[Stryke 9]

"Liberation".



I hear we're almost down to 20 a day now. Apparently, those cursed savages don't appreciate the full benefits of an American-installed democracy. Oh, wait, did I say "democracy"? Certainly not, they'd probably vote for someone we wouldn't like, and we can't have that. Let's just install another bloody militaristic dictatorship, a more effective puppet government this time, but one that doesn't sound too imperialistic... oh! I've got it! Viceroy! Very nice, very Victorian feel to it, eh? Well, at least we can keep those bloody Shias from speaking their piece, electing some pagan Mussulman, what ho!

Maybe it should have been three words- "Told you so."

[Turnsky]

Certainly makes a point doesn't it?

[Solatar]

Maybe we should hand out sunglasses also...

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Stryke 9


I hear we're almost down to 20 a day now. Apparently, those cursed savages don't appreciate the full benefits of an American-installed democracy. Oh, wait, did I say "democracy"? Certainly not, they'd probably vote for someone we wouldn't like, and we can't have that. Let's just install another bloody militaristic dictatorship, a more effective puppet government this time, but one that doesn't sound too imperialistic... oh! I've got it! Viceroy! Very nice, very Victorian feel to it, eh? Well, at least we can keep those bloody Shias from speaking their piece, electing some pagan Mussulman, what ho!

Maybe it should have been three words- "Told you so."

Those who do not remember history, are doomed to repeat it

sad case of american polititians with very short memories

[Stryke 9]

Dunno about that, imperial governments generally do pretty well for a while, and the short term is clearly all Bush and co. gives a flying pig **** about.

[Sesquipedalian]

I've been living in a media-saturated culture too long and am too well educated in critical thought not to be cynical about every side of any such debate. I am as cynical about arguments against the Iraq invasion as I am about arguments in favour of it.

[Stryke 9]

Well, isn't that nice for you. You have nothing left to care about. Good work on that not shriveling up and dying apathetically.

*pat pat*

[Sesquipedalian]

Cynical, not apathetic.  I care very much.  I just don't trust the media or its pundits to tell the truth.  Spin, soundbites, and simplicity sell much better that the complexities of truth.

[Stryke 9]

Well, that's much more reasonable. However, given that then it's one's job to read between the lines and try to see what's going on behind all the bull****. The statistics and photos are a fair indicator.

[Turnsky]

it's ironic really,

Iraqi's protesting about the us troops stifling thier freedom, not realising, that the coalition, gave them that EXACT freedom to protest..

under saddam, they would've been put down at the first hint of protest..

[Stryke 9]

Which is pretty much what's happening now.

And to my recollection, there were no protests Saddam's troops opened fire in. It's entirely likely he would have given the order if given the chance from what I know about him, but since all I know about him is filtered through the magic glass of American media, I have my reservations about it. Most of the "protest" in his time involved taking to arms and heading for the trenches, which would naturally inflate the dissident bodycount, for one thing... but that's irrelevant. He made few pretenses of being a savior, and never cynically exploited a nation under the pretext of some lofty ideal. He was also never in a position to do same to the entire rest of the planet, and clearly gearing up to do just that.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Well, that's much more reasonable. However, given that then it's one's job to read between the lines and try to see what's going on behind all the bull****. The statistics and photos are a fair indicator.

Yes, it is one's job to do so.  But I don't trust the stats of the media (or the governments', for that matter) and photos are extremely selective and easily spun.  Take this one: how common are these demonstrations really?  What exactly is being protested?  Who and what are the soldiers ordered to defend?  What are the larger goals behind their actions?  The protestors?  Are the bayonets merely standard precautionary procedure, or is there a substantial threat to the soldiers safety?  Perhaps neither, and the American military is taking an aggressive posture: who knows by looking at that?  Has any actual violence broken out?  If so, was it an isolated incident, or is it common?  Who are the aggressors in those incidents, and what is their reason for resorting to violence? Are they at all representative of the larger population's feelings on the issue, whatever it is?  Etc., etc., etc....  

