There was never any doubt as to whether or not we could "win" a conventional war against the Iraqi army -- it was a barely coherent fighting force of minimal effectiveness. The doubt was whether or not we could "win" the peace -- and we aren't -- we are losing it badly on almost every conceivable level.
That this came out in exact coincidence with our strategic defeat in Fallujah makes it all the more impactive. ...but still doesn't explain the posters in here talking about this as an example of a propoganda war, unless they are insinuating that these soldiers did this under orders from those opposed to the war in order to make a point. I have said this time and again during this war, and will say so again: Criticism of the war, in general or specifics, does not, repeat, NOT result only from a partisan sense of bias. People keep dismissing every single criticism as just another example of liberalism/Bush hating/partisanship/anti-Americanism, etc. as a means of keeping their heads planted firly in the sand, and it's been happening from the start.
More naysayer defeatism from one of the nattering nabobs of negativity. It's a war, Sam, not a Hollywood movie. Things aren't solved in nice thirty-minute episodes. But see, this just illustrates a point that the only way Democrats are happy is with bad news for our country, because it supposedly increases their electability. They've primed themselves for success when the economy goes bad or things go awry in the war without offering a real solution to fix those problems.
bama- " Happy." ...Happy? T_J- " Joy"...Joy? Who here has expressed either? You and T_J need to coordinate your diversionary tactics. ( Yes, R&S was in my mind.)
They've primed themselves for success when the economy goes bad or things go awry in the war without offering a real solution to fix those problems. There may not be a solution for the war in Iraq. We've gotten ourselves into a mess and we have to try to finish the job as best we can. That said, yes, the Democrats are going to criticize when a bad idea has bad consequences. The solution for the future is to get someone in office who isn't going to go headstrong into dumbass situations. We know this President continually screws up everything he touches, so that's the point that's being made - why elect someone who's going to keep repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over?
OK I'll agree, we've lost this war. All the lovable but goofy Gomers that inhabit this great nation are so used to being manipulated by their on media they couldn't possibly be asked to see through the sophisticated war of propaganda that is being perpatrated against them. Just look up at this thread, I blatantantly posted examples counter propaganda and labled it as such but people still wanted to take me to task as if it were my real positions. How do you take a non-event and make it into an event? ...... Public Relations! How do you take a mundane product and make it a best seller? Public Relations! How do you take an archaic theocracy and make it look more moral than a modern democracy?.... Public Relations!
GP, I don't think anyone wanted to take you task. They merely wanted to argue against the propoganda. Isn't that a good thing? I thought that was the point that you were making. People should want to sift through propoganda in order to find the real deal.
tell us , oh great visionary, when are we allowed to call a spade a spade without it being labeled by you as 'negativity' ?
Sam, if you focus on the small percentage of Iraqis who are stirring up trouble in the Sunni Triangle, or if you focus on liberal programs like Nightline's political agenda, then I could see how you could come to this conclusion. Sadly, the media is reluctant to report the multitude of successful situations in Iraq in which life is improving for the Iraqis. You liberals are just like sharks in the water. It's like you have a sixth sense about when and where negative information is located that can portray the War on Terror in its worst possible light. Recognize that success is far less newsworthy than bumps in the road.
The only use of "joy" and "happy" has come from the most rabid apologists, which is odd. Nobody is happy to see these photos, period. I've read every post, and I see no celebration. I see worry, concern, and sadness (and, since you folks keep quoting T_J, I get to see retread bile and hollow rhetoric -- thanks mucho). Anyway, I don't believe the photos should be blown out of proportion. Of course we've got a few bad apples, and of course bad apples act worse when under *incredible* stress. Maybe I'd want to humiliate a prisoner if my buddy had just been blown up by a cowardly roadside bomb. Hard to put myself in their shoes. Look at it this way: if our highschool football players can sexually humiliate one another in hazing rituals (recently in the news, pardon my lack of a link), it should not completely surprise us here. The PR aspect of it in the Arab world is the worst part, but even then, it might be overstated. It's not like we are immensely popular there, and I'd bet that many, many muslims will see the photos in their newspapers or on Al Jazera and shrug: "yeah, that's what I expected." Not fair to us, at all, but I don't think these photos will single-handedly turn hundreds of thousands of new hearts and minds against us.
EXACTLY Which is all the more reason to question the liberals' use of these photos as why we have "already lost the war" and why our troops are a disgrace and reason to be ashamed of the United States of America.
