Perhaps true, I don't know. Some of the definitions I've just read are pretty general - not nearly as specific as in the article. My question - if not a civil war, what then?
It sounds so much bigger than "religious conflicts" or "clashes". They sound puny and unimportant and don't make grand headlines. And of course, they don't produce the desired effect of making it sound as though the entire country of Iraq is in a state of war and mayhem. Which is what they want everyone to believe, so that President Bush looks like a failure.
a year ago, MSM wanted to tell us that the Iraqi conflict is just like the Vietnam conflict and it is a quagmire for the US and coalition forces and now that they failed to make us believe their stupid notion of Vietnam like Iraq, they are again trying hard to make us believe there is a civil war going on in Iraq
chester - Yes, the media likes to hype things and dumb them down into a few words, but what is being implied here is not just that Iraq might or might not be a civil war. It looks to me that you would spin the news the other way, so that current administration looks like a success, which is more untrue than calling it a civil war. One is maybe sloppy journalism and the other is outright spin.
The fact is that there are a few stable provinces, but most of them, excepting the Kurdish area in the north, are only stable because of the presence of coalition troops. Withdraw, and I think we'll be a little more in agreement on the term civil war.
chester - You are right, the semester is not over, but let's look at the reasons the US invaded Iraq: - WMD's - Niger yellow-cake - connections with terrorists with implications of connections with al Qaeda and 9/11 - human rights violations - regime change was termed a secondary issue by Dick Cheney - not enough to go to war on alone.
As it turns out, regime change and human rights violaotions are what the Administration is left with. If the US is planning on invading other countries for these reasons, they're sure being coy about their plans for China. I would argue that even going to war on the flimsy evidence they did justifies a failing grade straight away.
Of course, these are just the stated reasons. I'm sure that whatever the outcome in the rest of Iraq, if the US gets to keep its "enduring camps" future administrations might consider it a success.
Chester - I haven't seen any compelling evidence about the other erstwhile reasons for the Iraq war. At least nothing recent. Have you got links? Seriously, I'm interested.
As for why the right-wing blogs? Three reasons. First, debating like this is fun and helps me think things through. Even though it sometimes might not show, I do try to think about this stuff as I write and edit my posts and comments. And, I sometimes get convinced I'm wrong. (And sometimes I even admit it.) Only posting to leftwing blogs would be simple masturbation.
Second, there is always something new to learn and righties and me often read very different things. This improves my exposure to the issues generally and lets me pick topics that interest me for exploration.
And three - know thy enemy. ;)
anonymous - I didn't call the blog useless, just the post (please read what I wrote before commenting) because it just tossed a link out with little editorial. Other articles on this blog, and many others I read, are at times interesting and aggravating. Yes, and some useless.
10 comments:
the definition of civil war does not apply to Iraq at all
Perhaps true, I don't know. Some of the definitions I've just read are pretty general - not nearly as specific as in the article. My question - if not a civil war, what then?
The MSM loves the sound of the title "Civil War".
It sounds so much bigger than "religious conflicts" or "clashes". They sound puny and unimportant and don't make grand headlines. And of course, they don't produce the desired effect of making it sound as though the entire country of Iraq is in a state of war and mayhem. Which is what they want everyone to believe, so that President Bush looks like a failure.
a year ago, MSM wanted to tell us that the Iraqi conflict is just like the Vietnam conflict and it is a quagmire for the US and coalition forces and now that they failed to make us believe their stupid notion of Vietnam like Iraq, they are again trying hard to make us believe there is a civil war going on in Iraq
They'll fail soon again...
chester - Yes, the media likes to hype things and dumb them down into a few words, but what is being implied here is not just that Iraq might or might not be a civil war. It looks to me that you would spin the news the other way, so that current administration looks like a success, which is more untrue than calling it a civil war. One is maybe sloppy journalism and the other is outright spin.
The fact is that there are a few stable provinces, but most of them, excepting the Kurdish area in the north, are only stable because of the presence of coalition troops. Withdraw, and I think we'll be a little more in agreement on the term civil war.
Kevvyd -
"so that current administration looks like a success, which is more untrue than calling it a civil war."
No. It's not untrue. How can you say whether it's successful or not yet?
You seeem to want to give the final grade in the middle of the semester.
chester - You are right, the semester is not over, but let's look at the reasons the US invaded Iraq:
- WMD's
- Niger yellow-cake
- connections with terrorists with implications of connections with al Qaeda and 9/11
- human rights violations
- regime change was termed a secondary issue by Dick Cheney - not enough to go to war on alone.
As it turns out, regime change and human rights violaotions are what the Administration is left with. If the US is planning on invading other countries for these reasons, they're sure being coy about their plans for China. I would argue that even going to war on the flimsy evidence they did justifies a failing grade straight away.
Of course, these are just the stated reasons. I'm sure that whatever the outcome in the rest of Iraq, if the US gets to keep its "enduring camps" future administrations might consider it a success.
Kev -
"As it turns out, regime change and human rights violaotions are what the Administration is left with."
You'd better read up some more on the most recent findings regarding the other topics.
" I would argue that even going to war on the flimsy evidence they did justifies a failing grade straight away."
I'm sure you think that.
So, what attracts you to a right-wing blog?
Chester, he is a Liberal blogger and calls right wing blogs useless, yet he goes through "useless tory blogs" to find interesting stories...
LoL
Chester -
I haven't seen any compelling evidence about the other erstwhile reasons for the Iraq war. At least nothing recent. Have you got links? Seriously, I'm interested.
As for why the right-wing blogs? Three reasons. First, debating like this is fun and helps me think things through. Even though it sometimes might not show, I do try to think about this stuff as I write and edit my posts and comments. And, I sometimes get convinced I'm wrong. (And sometimes I even admit it.) Only posting to leftwing blogs would be simple masturbation.
Second, there is always something new to learn and righties and me often read very different things. This improves my exposure to the issues generally and lets me pick topics that interest me for exploration.
And three - know thy enemy. ;)
anonymous - I didn't call the blog useless, just the post (please read what I wrote before commenting) because it just tossed a link out with little editorial. Other articles on this blog, and many others I read, are at times interesting and aggravating. Yes, and some useless.
Post a Comment