Republicans control the House and Senate we can stop him from getting anybody on the Supreme Court, we won't let him raise taxes. No part of the Republican coalition would be damaged or destroyed by a Kerry victory. But with another four years of Bush, labor unions will decline further. We'll get tort reform which will cost the trial lawyers millions and millions. We'll be reducing government employment, which will hurt the public employees unions. There's no opportunity for a united Democratic government [i.e., control of all three branches of government]. There is an opportunity for a united Republican government. So the Democrats are playing for higher stakes than we are, and this is very dangerous for Republicans.

That's from a very worthwhile piece, by the way...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17176

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Craven said: "I happen to think the war went well, the occupation is going well and I have high hopes for a very remarkable transition into Iraqi democracy."

By gum, I so hope you are right.

Be interested in your reasons for this analysis - I am not disputing it, especially, but I am not so sanguine - but your research is usually way better than mine.

It's just a matter of perspective, some will always see it in a negative light because they can't divorce their feelings about the war from their accessment of its progression.

Truth to tell, as far as invading nations and toppling governments go this one's going damn well.

0 Replies

Craven, You're probably right if we can overlook the fact that we killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis, lost almost 800 of our soldiers, and spent upwards of 200 billion from our treasury. I'm just wondering which country will welcome us next to topple their government with the full support of the American People?

0 Replies

c.i.

I overlooked none of those items. Again, it's a matter of perspective.

0 Replies

If your perspective is to ignore facts, I completely undersand why you would say things are going well.

Ask yourself if you ever thought we would be unable to control certain areas of the country. After all, our military might is vastly superior, is it not? Yet things are still going well.

You cannot impose democracy upon those who do not wish it, and you cannot call the proposed Iraqi gov't a democracy anyways, it lacks any real power.

Gore's speech today brought up an excellent point, when he quotes:

Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he sees in Iraq to the Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother: "I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that ... from happening again. " Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

We are winning the battles but losing the war.

http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If your perspective is to ignore facts, I completely undersand why you would say things are going well.

My perspective is not to ignore facts and I have not done so. You and ci seem to think so merely on the basis of my not sharing your opinion on the appropariate adjectives to use to describe the war's progress.

Quote:

Ask yourself if you ever thought we would be unable to control certain areas of the country. After all, our military might is vastly superior, is it not? Yet things are still going well.

I'm not sure that this makes any sense, but if it does and I am missing it please clarify.

Quote:

You cannot impose democracy upon those who do not wish it, and you cannot call the proposed Iraqi gov't a democracy anyways, it lacks any real power.

Who are you addressing now? I've said nothing of the sort.

Quote:

Gore's speech today brought up an excellent point, when he quotes:

Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, compared what he sees in Iraq to the Vietnam War, in which he lost his brother: "I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that ... from happening again. " Noting that Vietnam featured a pattern of winning battles while losing the war, Hughes added "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

I disagree, I think the comparisons to Vietnam are misplaced.

In that the purpose of the war was dubitous there are similarities.

In that there are pockets of guerilla warfare there are small similarities.

But in the major characteristics (winning vs. losing time, scale) the comparison is flawed.

Quote:

We are winning the battles but losing the war.

One bush in the hand is worth 2 birds with one stone. < I can type clichés too (though less adroitly).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Craven said: "I happen to think the war went well, the occupation is going well and I have high hopes for a very remarkable transition into Iraqi democracy."

By gum, I so hope you are right.

Be interested in your reasons for this analysis - I am not disputing it, especially, but I am not so sanguine - but your research is usually way better than mine.

It's just a matter of perspective, some will always see it in a negative light because they can't divorce their feelings about the war from their accessment of its progression.

Truth to tell, as far as invading nations and toppling governments go this one's going damn well.

Actually - I don't have a particularly strong perspective on how the post-war stuff is going - that is why I was inerested in the reasons for yours, cos you obviously do.

I guess my concerns are around the strength of differing agenda for the country between different groups, and concerns about ongoing major conflict between groups of Iraqis, and the Kurds - and whether this, and the ongoing terror campaign, will de-stabilize any government that is established. By murdering them, for instance.

Despite my beliefs about the war, I wish the US and Britain and the UN nothing but good in helping to establish a reasonable government.

0 Replies

Hmm. On review that wasn't very clear at all, let me try again.

