John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has a fantastic poster up from WWII. Man, I’d love some kick-ass political propaganda to get everyone riled about fighting our maniacal enemy. He says:
Under far more difficult circumstances than we face today, against a much tougher enemy, with well more than a hundred times the lives lost, they persevered, preserved this nation’s freedom, destroyed our enemies, and paid the Japanese back in blood more than a hundred fold for what was done to our nation at Pearl Harbor. For that, even a thousand years from now, Americans will still be thanking them for their sacrifices, courage, wisdom, and determination.
He brings up an excellent point. On the cover of Newsweek is a demented picture of Moqtada al-Sadr–the yellow-toothed, corpulent nut who has his own brigade. That fat little troll needs to be wiped off the map.
It’s when Americans see stumpy thugs like this that anger at the war effort gets stoked. If we can’t win against that guy, what the hell is wrong with us? The President and Generals at the top need to kick out the embedded reporters, black out the media for a week and go on a search and destroy mission. On the other side of a week, I would expect an obsequious Iraqi populace.
That would be a nice place to start. Then we can “dialogue.”
The Sunnis will never control Iraq again; the best they can hope for is the success of the American plan to create a stable, peaceful, power-sharing and federalist Iraq in which they have, yes, a disproportionate amount of power, but not the total control they once had.
That’s their best option. The other option—the one they may finally have brought to fruition—is to have no power at all, and to be driven out of the cities into the barren (and oil-free) wastelands of the western deserts, to live out their lives in misery and privation, and to occasionally have these sad lives cut short by Shi’ite gangs raiding villages and killing them by the dozens.
It’s time to use that fact to our advantage. It’s time to get “realistic.” And the realistic way to settle this is to announce—couched in diplomatic language that makes it seem less vicious than it actually is—that unless the Sunnis disarm immediately, and before the Shi’ite militas do, the US can no longer justify the cost in lives to protect the Sunnis from Shi’ite militas. Compliant Sunni areas that give up or drive out their Al Qaeda or Ba’athists terrorists will have US/coaltion garrisons to defend them, and vigorous patrolling to protect them from murder.
Areas which do not comply will be left to the tender mercies of the law of superior firepower.
Amen melissa AMEN!
Indeed! And speaking of covers, this one from today’s New York Post is relevant and an instant classic.
Pablo,
I love that. It is such a hilarious caricature, I didn’t think it was real. It is.
*sigh*… Maybe it’s time to strike up the old Crosby, Stills and Nash song:
Don’t let the past
Remind us of what
We are not now…
This iraqi democracy is proving the be quite a tough thing to control. It’s almost as if those iraqis don’t have our interests in mind.
Actus,
I don’t give a flip if they have our interests in mind or not. I care if we have our interests in mind. A well place kick in the fanny can help the recalcitrant Iraq citizens and leaders (many are very happy to have an American ally) remember that our interests converge.
::sigh::
Yes, Melissa. We know we can do that. If we didn’t have Germany and Japan post-WWII to look at, we could always cite Cyrus, or Philip of Macedon, or any of a dozen or so Romans. Or any number of Islamic conquerors, even. It’s definitely possible to convert any given nation/group/association, provided that you’re forceful enough about it.
But this—well, consider it the flip side of precision munitions. During WWII we firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, did “carpet bombing” of a large number of places, and nuked a couple of cities. The result was that, yes, the victims were, ah, receptive to our efforts afterwards. But there were a huge number of people, the ones who did the bombing etc., who found themselves with a bad taste in their mouths afterward.
One of the results of that was technical. The scientists and engineers decided that if they could manage it such measures wouldn’t be necessary again, so they set out on a multibillion dollar, multidecade effort to make our weapons and munitions as accurate as possible, the idea being that we could blow things up that needed blowing up without, e.g., requiring Kurt Vonnegut to carry corpses to mass graves. That effort has been quite successful.
The other result was that we have been trying hard to come up with a way to accomplish the modifications without such extreme measures, because the “extreme measures” are hard on the kiddies and their moms, among others (a place where the lefties have the right idea but the wrong emphasis.) That effort hasn’t been quite so successful. About all we’ve really discovered is that it can’t be done if only one side is permitted to use propaganda, especially if the side not so privileged is us.
Fuck you, actus. Nobody, least of all Bush and Rumsfeld, expected that Iraqis had American interests at heart. They did sort of expect them to have their own interests at heart. If the stupid Sunni had just been willing to lay low and dissemble for nine months to a year, the followers of Sistani would have carried the day and the Americans would be gone already, except for a rump that could be ignored when the AKs came out of the closet. Instead they had to insist on their privileges to gas Kurds and massacre Shia in the face of Americans telling them not to.
Muqtada al Sadr is a disgusting little turd who is too stupid to realize what he’s doing—this is a guy who flunked Imam 101, for Allah’s sake! He gained power solely and only because he was advocating violent sanctions against the Sunni when the Americans and Sistani-ites were promoting tolerance and the stupid Sunni wouldn’t let go. Not all of them, but enough—and enough more who tolerated the intransigents and “Mooreonite Men” when they should have either turned them in or shot them down like dogs.
I don’t think we ought to withdraw. I still think there’s a chance of pulling it off, especially since the Iraq Surrender Group has provided cover for the DNC to marginalize the moonbats and propose a new, New, ALL-NEW! GENUINE, UNADULTERATED DEMOCRATIC STAY-THE-COURSE PLAN! Low Cost! Low Cholesterol! Containing No Trans Fats, and Warranted 99.44% Free of Republican Cooties! But if we are going to withdraw, I think we should Just. Do. It.—and leave all our smallarms, up to say 40mm mortars, behind, evenly divided between Sadr and the Kurds. When the Sunni protest we shouldn’t even say “Fuck you,” just shake our heads, smile slightly, and slope off down the boozer.
Regards,
Ric
They’re gonna love us. Like it or not. And we only do it cuz we love them so much. Its oprah-fucking-book club or something.
When it comes to al-Sadr, “dialogue” = 7.62mm
Heck, I’ll settle for .45!
Oprah is into pornography? Who knew?