The photo tells us nothing about this, and it could be spun in any way.  All we know for sure is that something happened, and tensions were running high between some Iraqis and some American soldiers.  The media reports won't be totally baseless, of course, but there is always spin and selection and concern for ratings.  The news is a commercial enterprise, just like every other television show.

[Turnsky]

looks to me they're just trying to keep the protesters off the razor wire..

[Stryke 9]

They are wrong only in predictable ways, though. They say 20 a day, that means at least 20 a day- and it's safe to assume they're mostly at demonstrations, hence daily demonstrations. That picture doesn't show actual violence, so there probably wasn't any fighting (better photo op), but definitely gives off the mood of what must be going on now. The American soldiers are certainly at risk, I think more have died postcampaign than during the war (but that's without checking the numbers, which would be accurate), and are taking "security measures" to go along with that, which frighten and upset a populace already becoming painfully aware that their "liberation" is really just oppression with a new name.

[CP5670]

I saw that picture in the WP a few days ago; they said that this was a group of former Iraqi soldiers who were now without jobs and were demanding compensation by demonstrating at a local US outpost, so the guards were trying to keep them out; it seemed to be all peaceful and there were no injuries from what that article said.

To tell the truth, I am both cynical and apathetic about the situation; I have more important things to worry about.

And Stryke, sorry but I could never make any sense out of your posts on this topic; the thick sarcasm and random rants really degrade your arguments.

He made few pretenses of being a savior, and never cynically exploited a nation under the pretext of some lofty ideal. He was also never in a position to do same to the entire rest of the planet, and clearly gearing up to do just that.

I haven't seen much evidence of that, but suppose it were true, so what? It would be a good thing if the world gets under one government, right?

[Rictor]

I'll really like to ask everyone here to talk a few minutes to read through the following links. I've read them and I think that they really do a good job of summing up the my opinions. The only people (ok mostly) who dont want to read opposing viewpoints are scared that they might be convinced.  I'de rather see people being too cynical than too trusting ( of Americans)

The Ten Planks of the Freedom Manifesto

Paragons of Empire: Balkans Protectorates Celebrated as Exemplary

[Stryke 9]

Well, I overstated a bit on that latter part; he was a big fan of equating himself with Nasser, but he was pretty explicitly a dictator, as opposed to a dictator in representative's clothing.

And saying world government is a good or bad thing is like saying, say, cake is good. Sometimes that's true, but what if it was a **** cake? Would you want to eat that? I thought not. I suppose there are ways a global government could be done right, but having an evil, greedy, self-interested creep holding absolute power is not one of them.

[Sesquipedalian]

But are most Iraqis frightened and feeling oppressed?  These ones are obviously upset about something, but demonstrative minorities get all the limelight when the majority are not.  For you or I to say that the general Iraqi populace are or are not feeling in such-and-such a way about the situation is unsupportable.  I'll trust the words of individual Iraqis far more than the reports of CNN, and much more so if they come by other channels than the mass media.  To be blunt, I'll wait for several historians to write some books before I really start trusting.  Until then, I'll pay attention and do my best, but I'll take generous amounts of salt with any portrayal of the situation I encounter.

[CP5670]

The Ten Planks of the Freedom Manifesto

Actually he got the first part wrong there; as I have been saying all along, it was never supposed be a war between freedom and authoritarianism, but rather a war of competing US and Iraqi interests, and that right there justifies it.

Paragons of Empire: Balkans Protectorates Celebrated as Exemplary

don't have time to read all that; can you summarize it?

[Stryke 9]

You trust historians? They're worse than the reporters!

And, to be honest, the silent majority isn't for ****. You could put in place a tyrant whose first job was to pass the "Let's Mash Everyone Up In a Giant Meat Grinder Act", and 80% of people wouldn't care. They're irrelevant. It's the other ten or twenty percent that aren't just walking furniture that matter, and they're the ones politics are made of and for.