All issues? Again how can you not think their firsthand experience in Iraq as part of the 82nd Airborne gives them some insight that others might not have. They have been there talked to Iraqis daily, seen firsthand what is going on, been on the receiving end of Bush's policy etc. I don't believe that you really don't see why they are a source worth considering possibly even more than two war supporters who taken over there for 8 days and shown what the leaders wanted them to see. If you really can't see that, then I can't believe you are in the journalism field.
I'll never understand why people continue to engage with New Yorker when he has admitted that his posts here are "expiriments" and that he doesn't really hold the positions that he presents. Not only did he admit this, but it is clear from his ridiculously inconsistent arguements.
Inconsistent doesn't begin to describe it. I've wondered for a long time why so many here dislike the guy and it's more clear now. When you think you have an advantage in a debate, jump in like gangbusters. When you get pummeled , ignore and don't address major points that blow your theory out of the water, call people "liberal" and imply that nobody knows enough to really figure out the truth. Sounds like the perfect resume for a Bush cabinet member.
In media, not journalism. Although they are both very closely tied to each other. Now - I said that the soldiers assessment of what's happening on the ground is fair for them to comment, but their assessment of hte political situation is ridiculous. Are they there meeting with diplomats, studying press releases, and such? No, they are fighing the war. I can't believe you are buying into this stuff. No one is putting much stock into what these GI's are saying except hard-core anti-war liberals. That's because everyone else rolls their eyes at how obviously contrived this is. Now...those two guys were not war supporters, that's just what you guys like to label them. And, democrats have agreed with what they have said - even hilary clinton has said as much. Take off the anti-war bias you guys have!
And when the same poster pummels you over and over again, call him a meanie and put him on ignore. This guy is the Energizer Bunny of disingenuous arguments. p.s. To date, not one single war supporter on this BBS has even attempted to define "winning."
Soldiers on the ground there do feel the effects of policy, do talk to Iraqis everyday, and interact with the citizens of IRaq over a prolonged period of time. I think that does give them some insight above the avg. joe into the political situation as well. Furthermore their political assessment isn't unique. It coincides with other assessments made by people in Iraq that have been posted in this thread.
Life is an experiement and sometimes you find out that you're right and sometimes you find out you are wrong and have to change. I was hastey in judging this war a failure. See, I don't hold onto any position tightly - it allows me to change and be flexible. But being stubborn and dogmatic doesn't do anything - it just keeps you dug-in and stuck. If the momentum is lost, I'll change my stance. But you see, when there is clearly momentum, the liberals here can't accept it - even though their own party has admitted that the conditions are improving in Iraq. So really, why not allow yourself to change your mind once in a while? Try it!
It's saying that if an Egyptian soldier came to visit the U.S. for a year, and spoke to a bunch of people at coffee houses, they'd be qualified to write about American policy in the Egyptian papers. They could say that the U.S. is a failure and that our gov't needs to be changed. He could say they have been to shopping malls, mc donalds, and have talked to guys on the street - they now know America and have a lot of political recommendations for Egypt to follow, and all Egyptians should listen to them.
Well, you certainly implied you were in journalism. So now you're telling me you're just in "media?" What's that? You need to lay out your complete credentials and any awards you've won and where you've worked so we can judge your expertise, your political affiliations, and your credibility about the charges you've made regarding the authorship of the piece. Post #504: Post #510: Post #539:
If their job was directly tied to the political workings of the U.S. then yes their words should be considered as having some relevant experience when talking about that.
Or maybe some guy from France could come over and write about this country. Just for grins, let's call him "Alexis" and pretend he wrote a book that nobody takes seriously called "Democracy in America." Jeez, what an impossibility.
Their long history of support for the war has been well documented in this thread. Agreeing that the surge has provided some military successes isn't the same as agreeing the the surge is working, or that it is worth giving more time.
No, you said: The "surge" has always had a definite time-frame on it because of our military capacity. If the "surge" is to continue beyond it's current timeframe the question again becomes "Where do you get the troops?" You then talked about possibly staying for years, which would obviously mean more troops.
"Sustainable" means maintaining the present troop levels. Gen. Petraeus has said that those numbers cannot be maintained indefinately and at most they could be maintained till next summer. The Surge has always been about a larger troop presence than prior to it and so it is about more troops. I don't deny it all that if we leave anytime soon the country might descend into chaos the problem that I see is that the country is making no effort to keep from descending into chaos and much of it is largely chaotic. Again taking all of the reports of progress at face value there is no indication that such progress can be held after the inevitable drawdown of US troops, whether politically or simply because the military can't afford to support that large of a commitment.
To be fair the terms conservative and liberal have gotten to be very narrowly defined. I don't believe that someone who supports the war is necessarily a conservative and someone who against it is a liberal. I would go even farther to say that if you support the war because you believe it is spreading democracy you are more of a classic liberal than a classic conservative.
Except that it was shown to be not that balanced nor the writers to be that critical. Did you consider that?
