Already there's fierce hand-to-hand infighting inside the Pentagon, as
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's numerous enemies in the military seek out
favored journalist to inflict punitive retaliation for what they
describe as his arrogance and folly.
Much of the world is revelling
in Imperial Reverses, and that in itself is an event of vast political
significance. The supposed news monopoly of the American Empire has
similarly collapsed. [...]
Anyone with a laptop can find their way to informed sources, such as
the daily bulletins of Russian military intelligence, or the
knowledgeable commentary of US veterans, that demolish the parrot
babble of the Embedded Ones.
We are, remember, just past the anniversary of the My Lai massacre,
March 16, 1968, when American Gis, part of Operation Phoenix,
machine-gunned hundreds upon hundreds of women and babies and old men
in a trench in Vietnam, where US forces tried to suppression
resistance in an area far smaller than what they propose to control in
the Fertile Crescent today.
By the way, those Russian intelligence reports mentioned are riveting.
They offer a much more vivid view of what's really happening on the
battlefield than we're getting from all those embedded reporters.
It's full of detailed, nitty-gritty technical analysis of weapons, strategies,
equipment, logistics, with the occasional partisan jab against their
old nemesis thrown in for ``political correctness.''
Compare this snippet, from
www.iraqwar.ru:
A range of technical problems with equipment has been revealed during
the combat operations. Most operators of the M1A2 Abrams main battle
tank agree that the tank was inadequate for performing the set combat
tasks. The primary problem is the extremely low reliability of the
tank's engine and its transmission in desert conditions. Heat from the
sun, hot sand and the constantly present hot dust in the air nearly
nullified the advantages offered by the turret-mounted thermal sights.
Visibility range of these sights did not exceed 300 meters during
movement in convoy and reached up to 700-800 meters during stops. Only
during cold nights did the visibility range reach 1000-1,500 meters.
Additionally, a large number of thermal sights and other electronics
simply broke down. The tiny crystalline sand particles caused
electrical power surges and disabled electronic equipment.
This was the reason for the decision by the coalition command
to stop movement of troops at night when a contact with the enemy was
deemed likely.
[...]
Another serious drawback in the coalition planning was the
exceptionally weak protection in the rear of the advancing forces.
This resulted in constant interruptions in fuel supply. Tank units
sometimes spent up to 6 hours standing still with empty fuel tanks, in
essence, being targets for the Iraqis. Throughout the war
delivery of food, ammunition and fuel remains a headache for the
US commanders.
From March 26:
Massive numbers of disabled combat vehicles and other equipment
becomes a strategic problem for the coalition. Already, radio
intercepts indicate, all available repair units have been deployed to
the front. Over 60% of all available spare parts have been already
used and emergency additional supplies are being requested.
The sand is literally "eating up" the equipment. Sand has a
particularly serious effect on electronics and transmissions of combat
vehicles. Already more than 40 tanks and up to 69 armored personnel
carriers have been disabled due to damaged engines; more than 150
armored vehicles have lost the use of their heat-seeking targeting
sights and night vision equipment. Fine dust gets into all openings
and clogs up all moving parts.
And March 27:
A particular point of concern for the US command is the huge overuse of
precision-guided munitions and cruise missiles. Already the supply of heavy
cruise missiles like the "Tomahawk" has been reduced by a third and, at the
current rate of use, in three weeks the US will be left only with the
untouchable strategic supply of these missiles. A similar situation exists
with other types of precision-guided munitions. "The rate of their use is
incompatible with the obtained results. We are literally dropping gold into
the mud!" said Gen. Richard Mayers during a meeting in Pentagon yesterday
morning. [reverse translation from Russian]
The US experts already call this war a "crisis". "It was enough for the
enemy to show a little resistance and some creative thinking as our
technological superiority begun to quickly lose all its meaning. Our
expenses are not justified by the obtained results. The enemy is using an
order of magnitude cheaper weapons to reach the same goals for which we
spend billions on technological whims of the defense industry!" said Gen.
Stanley McCrystal during the same Pentagon meeting. [reverse translation
from Russian]
[...]
According to [Russian military] intelligence Pentagon made a decision to
significantly reinforce the coalition. During the next two weeks up to
50,000 troops and no less than 500 tanks will arrive to the combat area from
the US military bases in Germany and Albania. By the end of April 120,000
more troops and up to 1,200 additional tanks will be sent to support the war
against Iraq.