TW: see83. NO!!!!!!!!!!
Either that or she’s a bibliopervert.
Charming, isn’t it? We call it actuse because it’s grasp of English and meaning and perspective is so beautiful to behold. We think it may even be human.
No, JeffS. That will make things worse.
Consider, if you will, the world from the POV of a poor Shia of Baghdad. He has little or no access to world news or information; he doesn’t know we exist, for instance. What he knows he gets from al Jazeera and AFP, and from AP and CNN—and not from the sanitized versions of those we see, but the full-bore, Saudi-approved, all-Waha’ab-all-the-time edition peddled around Arabia. And what does he learn from them?
–that the people who have been torturing, multilating, and murdering him and his neighbors for the past three decades are Heroes of the Resistance, Gentle Patriots forced to extreme measures by external forces. Since a good chunk of the “resistance” involves further death and destruction in his neck of the woods, it doesn’t leave a really nice impression.
Consider, for instance, the events at Abu Ghraib from his perspective. It is doubtful that there is a Shia resident of Baghdad who has not had a zeroth or first degree relation—himself, father, brothers, sons—as guests of the Ba’athists at Abu Ghraib, there to be tortured (with real hot irons and flensing knives, not humiliation from a skanky ho), mutilated, or murdered. If you take it out to second degree—uncles, cousins, nephews—it becomes damned unlikely. The prisoners tortured by the Americans were Ba’athists and their imported Waha’abist/Qutbist allies and the Americans got roundly and vociferously criticized—and punished—for subjecting them to nasty party tricks while the people who burned Uncle Ahmed’s eyes out and genitals off are extolled as paragons of virtue.
What does he conclude? Quite reasonably he concludes that the West, including the Americans, are in league with his Sunni oppressors. He doesn’t need the Iranian agents provocateurs; he can see with his own eyes that the Americans advocated treating the Ba’athist revanchists with kid gloves, and the Ba’athists responded by continuing their vendetta against him and his.
It is the bitterest and most supreme irony of a situation filled with irony: when Ibrahim Abdullah al-Issithi plants his Iranian Explosive Device (improvised being long obsolete) and yells in triumph when it kills or maims Lcpl. Snuffy USMC, it is because Ibrahim thinks he’s injuring Michael Moore. He doesn’t know differently, and has no channel available to him where he might learn.
Al-Sadr is a disgusting creature. What do you expect? The son of the union of Zawahiri and Michael Moore could be expected to be less than appealing to such as you and I. His followers have sound, rational reasons for acting as they do, and that has to be taken into account. Killing Mookie would just confirm their preconceptions.
Regards,
Ric
Don’t they get al-hurrah too?
Ric,
I get what you’re saying, but America is fighting a perception war, too. Both guys like Mookie and the Ba’athists are at the top of my hit list.
The motivations of the frightened Shia make sense to me. Moqtada’s popularity makes sense, too–to them.
To Americans, he’s a symbol of American impotence. We won’t do the nasty war business and eliminate all the power brokers working to destroy Iraq’s future.
Power unused is empty power. Americans see the Western media like Newsweek elevate Moqtada to scary Hitlerian levels and it’s just nonsense.
So, America is in a place where the decision is fight feebly (not that our Soldiers aren’t terrific warriors but they’re like a guard dog on a leash attached to a tree–unable to do their jobs) or get the hell out. If George Bush won’t put the screws to these bastards, who will? Might as well get out.
Except that the downside is too awful to contemplate. There are very good long-term strategic reasons (for America) to make sure Iraq works.
The Iraq “war” has been co-opted from the beginning by the same assholes who managed to kill our near victory in Viet Nam.
What a bunch of crap. The people who are eroding our resolve are the same idiots who said that the Tet offensive was a major defeat for the US – even though we kicked ass on the North’s army.
I am infuriated that the press ( who, apparently, have become the most powerful part of the government – despite no mention in the constitution of the media as a part of the government) has proved Al Qeda to be right on. We are pussies. Why should any Iraqi who wants to live in freedom stick their head up when they know that a feckless Congress will not back up any act of courage? Why would anyone want to see their family killed because they want to live a life of freedom? Al Qeda and anyone with a brain in Iraq knows that the liberals will desert them in a second if they think that politics can trump reality. AND IT WILL WITH HARRY REID, CHARLES MORON RANGEL, AND NANCY PELOSI in charge of our congress.
Fuck you, John Murtha. Fuck you, John Kerry. Fuck you, Carl Levin. Fuck you, Ted Kennedy. Fuck anybody who thinks that we can have a “dialogue” with Iran and Syria. These are people who come to work on the short bus.
Hey W! If your going to fight a war, fight a fucking war! Stop fighting for an LBJ bullshit political defeat. Where are our balls? These people hate us anyway, so why are we trying to lick their cojones?
The party who “cares”, cares only about their political fortunes (read -money), and doesn’t give one peice of shit about my son, or yours for that matter. The Iranians and the Syrians are dedicated to our destruction, and morons like Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy and John Kerry have wanted us to lose since before we even went into Iraq. The KosKids are cheering our defeat, and have been since day one. The NY Post has it right – Surrender Monkeys.
I’m sorry to be so angry, but at one time, I thought GWB was a man who stood on principal. Hah! My first clue was when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill. It’s been downhill ever since. Tax cuts – great! Going to Iraq – great! Fighting the Iraq war in LBJ mode? STUPID,STUPID,STUPID!!!! There is nothing worse than having the smell of Teddy Kennedy’s bunghole on your breath..
Sorry, but I am PISSED Nothing better than a faux Reagan, huh?
I mean, Jeebus! GHW Bush was more conservative than W.
I hate to say it, but the Demopublicans got exactly what they have been begging for…
ASSHOLES! There is nothing more disgusting in this world than people who think that their shit doesn’t stink.
PS – I hope it’s all out now, and in my next post, I will try to be more amusing. It’s true though. W has become a Surrender Monkey in my eyes – and I have stood behind him through thick and thin until now. I hope he is blinding me with smoke and mirrors, and is about to unleash his plan to kick some butt.