At the end of major combat in Iraq, things WERE going pretty well. Troops weren't dying anymore, there were no organized insurgents, things were relatively stable.

As time went on, the situation has gotten worse and worse. Casualties began to mount as dissatisfaction with the politics and reality of an occupied Iraq had a real world affect on American soldiers. Eventually we lost control of entire cities, top Iraqi officials can be blown up in terrorist attacks, the casualties mount more, resentment mounts more. While it is easy for us to sit here and debate the points of this war, the Iraqi only sees his brother, killed by an american bullet. He doesn't resort to philosophy to figure out what's right in this situation. And there are thousands who have gone through that.

Clearly, when the situation in Iraq was much more stable in the past than it is today, things are not going well. Something was screwed up along the way. I'm not here to assign blame (there are different threads for that particular brand of vitiriol, lol) but to say that we must work to reverse the mistakes we have made. Hell, our hand-picked future leader has been accused of being an Iranian spy, and stole something like 70 million in a bank scandal. Clearly something is very wrong here.

I don't believe that you can look at the situation objectively and say things are going well. It will take major change on our part in order to salvage this situation.

At some point as well you have to start looking at the cost of the war, and factor that into your equation on whether or not things are going well. At what percentage point of our GNP are we spending too much money on this occupation?

Quote:

In that there are pockets of guerilla warfare there are small similarities.

But in the major characteristics (winning vs. losing time, scale) the comparison is flawed.

I suppose you could argue degrees of scale. But as my grandmother used to say, once bitten - twice shy. The internet, modern communication and the modern political system allow a greater awareness of the situation. Perhaps if more people had been aware of just how bad things were in Vietnam, it wouldn't have lasted so long.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You guys are missing Craven's point I think.

At no time in history has an entire country been taken over and the existing government been deposed in, what was it, 8 days? The number of casualties taken by the invaders is extremely low for such a military endeavor.

Get your mind off the politics of the war and look objectively at the numbers, time, and changes that have been made in Iraq and you will see that the invasion and take over of Iraq was stupendously successful.

At least that's what I think Craven was saying.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You guys are missing Craven's point I think.

At no time in history has an entire country been taken over and the existing government been deposed in, what was it, 8 days? The number of casualties taken by the invaders is extremely low for such a military endeavor.

Get your mind off the politics of the war and look objectively at the numbers, time, and changes that have been made in Iraq and you will see that the invasion and take over of Iraq was stupendously successful.

At least that's what I think Craven was saying.

Yes, using the measurement of decimating a country, blowing it to ****, killing thousands and laying it to waste, it was a very sucessful war. Congratulations to you and the murderers who ordered it. Because they were after a murderer of course justifies the murder of others.

What makes an American murderer okay and an Iraqi murderer not? I'm curious.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
You guys are missing Craven's point I think.

At no time in history has an entire country been taken over and the existing government been deposed in, what was it, 8 days? The number of casualties taken by the invaders is extremely low for such a military endeavor.

Get your mind off the politics of the war and look objectively at the numbers, time, and changes that have been made in Iraq and you will see that the invasion and take over of Iraq was stupendously successful.

At least that's what I think Craven was saying.

Yes, using the measurement of decimating a country, blowing it to ****, killing thousands and laying it to waste, it was a very sucessful war. Congratulations to you and the murderers who ordered it. Because they were after a murderer of course justifies the murder of others.

What makes an American murderer okay and an Iraqi murderer not? I'm curious.

I would love to hear some of your fishing stories. You must catch fish that are 12 feet long and weigh 8 tons the way you exagerrate.

0 Replies

So you can't or won't answer my question. How very typical and modeled after your heroes.

0 Replies

"What makes an American murderer okay and an Iraqi murderer not? I'm curious."

Your question taken at face value:

Nothing makes an american murderer okay. That why police investigate murders and place murderers behind bars.

Your question taken as it was implied:

American soldiers killing Iraqi's during a war is not murder. Never has been and never will be. Laws were made for this as death is often a result of war. Deal with it.

0 Replies

I don't speak of the soldiers as you are well aware. I speak of the people who cause them to be sent there for no reason except expansion and profit. And please spare me the "freeing the people from a tyrant" routine. There are many tyrants and it's odd that bushinc. cherry picked this particular one under the guise of their connection to 9/11 which is proving to be bullshit.