A decision was made to change the way aviation is used in this war. The use
of precision-guided munitions will be scaled down and these weapons will be
reserved for attacking only known, confirmed targets. There will be an
increase in the use of conventional high-yield aviation bombs,
volume-detonation bombs and incendiary munitions. The USAF command is
ordered to deliver to airbases used against Iraq a two-week supply of
aviation bombs of 1-tonn caliber and higher as well as volume-detonation and
incendiary bombs. This means that Washington is resorting to the "scorched
earth" tactics and carpet-bombing campaign.
Well, hello, Vietnam! Welcome back, I'm sure.
It's ironic that the remnants of the great communist dictatorship
provide more timely and detailed reporting than the great democratic
free press.
- AR
3/30 1:32am
LH: Hmm, yes, in thinking about it, you are probably right. To quote
our kind Wm., "Ahh, the magical wonder of perspective". After all, after
illegally invading one country (Cambodia) Tricky Dick did retreat from
what many consider to be the only war this country has ever lost. But
[Ronald Reagan] did successfully preside over the terrific demonstration
of Republican prowess in Grenada. But then there's always Bush
Senior... who left a war (in Iraq) before finishing it and helped set up
the travesty we are now faced with. I guess you are right after all,
Republicans do know how to do the easy thing..... (And since you bring
up the glorious military record of the Grand Ole Party, perhaps you're
curious about our Commander in Chief's stellar military record. If so,
check out awolbush.com.
I can't vouch for it 's accuracy, I only hope it isn't...)
BTW, what's up with your connection of me to the French? Love their
food, enjoy their wine, beautiful countryside, their politics are
occasionally sketchy, but since I didn't mention them, I'm wondering
perhaps maybe you have a deep rooted issue that is just trying to burst
out? Or is it just that good ole "broad brush" that Senator McCarthy
used to love to paint with...
As for any relation between me and WJB, I only hope s/he reconsiders and
re-enters the fray.
But all of this strays far too much from the topic. If we can invade a
country because we fear for our safety, does the same rule apply to
everyone else? Or just to us 'cause we have the biggest stick?
- TMB
3/29 10:59pm
TMB - (or is that a nom de plume for WJB given how much you folks love
France) Why not post to the worldly Times or El Globo if that is your
intended audience. Also, how convenient you left out the right to bear
arms. RR was my hero as well. In closing please remember that it took
Richard Nixon to finally end the Vietnam War which was started by the
Francophiles and grossly escalated by your heroes the [Democrats]. - If
you want to end a war - be it Iraq, Cold, or Vietnam - call a Republican.
- LH
3/29 10:28pm
SW: Re: first paragrah of Time Magazine story - one couldn't get away with
making something like that up. All the eye-witnesses are still around,
and they read the press. If there are any inaccuracies in the
particulars, I'm sure they'll speak up. In this case, the reaction (or lack
of) to the news article will let us know just how factual the anecdote was.
As to the reliability of news articles, that greatly depends on the source.
For me, I would trust Time Magazine over, say, Rumsfeld, since Time has
more of their reputation vested in their stories. Opinion pieces disguised
as investigative journalism do not survive a check into the references,
and certainly in this case an ample paper trail has been published.
Newsweek would love to scoop Time for making it up, I'm sure :-)
As to the effect on citizens' beliefs, I, too, was disturbed by the article.
Unfortunately, it offers the most credible explanation yet of the underlying
reasons for this war; certainly less ludicrous than the one publicly
proffered. Perhaps a better explanation will come along; until then, this is
the best working theory. Besides, it's good for the citizens to be shaken up
every now and then, without it we end up with bad government.
Between the specter of "conspiracy theory" and the administration's fairy
tales, they've certainly got our evening entertainment covered! :-)
- AR
3/29 10:26pm
No wonder this "liberation effort" seem like a re-run to the Shiites in
Basra. They've seen it before, and already paid the price for ``American
assistance,'' several times.
From UPI:
People have long memories in this part of the world. The Shiites
recall, for instance, that when the Baath Party came to power in a
bloody coop, it was with the help of the CIA. And they have suffered
much since.
They recall the bloody eight-year war with Iran -- a nation of fellow
Shiites -- during which the United States supported Saddam, providing
him with weapons, even helping him get started on some of the chemical
and biological warfare agents they now have come to collect.
And most of all, they recall the period after the first Gulf War in
1991, when they rose up in open revolt against Saddam. U.S.-led
coalition forces -- having driven the Iraqi army from Kuwait -- were
only a few miles away from the outskirts of Basra, but remained there,
abandoning the Shiites at the last minute to the wrath of Saddam's
thugs.
