Originally Posted by Justin '77

I was assuming that when people said they were opposed to the war, they meant on a level correspondent to the sheer evil of being responsible for the massacre of innocents.

To be opposed to a war because it results in the massacre of innocents is to oppose all wars. That is, to be a pacifist. I suspect very little of the opposition to the war reflects this.

I would suggest that many of those opposed to the war today oppose it because the war's authors did not deliver what they promised. That is, they are opposed to the war in the same way an investor is opposed to an investment that went bad.

They could have nixed the investment (the war) when their adviser (the prez) recommended it, but they believed he knew what he was talking about (the prez was not lying about Iraq).

They could begin a campaign about the risks of relying on financial advisers, (war presidents) but how does that solve their problem--how to recover from their loss (what to do about terrorism and the mess in Iraq)?

Mostly they will be disgruntled and they will probably never recover from their losses (the war continues, we get more 911s, or both). After all, if they could recover (solve the 911/Iraq problem) they wouldn't have needed an adviser in the first place.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Before spazzing out, you may want to consider the context; Playdude has called me a liar for saying that I was in the military and has claimed that my knowledge of Iraq comes from teh internets. So, yeah. It is entertaining to see someone whose knowledge of Iraq genuinely does come from teh internets and who has "outed" me with that knowledge now using (supposed) insider terminology that he probably gleaned off of the internet.

In which discussion did playwrite call you a liar? In this particular dust-up he never mentioned you. He mentioned KIA, HC, sean, and Marc.

When did that discussion happen? Link, date, thread, etc. would be appreciated.

"Emerald City"

this term became common knowlege (to me) from watching comedy central. (almost a year ago)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Your statement merely confirms Justin's Coke/Pepsi theory.

I think Justin's Coke v. Pepsi argument is valid. I stand here despicably guilty as charged.

...but it also applies to war supporters.

which is why when some here say to a supporter "Well then, if you're so behind it, grab a gun and ship on out!" ...it is usually met with silence.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's a good point,

thanks, Rani

which makes the charges of war supporters being bloodthirsty murderers (charges raised by some here on your side) ludicrous.

hang on there...bloodthirsty murderers? is that a direct quote?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Good lordy, I knew you had selective amnesia, but I didn't know it was so severe! Click on the quote, silly, that's why I put it the link in there.

Hey, I never knew you could click on the little arrow and go directly to the original post! Well, that's pretty cool.

I do remember that exchange, but it is four months old. So why does Chris bring it up now? Playwrite wasn't even directing the "Emerald City" comment on this thread at him. It was directed at HC.

And what is the big frippin' deal about using that phrase anyway? This is just goofy. And it's predictable. Chris brings out the fact that he's been to Iraq and just uses it to beat people over the head.

He's not special because he's been to Iraq. He's special because when he went over there, he behaved in an honorable manner. I can only hope that carries over to real life, because here he frequently comes across as overbearing and arrogant, and it's annoyed more than a few people here.

So I'm not impressed when he plays that card.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

To be opposed to a war because it results in the massacre of innocents is to oppose all wars.

Strictly speaking, not true. When they are more scrupulous in who they target, fighters in any Resistance movement would be worthy of the support of such a viewpoint. Pacifism is far from the only logical conclusion to draw.

Originally Posted by 13rian

I think Justin's Coke v. Pepsi argument is valid. I stand here despicably guilty as charged.

...but it also applies to war supporters.

Very true. The horror of it is not that most Americans want to see tons of wogs murdered, but that, if they were to be, even in Americans' name, it really wouldn't that a particularly big deal.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Oh, good lord, Kiff. Here's a buck. Go buy yourself a clue.

You've given so many freebies out -- but thanks for the offer.

In any event, based on comments I've just seen here and on the "Positive Millie Stories" thread, I think I've gotten to the crux of why I get so irritated with you and Rani.

You guys talk a lot about doing good in the real world -- but when it comes down to it, if I had a real-world problem, I wouldn't be coming to you for help. I'd go to someone like Sean, or M&L, or Herbal Tee, or Virgil, or Jenny, or Kevin, or Wally -- because they've all come through for me when I was down. They understand the conventional social niceties, and they take the time to use them. These little things add up.

I used to scorn conventionality in my wild youth, but eventually I grew up and saw that ordinary people are pretty darn special -- even if they don't post at this forum, consider themselves above politics, or play gotcha games on the internet.

