Victory - Iraqi Freedom

[there buster]

Let's see, you call me a "right-winger," tell me my views are not my own, but "claptrap" from other individuals.

I have not called you anything, nor do I propose to know where you get your views from. If anything, it's a complete mystery to me.

When a person starts saying irrational things, I have only a few choices. 1) He might be crazy-- a permanent condition. 2) He might be delirious-- a temporary condition. 3) He might be joking.

So, tell me you were joking and I'll apologize. Otherwise, you leave me only two alternatives, and I choose to believe you are a rational person, only temporarily feverish.

Believe me, you haven't the slightest notion of what an attack from me would look like.

[Bravus]

I could, of course, pull out all the exact same riffs about the right not being willing to engage in rational debate. but I don't and won't - I'm actually attempting to have a rational and civilised conversation here. I could also refuse to discuss any further until I get some concessions, but I won't do that either.

I accept, and have said so, that the successful Iraqi election was a positive step. I hope with all my heart that more positive steps are made, culminating in a peaceful, free Iraq. I do think it's too soon yet to trumpet overall victory, as seems to be being done, but of course the election was a victory and should be celebrated. But 'Iraqi Freedom'? They could even have taken the first stop on the road, but they're certainly not there yet if freedom includes safety.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I can tell you who is pulling YOUR strings.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

First off, I like to make light of differences by joking around and you come off as being a bit stiff. So aside from our political differences, we have personality differences.

I think of myself as an independent thinker. I could listen to some idealouges each day and then regurgitate what they say and believe, except for the fact that I often find myself disagreeing with such idealouges. And most of these idealouges are not commited Christians.

Now when you say someone is "pulling my strings" I suspect you are refering to my sources of news. Rather than ask you to reveal your guesses I will tell you. I try to watch News Hour with Jim Lehrer as I think he tries to be objective. I also like NBC's Meet The Press with Tim Russert for the same reason. I listen to NPR in the morning on the way to work. When driving between projects I will bounce around on the radio dial from Christian stations to O'Reilly and Dr. Laura. I catch a little bit of Hannity on the way home but often choose Christian radio as I can only handle so much of Hannity. I sometimes watch the European news on SafeTV and about once a week I catch CBN News on PAX TV. On the Internet I surf the DrudgeReport, ABC News, FOXNews, Media Matters and The Hamster. As for the print media, I subscribe to WORLD Magazine So those are my "string pullers".

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

First off, I like to make light of differences by joking around and you come off as being a bit stiff. So aside from our political differences, we have personality differences.

---

Well, on this side of the computer screen, your "joking" comes off as accusatory. I know others have said this to you, Shane, and I have too, so I will say it again...invest in some time in using your icons and change some of your posting practices....use the [jk] symbol to let other know what you are intending....None of us was very good at mind reading back in the 3rd grade. And I flunked that course.

[there buster]

What "riffs" have I addressed to you? The only riffs I know are on the guitar.

When I address something to you, I mean it for you. If I address something to someone else, I mean it for them.

I don't assume that you and Neil are doing the same things. Even though you may fall roughly on the same side of the issues, you approach them differently.

Therefore, I approach you differently.

One of the problems I see here is that people assume that Shane and I approach things the same way. But that is not so.

Nor do I suspend discussion to obtain concessions. I simply won't argue with someone who's in the process of blowing his top. It can only get really ugly. All heat, no light.

If someone says the moon is made of green cheese, he is entitled to his opinion, but I'm not going to spend time discussing lunar geology (or would it be cynthiology?).

When someone says I'm channeling Zachary Taylor, there's no point in debating that either. I'm assuming Zachary and I agree about the moon and all.

These discussions get heated because people jump to conclusions rather than examining what is and is not being said.

Quote:

---

But 'Iraqi Freedom'? They could even have taken the first stop on the road, but they're certainly not there yet if freedom includes safety.

---

I wasn't being facetious when I said we're not there yet, either. The last time I checked the homicide rate in Iraq was comparable to many of our larger cities. If you're targeted by the thugs, it's more dangerous for you personally. But then, Chicago in the 1920's was that way, too.

Compared to my sleepy little town, Iraq is quite dangerous. Compared to life under Sadaam, well, the danger was state sponsored then, but the monthly death toll was significant.