About 200,000 Iraqi Shiites were brutally slaughtered in the south by
Saddam's forces after the failed uprising. This is not a typographical
error. Read it again, two hundred thousand dead[.]
Saddam Hussein, brutal despot. Made in the U.S.A. And now, chapter two:
``We're from the government. We're here to help.''
The Shiites must be thinking, ``with friends like these...''
- AR
3/29 10:23pm
The fundamental conflict between
the U.S. and the other developed countries in the world is over the vision
of whose future world we should live in
[article]
[T]he debate really transcends Iraq and comes
down to questions about the US, and whether the US alone or an
international collective system will be the leading arbiter of
security and power in the world.
The Europeans see a rules-based world ordered by various
international organizations, while Washington emphasizes the exercise
of its power[.]
It is a sad day for a human society governed by rules of law and fairness
when the all-powerful potentate insists on living by might makes right -
the law of the jungle.
- AR
3/29 10:21pm
The view of the ``bigger picture,'' from
an article in the Guardian:
For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would
not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that
everything is going according to plan.
In their eyes, Iraq is just the starting point - or, as a recent
presentation at the Pentagon put it, "the tactical pivot" - for
re-moulding the Middle East on Israeli-American lines.
This reverses the usual approach in international relations where
stability is seen as the key to peace, and whether or not you like
your neighbours, you have to find ways of living with them. No, say
the hawks. If you don't like the neighbours, get rid of them.
- AR
3/29 8:44pm
This from today's Globe.
Like my mother liked to say, ``so he started the fight when he hit you back?''
- Wm.
3/29 6:56pm
PC: to quote one of your heroes "There you go again!"
First of all, I think WJB was trying to make a case for the broader public
not posters to the Norfolk web site.
But more importantly, let me say very directly that many of us who are opposed
to this pre-emptive invasion are afraid there are WMD in Iraq. (Of course,
we also know that there are WMD in the US.) Our love of this country
and what it stands for - freedom to worship the God of our choosing, freedom
of speech, freedom to elect our leaders, and an overwhelming desire to raise
the level of standard for not only our country but all the peoples of the
world - is what causes us to raise our concerns that the direction taken
by this administration is not only flawed, but wrong. As a minimum, it raises
the risk in our homeland, it results in the deaths of innocents, it creates
enemies out of friends, and stops a tedious process that most in the world
seemed to think was working. As I hinted in an earlier post, I question
the patriotism of those individuals who are trying to silence - either through
intimidation or by shouting down - those with differing opinions. Those
that really care about our country also care that its freedoms remain inviolable.
They recognize that one of the costs of that freedom is occasionally listening
to the opinions of others. They know and encourage that regardless how they
feel on an issue, the "American Way" is to encourage all to raise their voices
and express themselves and be heard. They know that to behave otherwise,
to deny those freedoms or wish to apply them selectively, is un-American.
"Conditional-Americans"? Look in the mirror.
And I was just thinking about "pre-emptive invasions..." Bear with me while
I create a scenario that I think characterizes why many of us disagree with
this solution to the problem that Saddam represents. Let's assume there
was a large, powerful country, let's call it "X", that "pre-emptively" invaded
a smaller, weaker country, let's call that one "Y", because "X" feared for
their safety because, let's say, "Y" was going to somehow severely damage
their economy by undermining a precious natural resource. This would risk
potential starvation for a significant number of "X's" citizens.
Now, replace "X" with "Iraq" and "Y" with "Kuwait." And ask yourself, would
you support that invasion?
- TMB
3/29 12:51pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a post on this board
stating Hussein's role in the 9/11 asassinations. I have seen you try to
draw that inference. Regardless, I believe Hussein has been/will be in
league with Bin Laden and until both of them are fried - hopefully
publicly - let the bombing continue. When the WMD appear will you
"Conditional-Americans" at least credit Your Commander-in-Chief,
probably not because with you it's always politics.
- PC
3/29 8:46am
I know I said I was gone, but I wanted to say one last thing before I
go. I want to clarify that I don't think that all people who support the
war are doing so out of ignorance or an uncaring attitude toward the
civilians who are victimized by this conflict. Nor am I specifically
accusing anyone who posts to this board. However, I do believe that a
large portion of the support for this war does come from Americans who
erroneously think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 (thanks for the
quote from McGovern, AR), or those who care nothing about the fate of
others as long as they think their own safety is assured. Unfortunately,
I fear that their hope may cheat them, and the victimization of innocent
civilians is not the worst thing that will come out of this war. Enjoy
your debate!