Reviewing the thread, you see the pattern. 1) Reaction number 1: Reject it's veracity, and attack 'liberals' for spinning and anti-Americanism. After it proves incontrovertable; 2) Reaction 2) Dismiss it's significance, and attack 'liberals' for rejoicing in US failure. Sounds pretty standard to me. Remins me of a much tamer version of the time I passed on a BBC report about a US bomb falling in a marketplace. In terms of how isolated this is while it should be taken with a grain or two of salt, it is worth noting that Staff Srgt. Isaac Francks ( I think?) is claiming that he was A) Operating under orders, and B) within the context of what they had been happening all along. It should also be noted that none, not one of the 7 guards actually on duty at the scene failed to participate, let alone object. And the fact that they felt confident enough to take pictures doesn't paint this as something they perceived as all that troubling. And lastly, as we saw earlier in this thread, people will reject this happened even if there are pictures. What would have been the reaction had there been no pictures. What would Americans be thinking ifit were only reported that we were joyfully torturing Iraqi prisoners?
There is no point in debating against propaganda because the propagandaist is not expressing an opinion. He is merely dissiminating information in way to acheive a desired effect. Whether the pictures in question are real or not is of no real consequence when placed in the context of the overwhelming brutality of warfare. But they are being presented in a way to demoralize the American Public and take the moral high ground for the Islamic Theocracy vying for the control of post-Saddam Iraq. How many stories of American soldiers building soccer fields will it take to equal the moral weight of this one?
ummmm..these pictures were presented by a whistle-blower, GP. an American soldier who said, "this is wrong."
TJ saying Max doesn't love America. Good stuff (Max, I don't know why you even bother). So, TJ, you are one of two things: 1. A moron who really believes everything you post. 2. A guy who thinks it is cool to post as a moron. Either way, you are still a moron. Keep it up and maybe Clutch will create yet another rule in an attempt to stop certain classless things you do. Also, don't forget to log out of brother Texx's account before responding to this.
Let me break things down so you can understand. First, it's convenient that you only mentioned the Sunni Triangle...and forgetting about the armed Shi'ite rebellion currently in progress. But let's put your duplicity/ignorance aside for a second. If only a small percentage (say one percent) of Iraqis (who number 25 million, not 50 million as you seemed to think earlier) are willing to take up armed rebellion against us, or covertly or overtly support it, that is 250,000 guerillas and/or guerilla supporters. We only have around 125,000 troops in the whole country...as a point of reference, the British Army has fielded roughly 100 combat troops to every armed IRA terrorist in Northern Ireland, and the insurgency only lasted about 40 years...without the additional element of armed jihad. But as far as the vast majority of Iraqi's who don't oppose us, who precisely are you referring to, would that be the 71% who see as occupiers and not liberators? The 57% who feel that all foreign troops should leave immediately? The 58% that say the US soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly? The 30% of them who feel that attacks against US forces are somewhat or completely justified? What's insulting and alarming is that fantasists such as yourself pretend like there are enough troops and everything is going to be fine, and that we will be welcomed as liberators. Several hundred americans, as well as a few hundred more allied troops have paid for your stupidity with their lives, not to mention thousands of civilians. That sad fact is not going to change no matter how many times you jabber on about how much you "support the troops", and by "support" I guess you must mean "act like an ass on the internet."
Just saw this... May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the Royal Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And finally, necrophilia is right out. Monty Python's Flying Circus Episode 32 November 23, 1972
Josh Marshall... _________________ Perhaps it is a sign of the more general desperation. But watch how the president now routinely accuses critics of his Iraq policy of being racists. This is from a brief press availability the president gave this morning with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin ... "There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern." There is so much that is wrong-headed and dishonorable in this repeated invocation -- an implicit, churlish claim that the only reason to oppose him is racism -- that it is hard to know where to start. This constant refrain does suggest a certain hyper-awareness and focus on skin color and perhaps limpieza de sangre. And what's the deal with 'our' skin color being white? I'm white. The president is white. But 'our' skin color is not white. Perhaps the principal problem here is the president's belief that saying he's for 'democracy' makes it so, that making the claim places him on the moral high ground even if he has no idea how to accomplish it, has already largely bungled the process, and has already lost the trust of those whose democratic aspirations he claims to defend and champion. -- Josh Marshall