You guys are the cool kids. You don't drink Coke or Pepsi, for sure, but you come across as callous. You're above criticism, you both know more than anyone else here, and you're not shy about saying it.

So carry on.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Then you have a big problem, because without them there are no demonstrations. It's their megaphone and their podium, they call the shots in the demonstrations. You are along for the ride with them.

And yes, they and their kook-fringe allies have become, to a considerable degree, the public face of the anti-Iraq feeling in the USA. As I said, if you despise them as Maoists (and I have no reason to doubt you) you and yours would do well to start thinking about how to get out of their shadow.

This sounds exactly like the argument made during the Vietnam demonstrations, and the public is just about as unconvinced by the current argument as they were then. I'm sure those of you over on the Right fringe see those on the Left fringe when you look in the mirror, but the average person doesn't. What they see is ... nothing. They don't like the war for many reasons of their own. They don't relate to demonstrators, because the demonstrators don't' fit into their universe.

Your assumptions are similar to those who say people relate to movie and sports stars or the CEOs of large companies. They don't. They see them as belonging to a class outside themselves, hence they enjoy listening to what they say, and feel free to ignore any message they convey.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mikebert

To be opposed to a war because it results in the massacre of innocents is to oppose all wars. That is, to be a pacifist. I suspect very little of the opposition to the war reflects this...

Strictly speaking, not true. When they are more scrupulous in who they target, fighters in any Resistance movement would be worthy of the support of such a viewpoint. Pacifism is far from the only logical conclusion to draw.

H-m-m-m. Strictly speaking, right as rain. Assuming that war can be fought by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules shows a lack of understanding of how war actually works. The old adage that war is long periods of boredom punctuated by brief period of abject terror is both accurate and a reason why wars tend to be vicious, brutal and irrational. Only the non-involved have the luxury of purity.

Your standard is a good one, but one that's unachievable. That's why the professionals wanted to enter this war en masse. It lowers, not raises, the level of brutality. I opposed the war in any manner, but was shocked when we decided to fight it the way we have. The misery was predictable to me, and I'm no expert.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Strictly speaking, right as rain. Assuming that war can be fought by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules shows a lack of understanding of how war actually works.

Um. No one made that assumption (though I must admit, it is a great strawman).
Resistance need not fight by any particular rules; the very nature of their fight -- against invaders of their homes -- fairly guarantees an ease of targeting only the guilty parties.

An easy test, if he's in your home and you don't want him to be, he's fair game. No pacifism needed.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You've accused Bush and the neocons of lying. I assume you have evidence to back that up? Or are you ceding the debate?

The Grandfather of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, thought, following Plato, that "the elites" should lie to the public to keep them in line. Anyone who hasn't had their head in the stand for the past 6 years knows that W's Neo-Con puppet-masters are deceiving the public

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Um. No one made that assumption (though I must admit, it is a great strawman).
Resistance need not fight by any particular rules; the very nature of their fight -- against invaders of their homes -- fairly guarantees an ease of targeting only the guilty parties.

Invasion doesn't need to be that personal to be effective. In fact, it's more effective if it's more impersonal. That's even more the case if terrorizing people is the goal.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... An easy test, if he's in your home and you don't want him to be, he's fair game. No pacifism needed.

Why would someone enter that merely wants to intimidate you? They can disrupt electrical service and not even enter the neighborhood. Likewise, they can disrupt the delivery of almost anything ... including food and water.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Different discussion, same issue.

I would suggest any one interested (I can’t fathom why) to read the entire thread rather than rely solely on this Rani cherry pick.

The issue was how much deference should be given to essentially an anonymous poster's position based primarily on that poster's "off-stage" personal experience (in this case, both Semo's claimed military and community service, and the Rani's buying into that lock, stock and barrel) rather than the logic of his presented argument or provided referential material. I had made the point that even if Semo was either Rumsfeld, Sanchez or Bremer, his personal experience would, by definition, be limited as well as out-of-date, and possible support wrong, if not stupid, conclusions (ala the three personalities mentioned). I also pointed out that it was my personal experience that those that have seen the worst of combat situations are the least likely to recall those experiences for others' considerations, particularly unlikely to use them as a basis for silly arguments on a internet chat room; Rani's cherry-pick was my attempt at some sarcasm towards the adolescence behavior of doing otherwise.

After beating their arguments to a pulp, I thought at least Semo had learned a lesson (as most here know, Rani is beyond redemption -- I like it that way; she's very entertaining!) But unfortunately, it is obvious from his arrogance of claiming (due to his military experience) the term "Emerald City" as his own, the cleaning up of his act has been short lived.

So for those of you, like Rani, who are so easily swayed from just the mere mention by a man that he was in uniform, please don't waste your time reading Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-...880556-4239810
or the numerous other works by folks like Ricks, Woodward, Rich, Issikoff, Gordon, Galbraith and many others with extensive discussions of the phenomenon know as the Emerald City. Nope, you types can just get all yer thinkin here from our resident expert – and it comes with the added bonus of snarky elaborations from his faithful Tonto!

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

THe media are seeking out whatever story they can to put a negative 'spin' on anything happening in Iraq, this is just the latest example of an ongoing effort. They've run out (at least for now) of pictures of burning cars and they don't have a current body count to lovingly dwell on, so they seek out whatever they can and 'spin' it to suit their narrative. You fell for it.

Must be nice to live in such a simple world as yours. A one-month drop in casualties and you're ready to sing "Mission Accomplished" again.

Turn your brain on. What happened between the deadliest Spring in Iraq back this past April-July to now? You think we're in control of that shift or somebody else? You don't think a deal has been cut to limit our scope -

The plan also acknowledges that the U.S. military -- with limited time and troops -- cannot guarantee a wholesale defeat of its enemies in Iraq, and instead is seeking "political accommodation" to persuade them to end the use of violence, the officials said.

In the political arena, the campaign plan no longer upholds the passage of specific laws by Iraq's parliament as the main measure of reconciliation among religious and ethnic factions. It instead emphasizes the need for government leaders to take concrete, practical steps in areas such as sharing oil revenues or hiring ex-Baathist officials. "We want to have more focus on these results . . . not on the technical legislation," said the embassy official.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102101577.html

and get us moving out -

The military did not replace 2,200 Marines who came home from Anbar Province in September, and we will also bring home an Army combat brigade for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/

with the clock is ticking -

http://minstrelboy.blogspot.com/2007...a-al-sadr.html

and some interesting warnings-

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020201

But the guy calling the shots can afford to wait while he gathers his strength and neuters family opposition and their Persian friends -


http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English...1.0.1463019192

But go ahead, be happy in your simple world. Maintaining the illusion is likely part of the plan of the deal. Eventually, it gets us out of Iraq and when the place finally goes completely genocidal, it will be on the next Prez's watch. Nice plan, but only possible with gullible simpletons feeling happy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So for those of you, like Rani, who are so easily swayed from just the mere mention by a man that he was in uniform, please don't waste your time reading Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-...880556-4239810
or the numerous other works by folks like Ricks, Woodward, Rich, Issikoff, Gordon, Galbraith and many others with extensive discussions of the phenomenon know as the Emerald City. Nope, you types can just get all yer thinkin here from our resident expert – and it comes with the added bonus of snarky elaborations from his faithful Tonto!

I read Frank Rich's book The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and I'm working on Plan of Attack by Woodward at the moment.

I assume the Ricks book is Fiasco? I'm not familiar with the last three you cited, though my aunt raved (and ranted) about Imperial Life in the Emerald City.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Grandfather of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, thought, following Plato, that "the elites" should lie to the public to keep them in line. Anyone who hasn't had their head in the stand for the past 6 years knows that W's Neo-Con puppet-masters are deceiving the public

Leo Strauss is an evil Machiavellian!!!!!!! Niccolo Machiavelli is burning in Hell, as will all neo-cons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(TM)

Originally Posted by The Rani

You're just jealous. Admit it.

And as usual, dum-dum, you've got it totally wrong. The uniform has nothing to do with it at all. I just know how to admit when someone knows more than I do about a situation, by virtue of having experience with something when I have none, and I know how to listen.

You might then try broadening your scope to include those that have more experience than yourself AND Semo. You could even start with those that draw from their personal experience even less intelligent conclusions than Semo’s -- such as a Bremer or a Tenet. Then if you really want to begin forming some half-decent thought patterns on the subject, you might stretch yourself to include some of the authors mentioned.

As I write this, I realize the futility - your character's projected general disinterest dovetails well with reliance on the Semos of the worlds.

I do have respect for Semo, however. He just needs a little more life-seasoning. That may be true as well for you.

And obviously, I am jealous, or more accurately, feel unjustly treated in vying for thy lady's favor. I too donned the uniform, some decades ago during even more trying circumstances. And even with all these damn cupcake bakeries, it still fits and I believe I look as fetching now as I did then.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I read Frank Rich's book The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and I'm working on Plan of Attack by Woodward at the moment.

I assume the Ricks book is Fiasco? I'm not familiar with the last three you cited, though my aunt raved (and ranted) about Imperial Life in the Emerald City.

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Paperback)
by Michael Isikoff (Author), David Corn (Author)

Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion... by Michael R. Gordon

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End (Paperback)
by Peter W. Galbraith

I thought Ricks was the best written. For Woodward, like most of his books, you need a players' card to keep up with all the name-dropping - tough to plow straight through without going back over and over again with the question, "now who the heck is this guy, again?"

Cobra was the most heart-quickening although less about post-"Mission Accomplished" than the others

Isikoff is the one with the most political bias; however, it, along with Rich's book, are the ones that most make you want to reach out and strangle the nearest neoCon or chickenhawk.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You might then try broadening your scope to include those that have more experience than yourself AND Semo. You could even start with those that draw from their personal experience even less intelligent conclusions than Semo’s -- such as a Bremer or a Tenet. Then if you really want to begin forming some half-decent thought patterns on the subject, you might stretch yourself to include some of the authors mentioned.

As I write this, I realize the futility - your character's projected general disinterest dovetails well with reliance on the Semos of the worlds.

I do have respect for Semo, however. He just needs a little more life-seasoning. That may be true as well for you.

And obviously, I am jealous, or more accurately, feel unjustly treated in vying for thy lady's favor. I too donned the uniform, some decades ago during even more trying circumstances. And even with all these damn cupcake bakeries, it still fits and I believe I look as fetching now as I did then.

Playdude, you're obviously the one who requires a lot more seasoning in life. Hell, I've never donned a uniform in my life. However, I figure Rani and Semo both have the natural sense, the common knowlege or the practical experience to recognize a person who is, as you said, pretty well seasoned in life.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Playdude, you're obviously the one who requires a lot more seasoning in life. Hell, I've never donned a uniform in my life. However, I figure Rani and Semo both have the natural sense, the common knowledge or the practical experience to recognize a person who is, as you said, pretty well seasoned in life.

I also see a lot of values filtering going on. It is natural for people to seek out information sources and associates who coming from those similar values, and find reasons to shun or disregard people and information sources that threaten their values.

Crises come to climax because people cling to old values past their time. Old values have to totally fail before many will abandon the past and start solving the problems staring them in the face. Until truly catastrophic failure is completely undeniable, it will be denied.

The lack of communications typical on these forum just illustrates the problem.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Paperback)
by Michael Isikoff (Author), David Corn (Author)

Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion... by Michael R. Gordon

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End (Paperback)
by Peter W. Galbraith

I thought Ricks was the best written. For Woodward, like most of his books, you need a players' card to keep up with all the name-dropping - tough to plow straight through without going back over and over again with the question, "now who the heck is this guy, again?"

Cobra was the most heart-quickening although less about post-"Mission Accomplished" than the others

Isikoff is the one with the most political bias; however, it, along with Rich's book, are the ones that most make you want to reach out and strangle the nearest neoCon or chickenhawk.

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm going to try and get through all of them as I have time.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you even realize what a sexist pig you are?

First you put me in the gender box by suggesting my response derives from jealosy. Then you get all huffy when I play along as the unrequited. These mood swings of yours are certainly entertaining.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In case you forgot, here is what I said about Semo on another thread. Again, different discussion, same topic:



This is why I value his opinion, not because he's sexier than you, dipshit. Start living up to these standards, and maybe I'll start taking you seriously too.

If you go back to any of the exchanges I've have had with Semo, I don't think you'll find me commenting on any extensive presentations by him of his well-read or well-researched material. My entire point was about the lack of such information, and in its absence, reliance on, by definition, highly limited personal experience as a basis for crappy conclusions that you, in turn, too easily buy into.

Perhaps you are confusing the actual standards you live by with ones that you may have heard mentioned -- perhaps while dozing in some college critical thinking class?

But thanks for letting me know you think I'm sexy.