- WJB
3/28 7:44pm
AR... In reference to Time's article about Iraq, how can that all be
considered fact? My question is referring to the first paragraph of your
latest posting. Those facts in the Time article (first paragraph) are
recalled by a "participant." Who is that participant? I think relying on
news articles as fact is a difficult thing. The 'news' in any article is
subjected to the perspective of that particular writer, and secondly the
editor. There are a lot of assumptions in most articles and I don't think
you can gather facts from assumptions. So, in essence, couldn't most
articles be opinion pieces? Personal opinion here, but, that particular
article and the effect it has had on many citizens beliefs could be perceived
as bordering on conspiracy theorist psychology.
- SW
3/28 11:53am
It seems North Korea may turn out to have been right --
the current neoconservative US
administration is planning on "regime change" in that country as well.
Time Magazine [3/31] has an
in-depth analysis
of the course of the current attitude toward Iraq.
It shows that Bush's mind was already made up to "take out Saddam" by
March, 2002, making the subsequent legalistic ploys (eg.
Resolution 1441) mere cover -- military action was already decided on.
After Resolution 1441 passed,
"the Americans
were saying [in diplomatic circles],
"We're putting Saddam to a test that he's certain to fail.
In a few weeks,
we'll have a green light for a military attack."
- AR
3/28 11:35am
Around us may swirl the fog of war, but on a clear day you can see reality...
From the AP wire:
The U.S. Central Command denied Friday that
it had underestimated Iraq's fighting ability but acknowledged that
battlefield commanders may be seeing a "more precise" reality of
resistance than headquarters.
A more insightful comment on this was provided
[1]
[2]
by Lawrence J. Korb, director of national security studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations and an assistant secretary of defense in
the Reagan administration:
"[T]he war is going reasonably well, but it isn't by the standards they set
for themselves. They started believing their own propaganda."
"They
didn't anticipate the fierce the fighting in the south, didn't
anticipate problems getting humanitarian aid in, didn't anticipate the
guerrilla tactics.
"There's no way that they can come out and say we really messed up,"
he said. "To say this is going according to plan is nonsense. It's
just like arguing that the coalition is like the one in 1991. You're
insulting people's intelligence saying that."
- AR
3/28 9:07am
TR, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I understand your feeling that
you need to rally around the president during a crisis. This is a
perspective shared by many Americans -- it may help explain the shift in
public opinion. Back in October, only 27% of Americans were in favor of
an invasion without UN support, now 70% are supporting an invasion that
is not supported by the UN. Is it the experience of the Vietnam War that
makes so many of us willing to bite their tongues when they know that
this war in Iraq is wrong?
But there is a long tradition of Americans speaking out against immoral
wars that didn't begin and end with Vietnam. In 1846 the
otherwise-forgettable President James Polk used our armed forces to
invade Mexico and engage in a bloody two-year war. In 1847 and 1848 a
freshman congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, stood up in
Congress and said "the War with Mexico was unnecessarily and
unconstitutionally commenced by the President...When the war began, it
was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or
because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the
conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless,
as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least
till the war should be ended..." but he felt that the president wasn't
answering questions about the war "fully, fairly, and candidly." Lincoln
said:
"Let him answer with facts and not with arguments...But if he can not or
will not do this--if on any pretense or no pretense he shall refuse or
omit it--then I shall be fully convinced of what I more than suspect
already--that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he
feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven
against him."
TR, I urge you and -- any other American who knows that this preemptive
invasion and occupation is wrong -- to speak their conscience. History,
and the truth, is on your side!
-DAF
3/27 11:11pm
PC:
I appreciate your honesty and keen sense of history. It's unfortunate that
others imply they will no longer post because of you, but that's their
preference. It is the sage wisdom of your posts that would make you a
welcome addition to the newly formed Norfolk Institute for Conservative
Thinking.
- PA
3/27 5:45pm
So, what dirt is there in George McGovern's background?
He's convinced that
the Bush administration is already laying the plans for invasions of other
"evil" regimes like North Korea and Iran.
"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration.
I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White
House that plans are in place for the next invasions."
"This is clearly an American invasion. The chance of Iraq attacking
the U.S. is about the same as attack from Mars," said McGovern, a
former history professor and a decorated World War II fighter pilot.
"Everybody knows Osama bin laden was the man who conceived the 9/11
attack, but by harping on this, (the Bush administration) has
gradually convinced 51 percent of the American people that Saddam was
behind it."
Everybody knows, but 51% seem amenable to ... persuasion.
In a democracy, that's all it takes.
