Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting there is any effort to imply -- by any of the Iraq War supporters participating in this thread -- that war is not violent and ugly, or that members of the US military are not capable of atrocities?

Nope. That's not it at all. I'm speaking about passages like this (sorry Fox, it's really not personal):

Quote:

But then we saw the tattered infrastructure, the malnourished children, and a people who had been so long terrorized and brutalized that they were no longer able to help themselves. And we rolled up our sleeves and went to work to help them. We witnessed first hand the tragic results of the UN sanctions and saw how inhumane it would have been to have continued them. They want personal freedoms and democracy and all the good things of life that we in the free world enjoy.

In the absence of Saddam who was no better than the terrorists, the terrorists set about to put the people under the thumb of the law of Sharia and that meant they could not be allowed to direct their own lives or have personal freedoms. And as it quickly became apparent that any form of democracy in Iraq was infectious and would likely catch on elsewhere, the terrorists converged on Iraq to prevent it from happening. That coupled with the vicious militant groups within Iraq, each abandoning the idea of a free nation in favor of attempts to grab the power for themselves, and you have the viciousness of terrorism demonstrated by outside terrorists aided and abetted by a relatively small number of homegrown terrorists.

Sorry, but that's just so over the top I can hardly read it. And the bits about everything that's wrong in Iraq being because of those evil insurgents/terrorists. (That's from McG mostly.) And how was the poor, well-meaning US of A supposed to know that these big bad men would come and try to ruin democracy for everyone? And when the big bad men aren't trying to kill freedom, it's those stupid backwards Iraqis who don't know how to preserve their own culture.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I meant the viewpoint you hold on the "propaganda" issue. The presentation of ideas on these fora that you consider to be propaganda -- worthy of your contempt -- and what you don't consider to be propaganda.

I think I already indicated that I can see it on the "other side". Also, I can see how someone might react to the implication that showing a soldier doing a good thing is, of itself, propaganda.

Ticomaya wrote:

And I note my question to you remains unanswered.

Ticomaya wrote:

So tell me .... what type of photos of US servicemen would you find "acceptable" for publication at A2K? Photos of them being injured by IEDs? Videos of them being targeted by sniper attack? Images of them eating Iraqi babies for dinner?

It was a false and snide non sequitur, and so got ignored.

The difference between you and me, Duck, is that I read a lot of the blogs put out there by the men and women serving in Iraq. And I have a fair number of my family who have been over there and are going back. I have posted link after link after link of sites SHOWING what our men and women are doing on behalf of the Iraqi people.

You are trying to be more reasonable than some here, but your words are no better in that you just don't want to believe that our efforts in Iraq are more humanitarian than combat.

Once you (generic you) acknowledge that, you have to look at the war differently. And some just flat don't want to see it any differently because they want us to be the bad guys.

You used the term yourself - USA good - everybody else bad. Nobody on our side has ever suggested that. And in my view, THAT is what is over the top to justify showing only the bad and the ugly as an alternative.

If you can defend the sanctions in the face of what we now know, knock yourself out. I would be interested in seeing you try.

If you can show how the USA is not rebuilding or building from scratch the hospitals and schools and power grids and water supplies for the Iraqi people--infrastructure that we didn't destroy but which Saddam destroyed or allowed to disintegrate or never provided in the first place--have at it. I don't know how you do that against all the very credible evidence to the contrary however.

If you can look at all those tens of thousands of pictures of our men and women in uniform interacting with the Iraqi people, children, the old, the sick, the frightened, and the despairing, and the grateful, and then tell me that these are not worthy of commendation, you are no better than McTag.

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I meant the viewpoint you hold on the "propaganda" issue. The presentation of ideas on these fora that you consider to be propaganda -- worthy of your contempt -- and what you don't consider to be propaganda.

I think I already indicated that I can see it on the "other side". Also, I can see how someone might react to the implication that showing a soldier doing a good thing is, of itself, propaganda.

I don't follow this reasoning at all. I think only the most hateful would not WANT to see soldiers doing good things.

I think you prefer to see pictures of US military holding guns, not babies. Such images square with your vision of the proper "look" of an American serviceman. And I think that says more about you than it does me.