Unfortunately, I doubt it
But I send my highest regards to the troops who are fighting this war, and I thank them for every sacrifice they have made. It’s too bad that liberal idiots have gone out of their way to have more of our American soldiers cut down because our enemies know that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are on their side – if only for political gain.
To any of our troops in Afg. or Iraq who may be reading this blog –
Thank you, thank you, thank you. And I apologize for Ward Churchill – even though he is not relateed to me. Thank God!
Anyone else notice the bodyguards in suits without the tie? Remind you of anyone? Thats not a shiite expression, its a political one.
It’s when Americans see stumpy thugs like this that anger at the war effort gets stoked. If we can’t win against that guy, what the hell is wrong with us?
Amusing.
I seem to recall that everything would be just fine as soon as Saddam was taken care of.
And then everything would be just fine as soon as Zawahiri was taken care of.
And now you’re saying everything will be just fine as soon as al-Sadr is taken care of…
It’s when Americans see stumpy thugs like this that anger at the war effort gets stoked. If we can’t win against that guy, what the hell is wrong with us?
Amusing.
I seem to recall that everything would be just fine as soon as Saddam was taken care of.
And then everything would be just fine as soon as Zawahiri was taken care of.
And now you’re saying everything will be just fine as soon as al-Sadr is taken care of…
Posted by TheSpirit
You were there when it was brought up that this was going to be a long war, were,nt you? Your grandchildren are going to be fighting these jihadists. Not because of GWB or ‘the jews’, but because the islamists will it.
No spirit, no one has said that any of these things were magical answers. Just things that need to be done.
But I suppose if laying a single brick doesn’t put a roof over your head, you see no reason to lay it. Because then you’ll just have to lay another one. And another. And then you’re gonna want some wood, probably nails driven into it. And shingles. Shingles are just so hard. Its…just…hopeless.
Would you like to argue that smoking Zarqawi was a bad thing? Or that a rope around Saddam’s neck and his vile progeny assuming ambient temperature are not gifts to mankind?
Fool.
You might even say that they needed to be MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
You must have been listening to those members of the Petulant Left who have the right combination of stupidity and chutzpah to call themselves libertarians, then. That is, of course the basis behind their idea—if I can use the term in this context—of “targeted assassination”:
“Somehow, Saddam has managed to cow the rest of the Iraqis into suuporting him. All that we have to do is send one of our 133+ techno-ninjas past his bumbling, incompetent guards to take him out—no need for this messy, evil, statist ‘war’ stuff—and Iraq will become Libertopia, and shame us into electing Harry Browne as President!”
Unfortunately, there seem to be several other evil people in Iraq.
TW: that’s a fact, Jack.
Spirit, your recollections are faulty—or, more probably, you’re a liar. It’s you and your allies who are far gone in magic thinking and personality, with the bleats that Afghanistan was OK except that Rummy and George ignored bin Laden. Admittedly we did hope, in each of the instances you mention, that things might be looking up a bit. People are allowed to hope? No? Don’t deprive yourself. Think of the delicious triumph when you’re able to dash those hopes.
It’s almost funny, in an event-horizon-black sort of way. The whole business started as a Saudi civil war slash usurpation attempt, with bin Laden and company feeling that the sons and grandsons of Abdulaziz ibn Saud had grown fat, lazy, corrupt, and ripe for the reaper, and co-opting the teachings of Qutb as a rationale for their takeover. The cannon fodder of al Qaeda hates Americans because they’ve been taught to; the leadership simply see us as obstacles. They think, with some justification, that without American support the Sauds couldn’t run a hotdog stand, and taking the Americans out of the picture will leave them a free field to go for all that lovely oil money.
But now there are Iranians in the picture. Iranians are Shi’ia, and the Sunni have always considered Shi’ia to be second-class or worse. In Bosnia, in Iraq, around the world, if somebody is beating up on Shi’ia the Sunni will either stand by and watch or pitch in with a will. Now the Iranians are getting the idea that they might be able to fight back effectively. They see Americans as enemies because they support the damned Sunni in their efforts to subjugate Shi’ia.
Don’t be confused because both sides are advocates of Sharyat, want women covered up, and intend for Islam to dominate the world. What we’re looking at is the opening stages of a major sectarian conflict, a Thirty Years’ War (if not a Hundred Years’
between Shi’ia and Sunni, with us in the middle. Think of the Sunni as Ferdinand and company, with the ayatollahs playing Richelieu. The analogy isn’t perfect, or even very good, but it makes a starting point. The grunts and pawns in that war are taught to hate Americans, but the leadership are primarily interested in the same old shit—power, privilege, profit—even in the cases where they’re devout believers.
What’s amusing is that, while both sides are anti-American and anti-West, the Sunni see us as primarily an obstacle to be removed. The Shi’ia have another motivation. The West does prop up the Sons of ibn Saud. The West did support Saddam and his persecution of Shi’ia, and large elements of it still do. The West did acquiesce to the efforts of Milosevic to “cleanse” Bosnia and Serbia of (primarily Shi’ia) Muslims, or even support it. The ayatollahs see America as an opponent to be defeated, but unlike the Sunni they have a focus.
That focus is the world pseudoLeft and American Democrats. They want to kill or convert me, but they hate you personally, Spirit. I’m just an opponent. You are a supporter of and apologist for the Sunni oppressors of Shi’ia, cheering when Milosevic “cleanses”, standing by when Saddam murders a few thousand, and doing your damnedest to interfere on the side of the Sunni any time anyone tries to do anything about it.
You imagine that the conflict is based on the factors identified by Marx—oppression, greedy capitalism, and imperialism—and propose measures to relieve the pressure of those forces, imagining that everything will then be hunkydory. Those factors are almost totally absent from the motivations of the actual players, so nothing you do based on that paradigm will do any good; the bombings, killings, kidnappings, etc. will continue if Americans leave Iraq and Afghanistan, indeed even if we retreat from the entire world and leave the combatants a free field.
Congratulations, Spirit. You have defined yourself as Satanic and unredeemable, where (in the worst case) I’m a People of the Book, eligible to convert. They oppose me, but they hate you personally. Enjoy.