- AR
3/27 5:23pm
DAF - Wow! I only post occassionally and don't always have the time at
work to read all of the links (I obviously did not read your link). I
was only curious and seeking clarification on the education definition.
I was not implying that you were disdainful of the less educated. In
fact, your comment regarding your mom clarified your opinion. I was
just trying to get more of an understanding of the polling results you
were discussing. I think we are probably on the same page that not all
educated people are intelligent and vice versa.
WJB - The purpose of this website is for people to express their
opinions. It's a wonderful thing, that in this country we can express
our views without fear of reprisals. As I stated earlier; we can
respectfully "agree to disagree", have a beer, and get on with life.
Again, I state I am not pro-war but I will support the President in the
decision he has made and hope that peace comes quickly and with few
casualties. In my opinion, one casualty is too many, but this is a war
and I'll stand by our troops and the President. Believe it or not, you
will be missed, reconsider. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions whether
I agree with them or not.
- TR
[Actually, some of use do have to fear reprisals. I've already
read about websites arbitrarily taken down by the hosting company
because of the their anti-war content. Whenever right and wrong are
determined by the deeper pockets, such things can happen. So have fun
expressing your opinions, just remember, it's my neck - Wm.]
3/27 5:19pm
SW and TR -- apologies -- I thought TR's post was from you. Looks like
we're all in agreement. The more formal education you have, the more
likely you'll be to oppose this war. And none of us really care about
that! Whew.
Now maybe you and PC could disprove any of my assertions about this
invasion and occupation of Iraq? PC, I'm going to ignore your
name-calling, ad hominem fallacies, and assumptions about my motivations
and political affiliations (erroneous I might add). You do the 70% of
Americans who support the war a disservice by resorting to those
tactics. WJB is right to be frustrated. Now, let's see...
I believe that Iraq is the first test of the Bush Administration's new
"doctrine of preemption," which calls for early unilateral action
against nations suspected of posing a threat to America. I believe that
abandoning our legacy of peace through international law is
destabilizing, deeply immoral, and profoundly contrary to our interests.
In the long run (and I mean in 5 to 10 years, not 100), the "doctrine of
preemption" will make us less safe, not more. A true "patriotic"
American should oppose a preemptive invasion and occupation.
Are my premises incorrect? Is my conclusion wrong? For you to believe
what I believe, what would you have to hear or see?
- DAF
3/27 4:28pm
WJB -
Stop the semantics - as someone admonished previously - "3/20 11:08pm
WJB... You are right, you haven't name called. You have implied and
insinuated" - you seem pretty ignorant of yourself
- PC
3/27 4:00pm
PC: Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. There is no point in
arguing anymore. It's clear to me that all the facts and logic in the
world will not convince the pro-war crowd on this Board. If you believe
that waving the flag, supporting the President, and waging war to try
eliminate any theoretical threat to the United States, regardless of the
cost to innocent people living in a poor country, is the "right" thing
to do, then no amount of logic will ever change your mind. So, that's it
for me. I will post no more. DAF, sorry, you're on your own.
- WJB
3/27 3:55pm
A little about PEW
[here].
Also I understand if they knew of some of the causes they were funding
they probably wouldn't
- PC
[From the linked page:
[T]he Pew Trusts are among the nation's largest private
philanthropies, with assets of $4.3 billion and annual grant
commitments of about $230 million. - Wm.]
3/27 3:52pm
SW: In response to your two posts: The first one was accompanied by
personal insults, so I am not going to answer. Please review the policy
of this Board regarding personal attacks. As far as your second post
goes, I don't understand the distinction you are making. I said that
people who believe Saddam masterminded 9/11 (I'm assuming these people
are confusing Saddam and Bin Laden; if not, then they just made it up)
are ignorant, which is defined in the dictionary as "lacking in
knowledge." What part of that confuses you?
- WJB
3/27 2:47pm
DAF... Sorry didn't scroll down far enough on the PEW site. I do agree
with TR, as far as education levels being a tough measuring stick. I
never insinuated that you were disdainful, you may not have read the
signature of that posting. Who is PEW anyway, what is their claim to
fame?
- SW
3/27 2:43pm
DAF... I think you may be talking to someone else in the beginning of
your post. My last post to you was 3/26 (yesterday morning). If you are
referring to TR's post , I would agree with TR. I would love to know
what qualifies as "educated". I had already sent you a post regarding
the "nit-picking" but, if you insist I will go back over it tonight.
You just got posted before I did. Yes, I agree that I jumped on the
single word education, and I definitely was nit picking.