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference between you and me, Duck, is that I read a lot of the blogs put out there by the men and women serving in Iraq. And I have a fair number of my family who have been over there and are going back. I have posted link after link after link of sites SHOWING what our men and women are doing on behalf of the Iraqi people.

There are quite a few differences between you and me.

Quote:

You are trying to be more reasonable than some here, but your words are no better in that you just don't want to believe that our efforts in Iraq are more humanitarian than combat.

Why would I want to believe something that is so contrary to the very nature of war? We do have A humanitarian mission in that we need stability and we need infrastructure in order to get it. But it is not THE mission nor was it the reason we started the war nor does it negate our responsibility for at least some of the damage.

Quote:

Once you (generic you) acknowledge that, you have to look at the war differently. And some just flat don't want to see it any differently because they want us to be the bad guys.

And you want us to be the good guys. So who's right?

Quote:

You used the term yourself - USA good - everybody else bad. Nobody on our side has ever suggested that. And in my view, THAT is what is over the top to justify showing only the bad and the ugly as an alternative.

No body has suggested that the US is all bad either, but you certainly paint it that way.

Quote:

If you can defend the sanctions in the face of what we now know, knock yourself out. I would be interested in seeing you try.

Why on earth would I ever want to defend the sanctions? They were a humanitarian disaster. Will you accept, though, that we were the ones who introduced them? Can we accept our responsibility for that without being America-haters?

Quote:

If you can show how the USA is not rebuilding or building from scratch the hospitals and schools and power grids and water supplies for the Iraqi people--infrastructure that we didn't destroy but which Saddam destroyed or allowed to disintegrate or never provided in the first place--have at it. I don't know how you do that against all the very credible evidence to the contrary however.

I haven't furthered that argument so you're wasting your time.

Quote:

If you can look at all those tens of thousands of pictures of our men and women in uniform interacting with the Iraqi people, children, the old, the sick, the frightened, and the despairing, and the grateful, and then tell me that these are not worthy of commendation, you are no better than McTag.

Well, I happen to think McTag is pretty alright so you're not giving me much of an insult here. But again, you're constructing a strawman that I'm not in the mood to dignify.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I meant the viewpoint you hold on the "propaganda" issue. The presentation of ideas on these fora that you consider to be propaganda -- worthy of your contempt -- and what you don't consider to be propaganda.

I think I already indicated that I can see it on the "other side". Also, I can see how someone might react to the implication that showing a soldier doing a good thing is, of itself, propaganda.

I don't follow this reasoning at all. I think only the most hateful would not WANT to see soldiers doing good things.

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

Quote:

Quote:

Once you (generic you) acknowledge that, you have to look at the war differently. And some just flat don't want to see it any differently because they want us to be the bad guys.

And you want us to be the good guys. So who's right?

Now come on. Who has the better case for being right (or the good guys)? The USA? Or the terrorists? I really would like for you to answer that one straight up.

Please point out any place where OE or McTag or Walter or you or any of the anti-war crowd have commended the US military in the last....say.....five days. Please point out all the instances that the U.S. military has been criticized or depicted in damning ways. And then show me where there is suggestion or implication that the US (or its military) is good in any way.

Quote:

Why on earth would I ever want to defend the sanctions? They were a humanitarian disaster. Will you accept, though, that we were the ones who introduced them? Can we accept our responsibility for that without being America-haters?

Can you provide a reasonable alternative in face of the U.N.--get that--U.N. not USA--sanctions? Please provide your alternative or what you would have suggested in lieu of the sanctions and/or their removal via invasion.

Quote:

I haven't furthered that argument so you're wasting your time.

You sure said it was over the top to bring it up. And you're certainly suggesting that it is us who has made at least some of it necessary. So I think it is a fair request.

Hey you're the one who said it could be seen as propaganda. Not me. See your following comment. No straw man at all. And if you agree with McTag's viewpoint on this issue, can we use his statements as illustrations of what you think?

You sure haven't said it is a good thing to show a soldier doing a good thing and, while you said you don't have much of a problem with it, you sure haven't given any indication that you disagree with those who appear to agree with condemning that. Again, I think only the most hateful would not WANT to see soldiers doing good things.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Once you (generic you) acknowledge that, you have to look at the war differently. And some just flat don't want to see it any differently because they want us to be the bad guys.