Regards,
Ric
Yellow-toothed? Melissa, you flatter his repulsive rotting chompers. I can’t begin to imagine what it is like to kiss that man.
We had to stand by. Only hte special got to shake his hand.
MayBee,
I think I want to throw up. He is just vile. Is this dude married?
If his IQ tops 70, I’d be surprised. But that ambition and absolute belief in his own righteousness. He reeks of violence and general menace.
Why does anyone bother responding to actus? He’s a troll. He’s never been anything but a troll. Why expect him to respond other than as a troll?
I’m confused. An American envoy meeting with Saddam diplomatically then is bad realpolitik, yet an American envoy meeting with Ahmadirtbag diplomatically now is good realism. It’s so difficult to know.
This is for actus’ benifit. And notice the hand shake which you refer to took place almost 23 years ago. The world is a much different place now, would you not agree? And I don’t mean in the Orwellian sense either. Should we all gather, from your comment, that you do not advocate a return to the foriegn policy “realism” that was the rule back then, and we should not negotiate with Iran and Syria, much less our advasaries in Iraq, as the “bipartisan” Baker Commission suggests? We would not want to be seen shaking hands with bad folks, afterall.
Why bother? Learning is a trait of creatures with a central nervous system.
In Actusland, we SHOULD negotiate with the Syrians et al., just don’t touch them.
You’ll get cooties.
Oh for God’s sake.
Maybe if you bothered to read the Newsweek article you’d understand why putting a bullet at this point in old Mookie would be the absolute worst thing we can do.
And closing off media coverage so we can go in and kill indiscriminately without worrying about civilian casualties is loony – and scary as hell.
In fact, I don’t know what’s scarier. People who are cheering the idea on or the person who proposed it.
Rusty-
“I seem to recall that everything would be just fine as soon as Saddam was taken care of.
And then everything would be just fine as soon as Zawahiri was taken care of.”
You need to STOP getting your information from the MSM. Just because you have a redneck name does not mean you need to be redneck stupid.
Sorry rusty I still a little drunk from last night I guess. that should have been directed at spirit. You have my permission to have me burned at the verbal stake for that one. many many appologies. Maybe I should get My glasses……….or another drink. Hair of the dog right?
Right, like the MISSION of the USS Abraham Lincoln was ACCOMPLISHED, you silly twat.
Rick,
I was using hyperbole for effect. This war is not being conducted like a war. It is a pussy-footed exercise in futility, if it continues this way.
My overall point was that the American people see guys like Moqtada strutting around and wonder “what’s the point?” We have a propaganda war to fight, too, and most people see only the cover of Newsweek, they don’t read the article.
No one wants wanton civilian casualties, but guess what? It’s happening anyway–as these groups bent on vengeance massacre each other.
Ace has good ideas that aren’t quite as extreme as mine.
This war will stop if Americans don’t see significant signs of progress. I’m not sure the Press will let them see it even if it happens.
Once again, my brain functions in the same vibrational plane as the protein wisdom gang:
Read the rest here.
Rick, while your point stands, we should have greased that little shit ball 3 years ago.
Our failure to do so stands as our greatest blunder in this campaign.
actus, you are a gormless popinjay.
I note that there is a characteristic of many blogs where dissent is not really encouraged. People who do dissent, systematically, no matter how polite they are, are labeled trolls. This is not what a troll used to be: a troll was someone who disrupted conversations by being deliberately provocative and personally insulting. That Actus’ behavior—which I would characterized as being rather mild devil’s advocacy—is called “trolling” indicates that in fact what people want on most blogs is above all like-minded people saying like-minded things. But doesn’t that get a little boring?
Kick out the embedded reporters?
All half a dozen or so of them?
The better solution would be to ask for more of them, a lot more.
Steve: These days, repeating the same thing over and over to get a reaction, while being utterly impervious to mere argument, thought, or evidence, is trolling.
That it’s not plain shock-jock provocation doesn’t affect it.
Immediate this-thread example: “Only the special got to shake his hand” is trolling.
It’s not an actual argument (because to make it into one he’d have to admit that diplomatic missions involve shaking the hands of bad people, and thus that the fact of doing so tells us nothing about anyone, or provide an argument that Hussein was so bad that nobody should have even shaken his hand, which would tend to undermine his opposition to removing Hussein from power, wouldn’t it? I don’t see a significant alternative position, and actus, of course, made no attempt at any position at all); it’s a pure attack on Donald Rumsfeld, as evidenced by everyone else piling on the sheer intellectual vacuity of the statement.
If it’s not trolling, a) what is it? and b) why should it be treated any different?
(Now, if he’d said “Rumsfeld shouldn’t have shaken Hussein’s hand 20-odd years ago because [vaguely consistent, coherent argument]”, that’d be another matter.
But he didn’t, and experience suggests he never has and perhaps simply can’t – or at very least, if he can, he chooses not to.
Spewing a bumpersticker-appropriate talking point is indistinguishable from trolling.)
Steve- are you one of those moonbats over at AMERICAblog? Just wonderin’.
Pablo, old pal, while I agree it is shocking and disappointing al-Sadr was let off the hook three years ago, that can hardly be classified as our biggest blunder of the war. For starters, there was the war itself (okay, so no one here agrees with me and I hope it’s Dan or Jeff who say “at least you have Kofi Annan to keep you warm”), but for the sake of discussion we can move beyond that blunder:
The first, most obvious and worst blunder was sending in too few troops to keep the peace. The invasion should have had more good guys and gals. The rest of the initial blunders stem from that one: the disbanding in toto of the Iraqi Army, the allowing of disorder and looting, the looting leading to the looting of high explosive munitions and arms caches, the inclusion in the CPA of 22 year old political operatives instead of professionals, etc. Al-Sadr is a tactical blunder in that mess. Someone would rise to challenge Sistani among the Shia and that someone should have been co-opted by us prior to Najaf.
Secondly, Pablo, even you don’t really believe White House hung that sign out for the USS Lincoln? Come one, it is not a partisan political loss to admit the Bush administration underestimated the building insurgency in Iraq and the speech, announcing the end of major combat operations, was supposed to lead the American people to believe that major combat operations were coming to an end. The sign was triumphalism. It wasn’t a lie or dishonesty; it was a folks at the White House thinking things were over for the most part.
