Job
If you want to get a decent grade ignore the previous post. Scholarly work does not involve bias.
Opinion is not scholarship it is editorializing.
How is the last post any more or less biased than many of the other posts here? It actually seemed to be a pretty well thought out argument to me (well as good as any of the others).
I do agree with you, I just think that most of the other posts from the other side are biased also.
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Oh, wait…[/quote]
"Shit, I almost forgot to lay off the opium pipe long enough to eat my one meal for this month.
I have no friends, everyone calls me a knowitall. But I’ll kick all your asses." – Al
al, please post pics.
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1112756195915.ursuin_mask.gif
[quote]Cream wrote:
al, please post pics.
[/quote]
Contra the “wit and wisdom” of Al Shades:
-The new Iraqi government is not just “a prop for show and nothing more.” A show for whom BTW? It is an bold albeit risky move to tear the disfunctional fabric the the Middle East by giving people say in their government, as opposed to being terrorized by it. We can all be sure that in the event that Iraq was divided in three the Turks would be the first to welcome an independent Kurdistan. There is no chance of any residual turf wars either.
- 9-11 caused huge economic dislocations by introducing new uncertainty (as opposed to risk, which is calculable). Spending money to reduce that uncertainty by attacking a known harborer and subsidizer of terrorists can in fact increase economic activity. The question is how much spent for what you hope to achieve.
-Those who sign up know what’s going on and cannot not have at least some idea of the potential consequences. I hate to say it, but the experiences gained in Iraq and the collective memory of the reality of its hellishness make our amred forces more effective, and thus a greater potential deterent. The memories hopefully sober us in future situations. Pulling out immediately shows that the “Great Satan” can in fact easily be sent packing and should be attacked further. The most convenient reason believed by the most useful idiots will do.
-Thousands, hundreds, who really knows how many terrorists, “freedom fighters,” “combat teams,” whatever have entered Iraq. They can’t hold any territory without being slaughtered and routed and at best can kill one, two, maybe three foreign devils a day, while being martyred at a much higher rate. The US gains valuable combat experience as it dawns on many that bravado and bluster is fine, but going up against the best equipped combat forces in the world is a bit different. A great propaganda tool indeed, as the collective shock generated by the capture of GI Joe indicated.
Our debt proportion, interpreted as federal debt as a percentage of GNP, is actually lower than the post-WWII average. Look it up- I did.
One thing immediately comes to mind in this war. Never before has information been so readily available from so many different sources. Perhaps you could take a specific incident and see how it was covered by many different sources. Research how different people with different viewpoints and aims try to peer through the fog of war and see and report on what they think happened, why it did and what the consequences will be.
Good luck.
I’ll try to make this fast.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
-The new Iraqi government is not just “a prop for show and nothing more.” A show for whom BTW? It is an bold albeit risky move to tear the disfunctional fabric the the Middle East by giving people say in their government, as opposed to being terrorized by it. We can all be sure that in the event that Iraq was divided in three the Turks would be the first to welcome an independent Kurdistan. There is no chance of any residual turf wars either.[/quote]
- Holding the election was so bold of this administration that it had to be forced into doing it by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Husseini al-Sistani - the spiritual leader of Iraq’s majority Shiite population. He is the true ruler of Iraq, capable of inciting his followers to obedience or insurgency.
- There was nothing special about the election. It was no secret that the Shiites were going to win. For this reason, most Sunni areas didn’t even bother voting. Kurds merely participated because they thought they could use the situation to gain a political advantage, where previously they had been oppressed under Sadam. By the way, there were also elections held under Saddam, and their results were no more predictable than this one. Yes, the election was for show, and it was a joke.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
- 9-11 caused huge economic dislocations by introducing new uncertainty (as opposed to risk, which is calculable). Spending money to reduce that uncertainty by attacking a known harborer and subsidizer of terrorists can in fact increase economic activity. The question is how much spent for what you hope to achieve.[/quote]
-
9-11 was caused by this nation’s foreign policy. That policy was not reduced or eliminated in response to the incident; it was expanded upon.