PC... You are right. It seems to fall under that trying to teach a pig
to sing quote that Wm threw in the pile a few days ago.
- SW
[Yes, your replies crossed in the mail, so to speak. - Wm.]
3/27 2:20pm
TR/SW - Unless you are willing to buy into the cult-like liberal
viewpoint hook-line-and sinker why do you bother arguing.
Wait until they start protesting for the sea lions and dolphins, as
reported in El Globo - illegally drafting foreign animals into the war.
Our military supposedly has crossed the Euphrates within the last couple
of days - maybe we can get them on wetlands violations too.
- PC
3/7 2:18pm
WJB... Your 'ignorant' comment seemed to be referring to the "majority of
war supporters are the truly ignorant who think Saddam Hussein and Osama
Bin Laden are the same person" not as in your later posting "people who
believe Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attack are showing 'lack of
knowledge'" Just felt the urge to clarify since being precise is the
order of the day. So, which is it? Who is the 'ignorant'?
- SW
3/7 2:16pm
DAF... OK, I am just going to retract that nit picking comment and go
with precise. Yes, you are very precise. I will, of course, reserve
the right to point out future nits. I tried to backtrack through past
postings and it was far too tedious on such a glorious day.
WJB... Crickey, I must have missed that article about a poll that says
'Percentage of Americans who believe that Osama and Saddam are the
same person'. Was it in the Enquirer? I believe that you have asked
for proof before, so I'd like to see some regarding this issue. You
seem to be the only one who is stating that Saddam masterminded the
9/11 attacks on this board. As far as,
"the 42% of
Americans who think that Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11 are a
majority of the 70% that you say support the war".
I think you are reaching here, and maybe you should think of a job up in
the Collector's office at Town Hall. Should I be ducking and yelling
'incoming' right about now?
-SW
3/7 2:13pm
SW, I feel like you didn't read my post. Remember, we got down this
"education" rat hole when you "nitpicked" a single word in my 3/20 6:22
PM post. You took issue with my statement that "The US launching a
pre-emptive invasion is a direct violation of the UN Charter and it is a
source of anger abroad and embarrassment by educated people here at
home." It went like this:
- You questioned my use of "educated."
- I provided an explanation and objective substantiation of my use of
that word.
- You returned and seemed to remember my post (which you can scroll
down and re-read) as making a connection between support for boycotts
and education level.
- Yesterday at lunchtime I made a small clarification for you that the
connection is between support for the war and education.
- At HMK's request, I provided the link to the survey and to more
detailed information from the original non-partisan pollsters -- the Pew
Center. At that link you'd see that the definition of "level of formal
education is very much what you would expect it to be.
In my lunchtime post yesterday I thought I had made it clear that I,
too, do not think a formal education is necessary or sufficient for
proper judgment. I don't know how you missed that. If you could do me
the favor of re-reading my post to you yesterday and explain what part
of the second paragraph led you to believe I am somehow disdainful of
people lacking formal education, I'd be much obliged.
I'd also be pleased if you could let me know what "nits" I've been
picking as you promised in your post yesterday morning? I don't know how
to characterize this focusing in on a single word in a post -- a word
that I think I've proved was correctly used according to objective,
third-party research. Waste of time is one way. Another might be
"nit-picking," but I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder.
Anyway, on another word you didn't like -- preemptive -- you may want to
read this interesting story from Reuters. Good ol' Pandora rears her head....
-DAF
3/7 1:11pm
From Webster's: "ignorant" is defined as "resulting from or showing lack
of knowledge or intelligence." I don't think it is an
over-generalization to say that people who believe Saddam Hussein
ordered the 9/11 attack are "showing lack of knowledge." Truly, they
are. This is entirely distinct form the question of whether Hussein and
Al Qaeda have links. Our President has alleged they have links. He has
not alleged that Saddam Hussein masterminded the 9/11 attacks (and you
can be sure he would, if he could).
- WJB
3/7 11:59am
To WJB -
Wow, talk about a sweeping over-generalization! In my opinion, a "truly
ignorant" individual is one who can't accept that there are often times
two sides to every issue, and that we sometimes must agree to disagree.
I'm one of those who can understand the "subtleties" between not being
pro-war but not being against the war. Such a phenomenon can exist,
think about other controversial issues. But, I do not consider myself
"truly ignorant". Do I believe Saddam and Osama have had dealings with
eachother?...absolutely. Do I know they are two distinct
individuals?...absolutely. I guess I don't know what label to put on my
self..."Subtlety ignorant"?