I wish that had been true.
P.S. Melissa, not that I’m a judge or jury, but I thought your response to Rock Moran was respectful and, frankly, that is something welcome on boards. I happen to agree with him more than I do you, but I appreciated the way you disagreed with him. Despite some of the name-calling, the willingness to honestly debate people who are right….errr who disagree with the vast majority of posters is something that most liberal or conservative blogs do not allow or encourage
neoconsstink- I would love to hear your argument for why the war was not justified but that is for another day. I also think it is impossible to pinpoint the one big blunder that is costing us this war. I personally do not think it was any policy decision but rather the inability of the Bush Adm. to clearly define the threat we face as a nation. We have allowed the media to frame what is happeing in Iraq and the war on terror to distort the information that the american people get. In other words we have refused to learn anything from our experience in Vietnam a war that we could have won. We have become somewhat disconnected from the values that we had during WWI and WW2. Model success, bottom line. We need to do the things that we did during WWII not the things we did during Vietnam. That certainly applies to the media and how they are reporting on the war.
I wouldn’t call bumper sticker length posts to be trolling, exactly, because, after all, that’s what a lot of people do. IOW, if someone writes an 80 line post about how we should do XYZ, and someone adds a supporting comment three lines long, or shorter, that’s not trolling. But, if someone posts a 3 or line comment that is not supportive, that shouldn’t be considered trolling, either.
Also it seems to me that Actus has many times actually stated his reasoning. To be sure, his reasoning is predictable, but so is everyone else’s. And then for having the temerity to object to the prevailing flavor of the blog, we get the “Fuck you, Actus” or “Fuck you, Steve” stuff. I mean, so what, it doesn’t matter.
I just find it a bit odd that blogs break down into groups this way.
Let me put it another way. For a few years, I used to post on a sports BBS. Now everyone there supported the team(s) in question, that was assumed. Anyone who posted who did not support the teams involved, was considered disruptive, i.e., a troll. Now I could understand that because, after all, who wants a Red Sox fan on Yankees bulleting board (if you know what I mean.) But fandom is irrational, and has to do with primary allegiances, usually formed in childhood.
I am a little surprised to see discussion of politics heading down that road. Naturally I like to read people who agree with me from time to time. But not all the time, or even most of the time.
Sigivald,
I would love scores of embedded reporters. I would love a complete, detailed and up-close picture of what is happening in Iraq. I would love to have Beyonces body. Alas, that will have to wait until my next life.
The fact is, there are too few embeds over there and like I asked Jeff, who the hell are they? Where are they? The Weasels in the Green Zone are worse than useless. So, for a short time, black it out and get some work done. I just don’t like guys in combat, second-guessing decisions and worrying about covering the civilian. That gets good guys dead.
As far as the worst mistake of the war in Iraq? Since it’s not over, time will tell what that turns out to be. And no, the sign “Mission Accomplished” was not the worst mistake. Puhleeze. Worst mistakes in wars usually involve dead people, not public relations blunders.
Re-reading many of these posts makes me think most of the right-wing believes “shoot the messenger” is not a strategy, but the only strategy. John, the media is not to blame for our problems in Iraq. Most Jihadis aren’t pouring over thei copy of the NYT each morning. These people would be killing us and each other without the US media anywhere near them.
You guys and gals should stop blaming Katie Couric for the world’s reaction and the Arab reaction to the war and its mistakes. The media is reporting what they can see from the Green Zone. They are not shaping policy.
That’s way too simple
I would love to hear your argument for why the war was not justified but that is for another day.
Actually, the issue is not “justification”—such as it was, that was provided by the US congress—the issue is whether or not the invasion was a blunder, i.e., a mistake. All I can say to that is the ranks of the right-wing who are saying things like, “I supported the war, but if I knew then, what I know now, I wouldn’t have supported it” is growing every day.
I have no idea what AMERICAblog is, but, thanks for getting personal so fast. Proves my point.
Neo,
I have no doubt that EVERYONE underestimated the “insurgency”, if only due to the amount of leverage suicide bombers can generate viv a vis the actions of those who play by a more civilized set of rules. If all of Iraq at some time in the future were to exist in peace, even one suicide bomber would bring back the full range of media blowback and hand-wringing.
Given our restrictive rules of engagement and the prospect of media coverage of every hangnail and bruise, I doubt that more troops would have made a difference. The terrorists have seen how hesitant we are to exert force when there is even the slightest possibility that collateral damage may occur.
If the original mission of the war was to remove the Hussein from power in Iraq, it, in fact, succeeded. The spinoffs (democratic elections, infrastructure revitalizations, etc), however, we anticipated (hoped for) haven’t occurred to a credible extent due to the depradations of a relative few lunatics willing to kill large numbers of innocents as a political tool. The bombings are succeeding, of course, so there is no real reason for them to ever stop if they are securing objectives. Somehow that needs to change.
Those who give them their marching orders are and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise, stinky.
No, the media isn’t causing the problems, they’re exacerbating them, which in the final analysis is a difference without distinction.
On one hand, it’s impossible to say what would have happened differently had US media coverage of the war been non-existant or had been supportive of the US efforts.
On the other hand, it’s easy to come up with recent news stories that have themselves become news. The NYT’s exposing US monitoring of international financial transactions, the coverage of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish paper, and the rioting following false allegations of US soldiers at Guantanimo pissing on a Koran have all become news in and of themselves. Arguing that the media has no effect on shaping public opinion is stupid, and where public opinion goes, so goes policy.
I know what it meant, stinky, and I know what Bush said while on the Lincoln. It was absolutely not “Game over! Everything is just peachy!” which is what his detractors have since insisted that it meant and have gone so far as to now insist that he’s actually said such. This is very much the same case as the tired and wholly false canard that Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It never happened, yet that doesn’t keep legions of cretins, cynics, tratriots*, and abject morons from insisting that it did.
* tratriot: n, A person who is loyal to an America that will only exist after a supreme act of treason
h/t urbancenturion @ Hot Air
Steve,
Before you use assholus as the poster creature for poor put-upon innocents, I suggest you read what he “posts”.
Vitriolic vacuity combined with preening self importance and uniformed arrogance, which is no way to win friends and influence people.
I called him a gormless popinjay, and a gormless popinjay he remains.
[h/t to Jonah Goldberg for coining the term that fits assholus so well]
“Most Jihadis aren’t pouring over thei copy of the NYT each morning.”
I am not worried about the jihadis although I would disagree with that assesment. I am talking about everyone who is exposed to the coverage. Do not think for a second that people over in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on do not watch cable news. I have been to that part of the world and they really do watch everything as far as news. My point is this; this war has very little to do with tanks and bullets if it did this war would already be over and the middle east would be a parking lot. This war is a PR war or a war of perception. I came back from Iraq about 9 months ago and noticed that the media is not really telling the whole story. They are not, as many have claimed, telling lies about the war. They are simply reporting what fits in to their agenda. If you could really see some of the good things we have accomplished over their it would make you feel so very proud of your armed forces. But most of what I see reported simply shows us all the bad things that are happening. You never hear of all the brave things our troops do all you here is Murtha and Kerry telling the whole world (including jihadis) that our troops are little more than cold blooded murderers. Thats my point which I just noticed pablo made as well but did so in one or two sentences. Props Pablo!
The “stabbed in the back” defense continues to be shaped, I see. At the end of the day, there is nothing but bitterness and despair for those who take that road. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – instead of bitching a moaning about how everyone is keeping us from winning, put your money where your mouth is. If you are so disgusted you can hardly breathe – go enlist or run for office. Quit fucking whining.
“I have no idea what AMERICAblog is, but, thanks for getting personal so fast. Proves my point.”
A little sensitive arn’t we. Wow. Moonbat is the term used for people of a liberal mind. As I am a wingnut. I did not call you a troll. The other was just a simple question…..nothing personal. But as I read your posts today, I notice that your agenda here today is to try and make us out to be kneejerk, name-calling morons just looking for an echo-chamber, and you happen to be wrong. Using my question was another weak attempt to paint this fantasy for others. Here we understand that perception is not always linked with reality. I am always open for debate. Next issue.
Steve,
I don’t think anyone wants to get into a protracted discussion of what the threshholds for trolling are. All I ask is that you appreciate that actus has been leaving his little droppings of “wisdom” around here for a very long time, and even those readers with great patience and self-restraint have long since grown tired of his stupid little game.
Early on, many of us tried to engage him in reasoned debate. We presented our arguments, and invited him to respond in kind. He has never made the effort to meet us halfway. He exists only to provoke, he refuses to engage in any sort of argument apart from non-sequiturs and snippy off-topic one-liners, and worst of all, he won’t stop. He’s the damn Terminator of pointless commenters.
If you think that the regulars come down hard on him for small offenses, and resort to name-calling from the get-go, please understand their behavior stems in large part from frustration bordering on despair at his refusal ever to engage or to go away.
Steve, Actifed has been here seemingly forever, politely contributing nothing of substance in his patented passive-aggressive manner.
he is what’s gotten boring after a while.
Or, in other words, what Squid already said.
Regarding trolls,
1. People who say ‘i’m just playing devil’s advocate’ usually aren’t.
2. Contra arguments are all well and good when they operate as an exercise in the Socratic method. Bumpersticker length statements are, at best, jingoisms. And are valued as such.
3. Actus’ statements are writ in sand, he is utterly devoid of any first principles and never, ever makes any concrete arguments.
Regarding Steve,
1. Been here long? Not a criticism, just a question.
2. Every group discussion, since way back in the days of USENET has operated upon a set of often unwritten, but sometimes sternly enforced, codes of conduct. It is generally assumed that all participants are aware of at least most of the ground rules, history, and hidden assumptions. In the absence of such knowledge circumspection is the expected mode of behavior. The older the group, and the more established the major players, the more likely this is to be the case.
3. Stick around and you’ll see why Actus is so rapidly labelled a troll. You will also see an occasional ideological opponent drop in for some worthy banter. Rest assured you will witness that those who argue in good faith will receive a reasonably fair hearing. Those lacking in basic intellectual rigor will be savaged mercilessly.
NCStink:
One of the initial themes of this blog was the ways in which various parties were shaping the terms of the debate over how to proceed with the GWOT. The argument has been made repeatedly by our good host (and I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t recognize his name) that this battle over words has a real effect on the way the public views our efforts.
You may not agree, but a lot of us think that the media’s antagonistic relationship with the Administration and their mix of apathy and antagonism toward our armed services has caused them to report much more enthusiasticly on setbacks, problems, mistakes and scandals than they do on progress, successes or victories. Similarly, the media shows a consistent tendency to give the enemy all the air time it wants, while ignoring or criticizing the Pentagon’s efforts to get its own message out to the public at large.
The result of this consistent bias toward the negative is that people lose perspective on the struggle. Strong evidence of this effect is provided by our soldiers and Marines who come back to the U.S. and describe a country and a situation that is almost completely at odds with the picture given by popular media coverage.
I bring up all of this because it runs counter to your assertion that the media’s coverage has no effect on policy. Mr. Goldstein has argued for the past few years—convincingly, to me—that it does. I encourage you to look through the archives. If that’s not practical for you, the very least you can do is to offer evidence for your assertion that “the messenger” is not a significant impediment to our success in Iraq, and is not shaping policy.
Did somebody kidnap Dan or something?
But as I read your posts today, I notice that your agenda here today is to try and make us out to be kneejerk, name-calling morons just looking for an echo-chamber, and you happen to be wrong.
Well, I respectfully submit that you are wrong if you think that I have some kind of “agenda today”. I have been thinking however about how blogs tend to become like-to-like, which, to my mind, sort of defeats the purpose, for some time.
Thomas: I know about the history of Usenet. I have been here since July, or something, about the time a certain lesbian who shall not be named was having her moment in the sun (I heard about it elsewhere, followed links, etc.) I don’t read this blog or other right-wing blogs often, (although I am a conservative republican), because I do lots of other things.