By any reasonable measure, they've made remarkable progress. Judging their progress by media reports alone is not so different from judging American society by the Jerry Springer show. The media are after a "story." For them, this usually means bad news. As Walter Cronkite once said, "We don't report on all the cats that didn't get caught in a tree." Returning servicemen, and service men blogging there, can't believe how their situation is portrayed in the media.

Before you get excited, the only type of "bias" I'm examining is the "bias" for the unusual, the spectacular--the "if it bleeds, it leads" mindset.

This is not so far from Biblical exegesis as some might think. When interpreting narrative, we look at the order and selection of the story elements to see what the author is saying. The same thing can be done with news media. "Megatrends" illustrated just one means of analysis.

If you go into the Bible looking for evidence for a particular doctrine, chances are you'll find it. Whether that reflects an accurate interpretation is entirely another matter.

Well, the media have an idea of what a "story" looks like.

One problem that the media have, and I meet repeatedly, is a sense of historical perspective. That's why I continually bring up historical analogies.

For example, have you read Jay Winnick's (sp) "1865"? It's a fascinating story of just how close the U.S. came to continuing guerilla warfare after Lee's surrender at Appomatox Courthouse.

Any reading about the South during the Reconstruction Era would make you feel the Iraqis are pretty safe. Difference in technology raises the risk, but the numbers of renegades and outlaws in the South, not to mention the KKK, was truly frightening.

You have to assess something like this as a process, not as a completed product.

My 3YO grandson is very bright, but he's not ready for his GED. For a 3YO, he's doing great. If he stops developing now, it will be a tragedy, he'd be considered retarded.

That's the relevant question about Iraq. After 50 years of absolute rule, and 35 or so of thugarchy, and now just 13 months after their former dictator was captured, how are they doing?

Compared to other Arab countries, how are they doing? Compared to other Muslim countries just after the overthrow of a leader, how are they doing?

Comparing them to a 200YO or even 50YO republic is either mistaken or perverse.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Neil, you know how some people walk right into a joke... Well that is the position you seem to put yourself in. You toe the far-left, radical line. When you choose to position yourself as such you have to be prepared for others to tease you about it.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, a woman walked up to Benjamin Franklin, and asked, "What kind of government did you give us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." And I always added. "It is still an open question whether we can keep it. That's why it's important to vote."

---

There are three separate discussions intermingled with the snide remarks here.

(1) Was Bush's invasion the best action FOR IRAQ.

(2) Was Bush's invasion the best action FOR THE USA.

(3) Was Bush's invasion the best action FOR THE WORLD.

For each of them, you have to consider what the alternatives were, and what the possible outcomes of each alternative are.

Let us start considering just what the outcomes of the invasion may be. Consider, for example, the results of other recent take-overs of countries by foreign 'benevolent' powers.

1) Germany, end of WW-I. Led directly to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Bad.

2) Germany, end of WW-II. Led to the current situation. Good.

3) France taking over Viet Nam. Bad.

4) Belgium taking over Rwanda. Bad.

5) England taking over India. Bad leading to Good.

In short, it is still too early to say what the outcome of the action taken in Iraq is. The range of possibilities is just too great.

Now, we can consider what the alternatives were.

For example: We did not invade most of Eastern Europe, and yet most of those countries have thrown off oppressive regimes. We got out of Viet Nam and the country has made giant positive strides. We did not invade China, and the country has come a long way.

So, it is quite possible that NO ACTION AT ALL would have worked quite well.

Now consider how the USA would have evolved if the French and the Brits had got involved here during the Civil War. Would that have been a good thing? Should they have supplied troops to help the North win?

The situation in Iraq was not, and is not, black and white.

Bush and his advisors have erred in three major ways.

ONE: He lied when he said it was WITHOUT DOUBT the case that Iraq had WMD.

TWO: He has done a very poor analysis for the case that the invasion will make the USA safer.

THREE: It is too early to tell whether the result will be a nett win or loss for Iraq. Maybe they to want to declare victory and withdraw.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Ed - I may have lost some of that contextual info because I read the forum 'flat' (i.e. chronologically) rather than threaded. So it may well have looked to me as though one or more of your responses to Neil were to me, so I apologise if I miscued.

I guess I was also maybe defending Neil a little too though: just because I do tend to see more dismissal rather than dialogue from the Right. Even just making your points about what 'the left' is saying, rather than directly responding to what I, Neil or bevin is saying is just unhelpfully over-simple.

