Summary: "We've done such a great job of sticking to our sunny story about the situation in Iraq that many people believe it's true. If so many people believe it's true, it must be true. Therefore, everything is great - stay the course, old boy! QED."tomahawk6 said:http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200510070758.asp
Another great Victor Davis Hanson piece.
hamiltongs said:Summary: "We've done such a great job of sticking to our sunny story about the situation in Iraq that many people believe it's true. If so many people believe it's true, it must be true. Therefore, everything is great - stay the course, old boy! QED."
forget it, man. Argue with the nearest wall. It'd do ya the same amount of good.48Highlander said:Uh. Are you sure you followed the correct link?
100% true for 99% Iraqis in the Danish AOR! It's those Iranians, Syrians and Saudis we have to "take care of"!The vast majority of Iraqis that they have encountered have been greatful, thankful, and have expressed that they are glad the coalition is there
Yeah, I need to open my eyes:2332Piper said:Summary: Someone has to open his eyes and stop regurgitating today's popular anti-american gibberish he hears from his friends.
Kirkhill said:I wonder if the Arab League is entirely the best and most impartial judge of the situation in Iraq.
Democracy and popular representation don't appear to be their forte.
Having been attacked by RPGs while visiting Iraq may have coloured their judgement: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=71497&d=11&m=10&y=2005Kirkhill said:I wonder if the Arab League is entirely the best and most impartial judge of the situation in Iraq.
the royal family of Saudi do not want a functioning democracy in the Middle East. They are already on seriously shaky ground as it is. Jordan is walking a tightrope: they had supported Saddam's regime during the 12 year debacle run by the League of Nations, but also want to be seen by the US as friends. Kuwait is scared to death that the continuous attacks by AQ and co. will continue in their country if they don't speak out against the US once in a while. At the same time, they can't afford to be too strident, as they owe a huge debt to America.hamiltongs said:But seriously, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait all have a great deal at stake in Iraq's stability - if they're saying things aren't going well, it's not for lack of wishing it were.
Just ask the US Army Reserve corporals on the ground - they've got the big picture
Look, I'm not going to defend any Middle East government, but you do have to respect that they may know a thing or two about the Middle East situation. This isn't about pro-war/anti-war - that's all moot now. The US has invaded and it now owes Iraq a reconstruction. Is the way to build support for that to deny that it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade or more, or to pretend that it may not kill thousands of US soldiers if the fragile situation goes bad? To do that only provides future fuel to those who claim that one lost life is too many.paracowboy said:the royal family of Saudi do not want a functioning democracy in the Middle East. They are already on seriously shaky ground as it is. Jordan is walking a tightrope: they had supported Saddam's regime during the 12 year debacle run by the League of Nations, but also want to be seen by the US as friends. Kuwait is scared to death that the continuous attacks by AQ and co. will continue in their country if they don't speak out against the US once in a while. At the same time, they can't afford to be too strident, as they owe a huge debt to America.
I have no faith whatsoever in the word of dictators, theocratic extremists, or corrupt 'royalaty'. Or despotic autocracies in general. I do believe the people on the ground who want nothing more than to stop fighting and get home as soon as possible, but only by successfully completing their mission.
We have the luxury of reviewing multiple sources of information (unless you doggedly stick to only those sources that tell you what you want to hear) - soldiers in theatre can only rely on what they see immediately around them. That's the nature of being on the ground - it's not "arrogant", it's a fact.Posted by: muskrat89
They don't, but you do....... boy, that's not arrogant Roll Eyes
Not at all - my experience suggests just the opposite, in fact. When I'm at sea, I can tell you a hell of a lot about what's going on with HMCS GOOSE BAY, and I more or less know what's up with the ships in company. But I'm not privvy to any inside information about what's going on in the fleet in general and I probably know less than the average person about the affairs of the world at large. I find being "on the ground" means having your perspective narrowed a great deal.muskrat89 said:Many of the people to which I referred developed their perspective from "being here, going there, and returning home to civilian life". Hardly as isolated as you imply. Besides you don't think soldiers, sailors and airmen in-theatre have access to the same information that we do, generally speaking??
I can't speak for being at sea, obviously, but in theatre, I have full access to a myriad of newspapers, TV news channels, radio news, and teh internet. I stayed just as informed while in Kabul or Bosnia, as I did at home. More so, actually, because I didn't spend any time on watching sitcoms, or surfing for monkey jokes.hamiltongs said:Not at all - my experience suggests just the opposite, in fact. When I'm at sea, I can tell you a heck of a lot about what's going on with HMCS GOOSE BAY, and I more or less know what's up with the ships in company. But I'm not privvy to any inside information about what's going on in the fleet in general and I probably know less than the average person about the affairs of the world at large. I find being "on the ground" means having your perspective narrowed a great deal.