I frequently find Actus to be very amusing, and I also frequently find him to be interesting, to the extent that he counterpoints what others say.
I can believe that those who disagree AND lack intellectual rigor will be savaged on blogs. But I don’t think lacking intellectual rigor is the key. I don’t know. We’ll see.
Throwing out the chickenhawk card, eh, heet? Tsk, tsk, tsk!
As I served 27 years in the military (active and reserves, including a tour in Kuwait/Iraq), I can play my anti-chickenhawk card in response:
even you don’t really believe White House hung that sign out for the USS Lincoln?
Unless by “the White House” you mean “Tommy Franks”, no it wasn’t put there by the White House.
In short (as reported in Franks’s book American Soldier”) it was supposed to be a signal to all those countries who promised support for the reconstruction of Iraq once the US v. Saddam’s Iraq combat was over.
Real_JeffS,
Try option 2, then. Oh, and quit fucking whining.
Well, no, anti-semitism is a specialty of the reactionary left, c.f. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
heet-
go enlist or run for office. Quit fucking whining.
Been there done that and will soon go back. I am not Whining. I am talking about things that I have seen with my own two eyes. Great and selfless things that our troops have accomplished. My point is that if more Americans were even aware of these things they might have a different opinion of this war. If the rest of the world new about it they might have a different opinion of Americans. As it is all they hear about is the death toll, civil war, marines killing people in cold blood. It’s not untrue it’s just not the whole truth. That is my problem.
“I don’t read this blog or other right-wing blogs often, (although I am a conservative republican), because I do lots of other things.”
Nothing personal Steve but bullshit,bullshit and ah yes, bullshit.
Nothing personal Steve but bullshit,bullshit and ah yes, bullshit.
Hey, look, if you don’t want to believe me you don’t have to.
Do you want to know how many days I have read this blog over the past six months? Maybe 4-5 weeks worth. Do you want to know when I registered in the Republican party? 1972. if you don’t believe that, that’s your problem.
john, the people in the Middle East watch English CNN?
Secodnly, my cousin is a Marine 1st Lt in command of an engineer platoon. He just returned from Haditha a month ago. My brother-in-law is a Navy reservist serving near Basra in an Army CD unit (the Army is in fantastic shape, he says, now that they’re using sailors to fight their wars). He is due to return in one week, which means my responsibility for George’s war will finally end, i.e. I have to watch his 2 and 3 year old two weekends a month while his Mom works. My part of the war is fun.
I know what is happening in Iraq and I know the media is reporting what they see, which is explosions. Perhaps, if the country were secure enough for media types to venture places, they could report on the things US Amrned Forces always do.
As for Civilis, I expect better. Opinion shapes policy? Funny, I don’t remember a huge hue and cry to invade Irar. I remember the administration deciding it was necessary and then convincing the Congress and the American people to follwo them.
We don’t live in a democracy. Our leaders make policy
I haven’t been whining about Iraq at all, heet, and my sole comment in this thread is a desire to see al-Sadr dead. But errors like that don’t bother you, I know.
Of course, you could enlist or run for office. People might actually take you seriously then.
“We don’t live in a democracy.”
Well put ncstink, it is a republic.
PS to heet:
And invite all the JAG officers interfering with the war to come home for a briefing for about 2 weeks. Just saying.
I would refer Steve to the actus FAQ.
“I know what is happening in Iraq and I know the media is reporting what they see, which is explosions.”
Mighty bold statement for someone who has not been there.
“I know what is happening in Iraq and I know the media is reporting what they see, which is explosions.”
If that was the only thing going on, it would be the whole story then would it not? My point was and is this; they are not getting the whole story out there…….whatever the reasoning (excuses)is.
Hey, look, if you don’t want to believe me you don’t have to.
ok
”…a huge hue and cry to invade Irar”
Anybody who decideds to invade Irar has lost my vote.
tw:without33 the Rockies no longer have a Canadian right fielder.
stinky, when was the last time you saw any prominent reporting from Kirkuk where things are decidedly peaceful?
No, if it bleeds, it leads and if it doesn’t we don’t hear about it from the MSM.
With a plan like that, we’ll have to go through Irap and Irao before we ever get to the problem area.
“He is due to return in one week, which means my responsibility for George’s war will finally end, i.e. I have to watch his 2 and 3 year old two weekends a month while his Mom works. My part of the war is fun.”
That is your resposibility to your family not to this war.
Then yank your head out of your ass: More than ten years of sanctions from the Holy UN. Then, clear ties to terrorism, WMD programs, WMD’s, and chronic democide might have had something to do with near-universal endorsement from Congress, near-universal endorsement from the US public, a half-decade of prior history of Democrats shouting for deposition, and a coalition.
Jog your “memory”?
What I remember is the whole lousy tribe voting before it before voting agin it.
No sweat. When things get interesting, my bumper sticker’s ready: Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote Democrat.
Sorry, Steve. You tried. You should know by now the PW krew operates on a gut level. They don’t have to think about shit, they just know.
They know everyone is out to get them. They know all the good news in Iraq isn’t being reported because the reporters are too cowardly to risk their lives. They know their duty is to sit behind a computer and write witty diatribes accusing their political enemies of treason. They know any failure to win the war are due to the American traitors in charge of some of the news and an out of power political party. They know the ME bad guys watch American TV. They know when American TV says the war is going badly, the bad guys fight harder. They know American voters can’t be trusted to make decisions about our future in Iraq.
Heet: Thanks. Well, I’ve been around enough to know not to change whatever the ambience around here is. It just occurred to me in the midst of yet another attack on Actus this thought that had been gelling in my mind about like attracting like to blogs, so that they soon become clubs where you either sing the same chorus or are attacked, or at least be told, “nothing personal, but bullshit, etc.”
After the Deb Frisch thing I sort of lost interest because Jeff stopped posting, then, I came by once in awhile to see if he was back, and he wasn’t, then I’d leave, and then last Friday there was some notice that Jeff was returning (as well as a couple of news stories worth venting about), but that didn’t follow through either.