Just as you and Shane prefer not to be stereotyped as 'the right', but want to be listened to for the opinions you actually espouse here, the same applies for the rest of us. I'm on the left on some issues, centrist on others, the right on others and off that spectrum on others! I think you are a nuanced and deep thinking individual too, and will continue to treat you that way.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

, it is quite possible that NO ACTION AT ALL would have worked quite well.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

We now know that Saddam was bribing UN members to get the sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs. No action at all would have meant Saddam with WMDs and terrorist connections.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Brother Neil, you know how some people walk right into a joke... Well that is the position you seem to put yourself in. You toe the far-left, radical line. When you choose to position yourself as such you have to be prepared for others to tease you about it.

---

Shane, you know how people say that they are joking and really they are not? Well, when you choose to joke, you come off as though you are not....

That is a posting problem of YOURs. Until I see otherwise, I will continue to see you as posting seriously.

Change your posting...Indicate when you are joking....It is part of netettiquet [sp]

[there buster]

I left this forum completely for about five months because it was just one continuing food fight.

If a man tells me the moon is made of green cheese, he is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to have me take that proposition seriously.

I will end that discussion until it returns to something worthy of my time.

If you think I'm abusing Neil, I'll listen to what you have to say. I simply point out that I'm not calling anyone a puppet, or anyone a disciple of anyone else. I assume the positions each person states are their own.

If they are petty or unworthy, I will point that out, in hopes that the person will disavow and rise above that sort of thing.

I'll be glad to take up any question you don't think I've addressed seriously.

Sometimes my patience wears thin, especially when addressing points that are easily verifiable if anyone really wants to. Repeatedly, I find the problems in these discussions come at the level of assumptions. I find they are rarely examined.

Just today, working on an article, I discovered what I believe is another hidden assumption in the evolution debate, which I posted there. The house of persuasion is never stronger than its foundation, and that foundation needs to be examined, all the way to the bedrock.

[there buster]

your post said re:Bravus, but then quoted me.

It doesn't look like the questions you would address to Bravus.

If they're addressed to me, perhaps you would consider re-evaluating your historical assumptions first?

It would save time and energy I don't have right now.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Let's see, you call me a "right-winger," tell me my views are not my own, but "claptrap" from other individuals.

---

Let's see...If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it must be a duck....Or at least a good imitation....

If you look at what I wrote, I said that you imitated what the right winger would say. You use the same emotionally charged langueage, you feign martyerdom, and you charge on to the left what the right wing does....although I will admit, I have see the left do that to the right. But he deserved it.

Quote:

---

Believe me, you haven't the slightest notion of what an attack from me would look like.

---

Oh, for the love of Pete. Tone down the testasterone. Good night...Do you always have an ego that is this big? .... Are you sure that you write for the Review? It would seem to me that they take people who are far more circumspect than what you have shown....

It seems to me that you wrote a very good brief history that showed the violence of the Middle East. It also seems to me that I reported a parable of the middle east, the scorpion and the frog. Both showed that the Middle East has little regard for the lives of people over there. Of that, we agree. Right?

What make you think that Bush with his policys toward the Middle East will produce lasting peace?

[there buster]

There is no point in continuing. You do not read what I write.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Until I see otherwise, I will continue to see you as posting seriously.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Some people get some perverse sastisfaction out of being a victem. It is known as a victem mentality. It can be successfully treated but the person must want treatment. Saddly most of these folks just want to feel like victems so there is little that can be done.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Some people get some perverse sastisfaction out of being a victem. It is known as a victem mentality. It can be successfully treated but the person must want treatment. Saddly most of these folks just want to feel like victems so there is little that can be done.

---

LOL!

I assure you, Shane...just because you are lazy and will not punctuate your sentences doesn't mean that I am a mental case. Although there are some here who would disagree with that.

And Shane, regardless of what you think is funny, it is NOT humerous to say those things. It is a sad irony, that you have trouble understanding. It has been told you several times that you need to use icons and punctuate your sentences so that one can get the tone of what you are saying. Unfortunately, you refuse to do that....What are we to do but to call you lazy as a fat cat in your writing. Just the picture of you with large whiskers tickling your child and your child pulling at your long hairs, does cause one to secretly be glad at your discomforture. Oh, well, que sera!