And you want us to be the good guys. So who's right?

Now come on. Who has the better case for being right (or the good guys)? The USA? Or the terrorists? I really would like for you to answer that one straight up.

Of course you would like me to answer it. When all else fails, paint your opponent into a corner by offering them a choice between the USA and terrorists. Well gyolly, Sergeant Carter!

Quote:

Please point out any place where OE or McTag or Walter or you or any of the anti-war crowd have commended the US military in the last....say.....five days. Please point out all the instances that the U.S. military has been criticized or depicted in damning ways. And then show me where there is suggestion or implication that the US (or its military) is good in any way.

No.

Quote:

Quote:

Why on earth would I ever want to defend the sanctions? They were a humanitarian disaster. Will you accept, though, that we were the ones who introduced them? Can we accept our responsibility for that without being America-haters?

Can you provide a reasonable alternative in face of the U.N.--get that--U.N. not USA--sanctions? Please provide your alternative or what you would have suggested in lieu of the sanctions and/or their removal via invasion.

Can I provide any alternative to UN Sanctions besides UN Sanctions? I really don't follow you here. Can you accept that the sanctions were our brainchild in the first place? Can you accept that we have responsibility for that?

Quote:

Quote:

I haven't furthered that argument so you're wasting your time.

You sure said it was over the top to bring it up. And you're certainly suggesting that it is us who has made at least some of it necessary. So I think it is a fair request.

I disagree. I don't think you understand what it was that I was calling over the top.

Quote:

Hey you're the one who said it could be seen as propaganda. Not me. See your following comment. No straw man at all. And if you agree with McTag's viewpoint on this issue, can we use his statements as illustrations of what you think?

Fox, you clearly misunderstood what I said. I did not agree with McTag's viewpoint and in fact said that I understood the reaction to his assumption that it was propaganda.

Quote:

You sure haven't said it is a good thing to show a soldier doing a good thing and, while you said you don't have much of a problem with it, you sure haven't given any indication that you disagree with those who appear to agree with condemning that. Again, I think only the most hateful would not WANT to see soldiers doing good things.

I think you have a rather warped sense of things. I have said that I don't think showing the picture is, in itself, propaganda. In fact, my post directly after the picture was "sweet". I found the picture endearing. There is more than one way to say that without putting on my pom poms and shouting "go team go! yay team!"

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And I note my question to you remains unanswered.

Ticomaya wrote:

So tell me .... what type of photos of US servicemen would you find "acceptable" for publication at A2K? Photos of them being injured by IEDs? Videos of them being targeted by sniper attack? Images of them eating Iraqi babies for dinner?

It was a false and snide non sequitur, and so got ignored.

How is it a non sequitur? You indicate posting that particular photo of a US serviceman, when posted by McG, was propaganda .... which begs the question: What photo of a US serviceman would you find acceptable?

You might not have appreciated the suggested answers I provided -- and I can understand why -- but you must know I think you prefer to see pictures of US military holding guns, not babies. Such images square with your vision of the proper "look" of an American serviceman. And I think that says more about you than it does me.

And how should I take your nonanswers?

But when somebody objects to a legitimate question that can easily be answered with a yes or no or by picking a side or responding "neither" or "I don't know" with or without explanation or rationale, I figure that person knows his/her answer to it would be damning or embarrassing. Ditto when a different (i.e. easier) question is answered than the one asked.

Foxfyre wrote:

But when somebody objects to a legitimate question that can easily be answered with a yes or no or by picking a side or responding "neither" or "I don't know" with or without explanation or rationale, I figure that person knows his/her answer to it would be damning or embarrassing. Ditto when a different (i.e. easier) question is answered than the one asked.

I've got one for you, then!

<raises>

Foxy, are you with the terrorists or with those soldiers that torture, rape or kill innocent civilians?

Foxfyre wrote:

But when somebody objects to a legitimate question that can easily be answered with a yes or no or by picking a side or responding "neither" or "I don't know" with or without explanation or rationale, I figure that person knows his/her answer to it would be damning or embarrassing. Ditto when a different (i.e. easier) question is answered than the one asked.