I really wish you could have had or could get the opportunity to experience close up combat. You have such a hard on for it.

0 Replies

The capture and the taking down of regime went well in terms of loss of life and the destruction of property. The aftermath has not gone well despite some successes (I am assuming since we have been told) in the rebuilding of schools and hospitals; simply because the occupying force has failed to secure the country it is occupying for whatever reason. It started with the looting and has gone downhill ever since.

I keep hearing, to words of the effect, that "we are trying to teach the Iraqi's to defend their own country". That to me seems a cop out because rightly or wrongly we took out all their police and their government when we overtook the country. It is therefore up to us to secure the country from the start after the success of the war so that the Iraqi's could at some point be in a position to form their own way of securing their own country. That is not treating them like children but stating reality. We failed at our first responsiblity in overtaking the country.

I think it can be summed up with nine words. The war was a success; the occupation is not.

Islam by it's very nature is not really democratic in the sense that westerners think of the term democratic. If the Iraqi's, and they say they do, want to rule their nation by Islam then it is not going to be democratic unless their saying they want to rule by Islam is merely symbolic.

Furthermore, when you have such differently held views of people all competing for their views to be ones that the country is ruled by it is going to be a mess for a long time to come unless someone or all gives in and compromise. That takes a lot of talk and diplacacy rather than bloodshed. The Bush administration failed at the diplomacy end of getting those different groups to compromise and instead just hand picked certain groups to represent those groups and just expected that it would all fall into place because it is in their own best interest.

Just look at how long Palestine and Israel has basically been fighting about the same things? When you have people that deeply ideologically believe in certain things, it is not that easy to just snap your fingers and change things. That is what the "left" meant when they (we) said that the Iraqi's are not ready for democracy, it is not treating like children but merely facing the reality on the ground which is often different than ideas on paper.

Lastly, it is just seems presumptious on our part to advise others on how to live as those we have all the answers. I also think the Bush administration could care or less if Iraq is democratic or not, they just want to stable the middle east for our own ends and are saying anything to justify it.

0 Replies

expansion and profit? Please.

0 Replies

When I said that Islam by its very nature is not democratic, I should have added neither is Christianity or judaism. Which is why I am glad that we live in a country that is not ruled by religion. However, I don't think it is our place to tell other countries how to run their own country.

0 Replies

You are right BPB. There are many tyrants worthy of being eliminated. So why did Bush pick this one? Could it be that there was a justification for doing so in this case? You may not agree with the justification, but at the time a lot of people did, including those in Congress who are so quick to try to backpeddle now.

A question you seem to imply is why we don't take out other tyrants. I think that is really rather simple. Because they have not given us sufficient cause to justify sending our military into another sovereign nation. Iraq did. Or at least the case was made to Congress that they did.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You guys are missing Craven's point I think.

At no time in history has an entire country been taken over and the existing government been deposed in, what was it, 8 days? The number of casualties taken by the invaders is extremely low for such a military endeavor.

Get your mind off the politics of the war and look objectively at the numbers, time, and changes that have been made in Iraq and you will see that the invasion and take over of Iraq was stupendously successful.

At least that's what I think Craven was saying.

I think some military historians might argue the first paragraph there, for example, noting the two day annexation of Austria by Hitler with little in the way of bullets flying, etc.

Craven's claim seems more a corrective to cliched comments about the war or to what he sees as a common trumping of bias over objective fact.

But how does one define 'success' here? That the initial military campaign moved quickly, ousting a government apparatus is factual. But taking into account the disparity in armies, that was not something unexpected, nor something that I think likely to impress military historians much (though I may be wrong on that last point).

If we define 'success' as achieving a campaign's intentions, or its desired or stated goals, then it's hard to consider this campaign successful. As always, one can point to bright spots in any situation, but in this situation I see no reason to do much of that other than in what I assume craven to be doing here.

But that's all old stuff in a sense. The more interesting corner of this thread to me is what Craven perceived and talked about in the original post. It's a subtle and compelling understanding, and Craven spotted this long before I did. There are a lot of bright people kicking around this site, but I'm going to take this opportunity to tell Craven that his combination of gifts is rare. I hope the future allows full expression of them. Whatever the hell you get up to, the folks around you will be unusually fortunate.

0 Replies

The next big thing: patronize Iraqis and call them children

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know