DAF, just curious how does one define educated? High school diploma,
associates, bachelors, masters, doctorate? I know a few people who hold
doctorates who, obviously well educated, live in a vacuum and don't know
whats going on in the world today. I also know many high school
graduates who could analyze the pros and cons of this war with the best
of them. Education, often times, is what you do with the brains God
gave you and not with the degrees hanging on the wall.
- TR
3/26 11:58pm
SW: This is a public board, and when you make a comment on it you are
speaking to all those who read the board. So, let's not get nit-picky
about who you were talking to. Since you found my post confusing, I will
try to clarify. My point was that your comment about 70% of Americans
supporting the war and the protesters being a "very vocal, vast
minority" (corrected quote) was reminiscent of what we heard during the
Vietnam-era protests about the "silent majority" supporting the war. We
all know how that one turned out. Also, I never said that 42% is a
majority. But since you bring it up, the 42% of Americans who think that
Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11 are a majority of the 70% that you say
support the war. Accordingly, it appears that the majority of war
supporters are the truly ignorant who think Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin
Laden are the same person.
- WJB
3/26 4:10pm
HMK, welcome back. The research SW and I were talking about is one of
the items from
a UPI story
I'd linked in about American citizens' support for the war.
More detail on the original Pew Research poll specifically about
educational levels and war support can be found on
their site.
- DAF
3/26 3:08pm
WJB... I will, if you will. Seriously, I would gladly be silent if you
would. Probably not going to happen, since you seem to fire off these
verbal scuds preemptively. 'Cause I don't think I was talking to you.
The last time I took sixth grade math, 42% was not a majority. And I was
speaking of support for the war. You misquoted me, too. All in all, I
don't know what the heck you are talking about.
-SW
3/26 1:20pm
DAF - Can you be more specific - what research are you referring to that
proves the more educated a person is, the more likely they would be
against the war?
- HMK
3/26 12:16pm
SW, looking forward to it. This may seem like a nit, but I try to be
precise in my statements. You mention "educated vs. the uneducated
regarding the boycott." I just want to make it clear that I have no idea
if there is a correlation between education level and support for
boycotts. My point was about support for the war among Americans. And
the research shows that the more educated a person is, the more likely
he or she is to be against this pre-emptive invasion and occupation of
Iraq.
By the way, in my opinion, formal education isn't the most important
factor in a person's life and worldview (although it is important). My
beloved Ma barely graduated high school back in 1948, but she knew what
was right, she knew when she was being lied to, and she had a good and
thoroughly human heart. I know that if she were alive today, she'd be
against this war and the unnecessary destruction it is bringing to a
long-suffering population.
-DAF
3/26 11:54am
SW: Protesters are "vast, vast minority" eh? Silent majority supports
the war, you say? Haven't we heard that somewhere before? Of course,
there is the 42% of people who think that Saddam Hussein was the
mastermind of 9/11 (I guess "Hussein" does sound like "Bin Laden").
Those members of the silent majority should probably stay silent.
- WJB
3/26 11:15am
DAF... Now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. All I said was 'Amen', and
all I was referring to was the stats on the educated vs. the uneducated
regarding the boycott. Don't get all excited. I'll point out the nits
later when I have more than 2 minutes.
- SW
3/26 9:13am
SW, welcome back! Which nits were picked? Does your "amen" mean
that you now believe that this is a pre-emptive war, that Bush
should not have nixed the International Criminal Court, and that
education can help make diplomacy look better than "shock and awe?"
For anyone who wants to keep track, a civilian body count is being
kept at this site. Let's
hope that the precision bombs get more precise as this war continues.
- DAF
3/25 8:44pm
DAF... Here's a little late 'Amen brother' to you. Jeez, have I been missing
some great stuff or what? So here are my conclusions... Boycotts work, the
media is liberal and is not, the KKK (in memory) is alive and well in Sen.
Byrd, and the fact vs. opinion debate is still on. You debaters, not
mentioning any names here DAF, seem to do a lot of deflecting and nit
picking. At the moment, 70% of the US is behind this war. The protesters
are the very vocal, vast minority. Well, here's to us uneducated not buying
Evian, and here's to trying to teach a pig to sing.
- SW
3/25 12:47pm
DAF - I'll check it out thx
WJB - The right wing talk shows are a bit out there, but they are a
modern day reaction to the liberal print media monopoly held since Old
Joe Kennedy crafted his first paper-tiger Presidency (at least that's
when I started paying attention).
Since I have been a lifelong victim of El Globo the least you can do is
sit through a few O'Reilly Factors. We'll each end up with ruined
stomach linings anyway. Bush & co. feel we are vulnerable and that
Hussein is a threat - so that's not a net increase, he's already a stated
enemy.