I've got one for you, then!

<raises>

Foxy, are you with the terrorists or with those soldiers that torture, rape or kill innocent civilians?

FreeDuck wrote:

And how should I take your nonanswers?

I don't generally deal in non answers except for smarmy questions from obvous trolls or those that are introduced as bait to 'justify' a personal attack. Those I try hard to scroll right on past unless they leave me an opening that is just too delicious to resist.

But when somebody objects to a legitimate question that can easily be answered with a yes or no or by picking a side or responding "neither" or "I don't know" with or without explanation or rationale, I figure that person knows his/her answer to it would be damning or embarrassing. Ditto when a different (i.e. easier) question is answered than the one asked.

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

And how should I take your nonanswers?

I don't generally deal in non answers except for smarmy questions from obvous trolls or those that are introduced as bait to 'justify' a personal attack. Those I try hard to scroll right on past unless they leave me an opening that is just too delicious to resist.

But when somebody objects to a legitimate question that can easily be answered with a yes or no or by picking a side or responding "neither" or "I don't know" with or without explanation or rationale, I figure that person knows his/her answer to it would be damning or embarrassing. Ditto when a different (i.e. easier) question is answered than the one asked.

I asked you quite a few questions that you didn't answer -- some in that last post. Your response to them was to in turn ask me loaded (and somewhat irrelevant) questions that would have put me in the position of defending arguments I haven't espoused. I won't take the bait, and I won't accept your assumptions about my reasons for not taking the bait. If it makes you feel better to believe that, then more power to you.

Quote:

Once you (generic you) acknowledge that, you have to look at the war differently. And some just flat don't want to see it any differently because they want us to be the bad guys.

And you want us to be the good guys. So who's right?

Why on earth would I ever want to defend the sanctions? They were a humanitarian disaster. Will you accept, though, that we were the ones who introduced them? Can we accept our responsibility for that without being America-haters?

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:

Once you (generic you) acknowledge that, you have to look at the war differently. And some just flat don't want to see it any differently because they want us to be the bad guys.

And you want us to be the good guys. So who's right?

Here, I wasn't asking who's right between the US and terrorists, but who is right between you and those you are arguing with who you believe are refusing to see any good in the US' involvement in Iraq. I don't see a difference between believing the US can do no wrong and believing the US can do no right. So I suppose that was a bit of a rhetorical question, but you understand now why I wouldn't answer the question you posed in response.

Quote:

Why on earth would I ever want to defend the sanctions? They were a humanitarian disaster. Will you accept, though, that we were the ones who introduced them? Can we accept our responsibility for that without being America-haters?

This one I'd still like to know your answer to.

That's quite sufficient. Now which of yours did you want me to answer -- a non wife-beater question, preferably.

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And I note my question to you remains unanswered.

Ticomaya wrote:

So tell me .... what type of photos of US servicemen would you find "acceptable" for publication at A2K? Photos of them being injured by IEDs? Videos of them being targeted by sniper attack? Images of them eating Iraqi babies for dinner?

It was a false and snide non sequitur, and so got ignored.

How is it a non sequitur? You indicate posting that particular photo of a US serviceman, when posted by McG, was propaganda .... which begs the question: What photo of a US serviceman would you find acceptable?

You might not have appreciated the suggested answers I provided -- and I can understand why -- but you must know I think you prefer to see pictures of US military holding guns, not babies. Such images square with your vision of the proper "look" of an American serviceman. And I think that says more about you than it does me.

This is just sillier than normal.

We're talking about policy here, and you want to talk about picture selection.

My original complaint was about McG, a more-rabid-than-normal hawk, who so far in the last three years has had no problems with the idea of bombings and shellings in Iraq, with huge collateral damage, shamelessly posting a feel-good picture using an injured child.

For that I called him a hypocritical twisted arsehole; and if you want to associate with this description having so fulsomely supported him, that is your choice.

Okay I am phrasing it with the qualifiers as I did to OE:
Do you see the USA as the bad guys in Iraq? Do you see the terrorists as the bad guys? Neither? Either? Is there a proportion of badness you would assign to one more than the other? Or you don't know? Do you resent showing good things the military is doing and representing that as the norm?