Chorus blogs—which is a term I am coining to characterize such blogs—seem to be the rule rather than the exception these days. And frankly they aren’t very stimulating.
American voters haven’t been asked to vote about our future in Iraq, cretin. And it seems that the Dems they’ve voted in are thinking pretty seriously about sending more troops.
You fail to see that if we thought everyone in Iraq were out to kill us, we’d be looking to pull out the troops and send in the bombers.
We don’t think? You don’t look. You don’t see. You don’t care to. And then you don’t think.
Shut your yap, you blithering idiot.
NCStink:
They are not our leaders; they are our representatives. It’s a distinction that I wish more people would keep in mind. One could legitimately suppose that they took into account the wishes of their constituents when crafting policy. Failing that, their employers have the opportunity not to renew their contracts when they come up.
The whole point of this argument is that there are forces at work trying very hard to sway the electorate’s position away from the pursuit of victory in the middle east. Some of these forces claim that they are patriots, while others are avowed enemies of the United States. Regardless, advocates for strategic withdrawal seem to enjoy much more positive media coverage than their counterparts on the pro-victory side, and their marketing campaign seems to be bearing fruit.
The ultimate result of this is the evaporation of support among the electorate, which then manifests in policy changes by their representatives.
Steve I know you are sensitive, but damn would you quit whining about what you percieve to be personal attacks. Fact of life: nobody cares about your feelings, or mine for that matter. So rather then whine and cry about the state of blogging, just be a part of it……or go away. BTW I doubt that kissing up to jeff will win you any friends……..but who knows.
Pablo,
Sweetheart, you really don’t think the American people were voting on the Iraq war when they kicked the Rs out? Oh dear. You are delusional.
As for what the Dems do in Iraq – we’ll see but clearly Americans thought it prudent to give them a shot at it Furthermore, if Americans wanted this silly-assed “take the gloves off” approach you armchair generals are cheerleading, they would have voted in some super-hawk Rs. So, get your ass out there and run for office! Maybe by then we’ll be ready for President Pablo.
Indeed, Point 5 of my own blog’s comments policy addresses this.
It is of far more value to argue what one truly believes than to take a contrarian position solely to stimulate debate. If you’re stimulating debate for some reason other than to argue what you really believe, you’re just wasting everyone’s time, including your own.
Which kind of contradicts the notion of a “chorus blog,” wouldn’t you say, Steve?
john: I don’t know you beyond your persona here, but I can see that you have a tendency to make all kinds of assumptions about posters that in my case I can tell you are wrong. For example, it seems to me that a blog is readable by the content and setting of the host. The comments are gravy. The main thing is intelligent writing by the host.
Now, I got here from Michelle Malkin (I think). She’s not a very good writer, not particularly thoughtful, but she is cute. And she gets boring fast because she has a tendency to just hammer away negatively at the same things, all the time. When I first got here, Jeff was writing some interesting stuff. I don’t consider the “co-hosts” to be particularly interesting. Interesting that you would spin it the way you do.
There are other blogs that I read regularly—not of this type, mind you—and I read them for the strength of the writing of the host, not for the comments, which, as I have indicated, tend to be boring.
It is of far more value to argue what one truly believes than to take a contrarian position solely to stimulate debate. If you’re stimulating debate for some reason other than to argue what you really believe, you’re just wasting everyone’s time, including your own.
On this point I have to disagree. I can see that sometimes people will take a contrarian position for sake of it, but those are learning experiences, as well, because one has to think through what it is you are talking about. Resistance is always good.
Which kind of contradicts the notion of a “chorus blog,†wouldn’t you say, Steve?
I don’t really understand what you are getting at in the direct above. I am not sure, in any case. By the way, I’m willing to change the subject anytime.
Chorus blogsâ€â€which is a term I am coining to characterize such blogsâ€â€seem to be the rule rather than the exception these days.
Gosh aren’y YOU the clever boots, Steve.
Or is the phrase I want “pretentious ass”?
Do you know they did? Gee, you’re clairvoyant. And an idiot.
That’s an interesting combo.
Borders, Corruption, Anti Social Con sentiments…all on the table. But you just know, huh?
Make that “Shut your festering gob, tool.”
BTW, I’m actually leaning toward “Stand back far enough to let those who insist on doing it slaughter each other, and sort through what’s left when they’re done”
I’m a big fan of self determination. Thanks for telling me what my position is. Wanna tell me who I voted for and why now? I’m sure I don’t have a clue.
Steve,
Did you read the Actus FAQ? Care to share any thoughts regarding its content?
I don’t find this to be a chorus blog, there are significant differences among the regulars. Perhaps some are subtle, especially when those differences are drowned out by the time spent refuting trolls. I hesitate to start naming names as I have been called out for my own mischaracterisations at times but certainly you must see some differences among the regulars.
Regardless, I for one, would enjoy hearing comment from a conservative republican (which I would characterize as someone somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Hugh Hewitt) especially one so open minded as to be willing to defend the likes of Actus. So don’t go away, speak up, make your point and be heard.
Steve and Heet,
In this very comments thread, there is respectful disagreement. I’ve been reading PW for nearly a year and there is a great diversity of thought.
But you better not tread this ground without having thought out your position first. Even if you have, someone smarter might come along and tune ya up.
Honestly, this is a nerve-wracking place to post. Why do I do it? 1) Jeff hasn’t locked the door on the squatters yet, and yes, I agree that for the most part, we stink compared to Jeff and 2) I view this forum as place to hone my thinking.
I can’t think of any other blogs hosts who allow people all over the political spectrum guest host for them. Jeff does. I’m not nominating him for sainthood anytime soon, but he is intellectually fair.
Then you well and truly have not a fucking clue as to what you’re talking about.
Yet nothing we do is capable of driving you away. Don’t you have a dinner date or something to get to?
Yes I know they did.
cnn exit poll:
“Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration.”
Oops. Sure there were other issues (corruption!), but what evidence do you have that Iraq was not a major issue? Do you just know it?
Also, calling someone stupid as a retort shows a complete lack of imagination. Please try harder next time, ok?