When it comes to protecting Americans - Dubya is my vote over Kofi Annan
(what country is he from ?) and the neutered UN every time.
- PC
3/25 12:22pm
Boycotts work both ways, it seems. The latest craze around the world
is to boycott American goods, as a protest of the attack on Iraq.
From the Reuters article:
No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser, no Marlboro, no
American whiskey or even American Express cards -- a growing number of
restaurants in Germany are taking everything American off their menus
to protest the Iraq war.
"Americans only pay attention when money is on the line" [...],
"We want to hit America where it hurts -
in their wallets. None of the customers have complained. On the
contrary, most thought it was a great idea."
"It was only intended as a small gesture but has turned into a
gigantic issue," he said. "And the reaction from the patrons has been
tremendous. Most have called it a brilliant idea."
- AR
3/25 12:13pm
PC: You must be joking about the "liberal media". The broadcast media
has clearly gone very right wing. Have you caught Joe Scarborough
lately? Or Kudlow and Kramer? Or any of the radio talk show hosts? Most
of these guys don't even bother to make a rational argument, they just
concentrate on insulting anyone who is opposed to the war. I hope that
you understand clearly by now that those of us who oppose the war do so
partly because we think that the war is increasing the risk that you or
I will become the victim of a violent terrorist attack, not decreasing
it. The point is that actively working to multiply the ranks of our
enemies in the world does not increase our safety, now that 9/11 has
demonstrated to us our essential vulnerability. You may disagree if you
want, but please don't act as if you think that the war opponents are
unconcerned about protecting the lives of Americans.
- WJB
3/25 11:53am
PC, What did you like about that film -- I also enjoyed it (finally we
agree on something)? If you haven't already, you should rent
Three Kings.
- DAF
3/25 11:27am
I forgot all about that movie, I loved it -- I may rent it tonight,
thanks for the tip
- PC
3/25 10:56am
PC, you have made some assumptions that are incorrect about me. I am no
fan of Al Gore nor am I a registered Democrat, neighbor. So, I'm not
sure which of my "politics" you are referring to. I get no thrill from
any of this. I have no desire to debate the merits of your view of the
mainstream news media as liberals who support this war, but are simply
biding their time for the war to end. I would just suggest that you read
Eric Alterman's recent investigation of this supposed liberal bias
What Liberal Media?
or FAIR's 1998 report
available online.
Dismiss their well-documented, well-argued research if you
like - that's your prerogative.
As for your argument that "the unrivaled American luxury of not having
to live in daily fear like many other countries comes at a price... it's
called wars": I commend you on your dramatic prose. It reminds me of the
speech made by
the fictional Col. Jessup
in the film A Few Good Men. I've been
hearing that a lot lately. People forget that Col. Jessup was a corrupt
despot who was guilty of ordering his subordinates to murder their
fellow Marine. A minor point, I suppose.
You assume that I am a pacifist opposed to all acts of violence. I am
not. Sadly, I know that evil exists and from time to time we must defend
ourselves from those who mean us harm with violence. Sometimes we must
defend people who are too weak to defend themselves. The genocidal
outbreaks of violence in Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and - most
recently - Sudan are the kinds of violence that called for military
intervention to stop the killing (there is no other way). Sadly, we most
often sit idly by.
And yet, we can spend a minimum of $75 billion topple a regime that by
all accounts has been contained for the past 12 years by harsh UN
sanctions and permanent no-fly zones. This war is unnecessary and, as a
result, immoral.
-DAF
3/25 9:14am
DAF -
My point is the liberal news media, (Times, Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS...)
is in the business of brainwashing Americans - look it's worked on you.
But more importantly, and interestingly enough affirmed by you, even
these liberal outlets are finally supporting (somewhat limited) "our"
Country and "our" President in this time of war. Something your politics
won't allow. Even these liberal rags and stations can do the right thing
during the thick of the war - don't worry they'll be bashing Bush as
soon as this passes, which I'm sure will thrill you to no end.
The unrivaled American luxury of not having to live in daily fear like
many other countries comes at a price... it's called wars. Your
President's job is to protect you, however distasteful that may be to
him. He's doing that job to the best of his ability or do you need to
die in an office building to finally believe. Pay no attention to those
chemical plants - maybe they were making chlorine for their swimming
pools. Gosh... if only Al Gore was President !
- PC
[Too much "you," too little substance. Argue the issue, please, not
the other person's convictions - Wm.]
For the older messages,
look here.