-
The uncertainty and feelings of risk you refer to were directly encouraged and propagated by this administration in it’s drive to war, as well as the establishment media.
-
Money is always better spent by private citizens or corporations than by the government, and for peaceful, economic causes. War’s net result is only the destruction of the products of labor.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
-Those who sign up know what’s going on and cannot not have at least some idea of the potential consequences. I hate to say it, but the experiences gained in Iraq and the collective memory of the reality of its hellishness make our amred forces more effective, and thus a greater potential deterent. The memories hopefully sober us in future situations. Pulling out immediately shows that the “Great Satan” can in fact easily be sent packing and should be attacked further. The most convenient reason believed by the most useful idiots will do.[/quote]
Those who sign up do know what’s going on - that is, unless they are completely swindled by recruiters, which is happening on an increasing basis in light of the falling recruitment rates.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/stl1.html
And then there’s the backdoor draft that has been taking place for months as a result of the the “stop loss” policy:
Going in was a mistake. Staying in is a mistake. The situation is getting worse, not better. Pulling out is the only option. When you fuck up on the scale of billions of dollars and millions of people, it’s naive to expect that no negative consequences shall arise from it. So, yeah, maybe it’ll be percieved as a “sign of weakness” by some. But that’s no worse than being percieved as tyranny and oppression by nearly all, which is the case now.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
-Thousands, hundreds, who really knows how many terrorists, “freedom fighters,” “combat teams,” whatever have entered Iraq. They can’t hold any territory without being slaughtered and routed and at best can kill one, two, maybe three foreign devils a day, while being martyred at a much higher rate. The US gains valuable combat experience as it dawns on many that bravado and bluster is fine, but going up against the best equipped combat forces in the world is a bit different. A great propaganda tool indeed, as the collective shock generated by the capture of GI Joe indicated.
[/quote]
If you think that continually sacrificing American troops (no matter the kill/death ratio on the other side) for a hopeless cause is a good idea, then you should be over in Iraq on the front lines. This is the archetype stance taken by the neocon orchestrators of this war. The situation for U.S. forces is not as peachy as you (i.e. the Bush administration) have painted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
If you read even the first couple paragraphs of each link you will be much better informed than you currently stand a chance of being, considering your sources (the U.S. government).
[quote]schrauper wrote:
Our debt proportion, interpreted as federal debt as a percentage of GNP, is actually lower than the post-WWII average. Look it up- I did.[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it instead, since it doesn’t go against my argument. So the economy, and thus the GNP, has grown. That’s great. That’s a product of capitalism and the free market, which the government hasn’t managed to completely stifle in this country yet. The debt, on the other hand, is a product of wasteful government spending/borrowing, having no beneficial impact on the GNP - so it is entirely genuine to point to it’s growth as a source of economic and financial woe.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
One thing immediately comes to mind in this war. Never before has information been so readily available from so many different sources. Perhaps you could take a specific incident and see how it was covered by many different sources. Research how different people with different viewpoints and aims try to peer through the fog of war and see and report on what they think happened, why it did and what the consequences will be.[/quote]
Here is the list of sources used by Antiwar.com:
http://antiwar.com/sources.php
It seems like a wide enough variety to me. I know how information is presented by the mainstream sources because antiwar.com editorials routinely disseminate and demolish it - always linking and/or quoting the targets of their attack. Antiwar.com is the best news site on the net, and really, the only one that is needed by a person seeking to stay informed. Some things can be predetermined without subjecting them to the potential bias of various sources; they are the eternal truthes of government, coercion, human nature and war. If a war is centered around a flawed concept - as this one is - then no matter what propaganda is fed to the public, it will not succeed in it’s publicized objective.
[quote]Cream wrote:
al, please post pics.
[/quote]
Okay, I relent. Here you go: