Conventional ignorance about the present war

[Azred]

A wonderfully-written article. I must go to the source and print a copy for myself. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: [QB]Victor Davis Hanson March 21, 2003 8:45 a.m The behavior of elites is similarly disturbing and reveals a deep sickness within American culture. What is the pathology that infects privileged Americans in this present conflict — why is it that the clerics are so out of touch with their parishioners, the actors with their audience, the professors with their students, the reporters with their readers? Hollywood celebrities either trash America abroad to cheering Europeans (cf. Jessica Lange, the Dixie Chicks, or Michael Moore), visit a criminal state on the eve of war (cf. Sean Penn), or talk of the general oppression and unfairness of the corporate America that alone gives Hollywooders a lifestyle undreamed of by the rest of America or the world at large (cf. Barbra Streisand or Ms. Huffington). Lost in all this posturing are some 26 million Iraqis — tortured, exiled, jailed, and brutalized under fascism.

That whole article is a fraud.

It ignores the gaping hole, which is blasted into it; by the fact that it was originally the Americans & British Who armed and supported Saddam (French too). Now, it was the political right wing that did this. For example the Conservative goverment in england.
The same people from the right wing now are calling for the invasion of iraq, which has thus gone ahead.

It was the left wing, Or Perhaps, as the article would frame them “liberals” who at the time opposed this armamament of Iraq. If their Advice had been followed, This would have never happend.

Thus the problem was entirely self-created and for the same people who supported saddam then, to call the attack on him now is grossly hypocritical and makes them have inconsistent views and ideologies and actions.

I dismiss it Thus.

[Mordenheim]

I disagree

no one is psychic and further rough times call for odd partners

The former Soviet Union was a tad more dangerous don't you think?

[Davros]

Originally posted by Donut: Okay - a stab in the dark here. National Review Online?

[img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] - how ever did you guess - or did you use google?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Thus the problem was entirely self-created and for the same people who supported saddam then, to call the attack on him now is grossly hypocritical and makes them have inconsistent views and ideologies and actions.

Yes this solves it completely!

No one is ever allowed to change their mind, their point of view, or their policies. Even if we know something is wrong we have to support it forever if we ever supported it. There is no reason to expect people to learn from their mistakes because we are ALL completely locked into each and every decision, each and every agreement, each and every handshake, etc., for all of the future. Only losers change their minds! Great people follow the policies of yesterday no matter what and they follow those policies for the rest of our lives. You are right, we should not only be supporting Saddam against the UN now, we should have helped him keep Kuwait in '91, and we should be supplying him with anything he needs to produce WoMD for the rest of his life, and the rest of his son's lives, and the rest of their son's lives, and the rest of their son's lives, etc., because we once supported him.

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I understand completely. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-21-2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: That whole article is a fraud.

Maybe you dismissed it too quickly. You see, it wasn't a fraud... it was a commentary. There is a difference.

Just because you don't like, or agree with what it says, doesn't mean it's a fraud. That just means you don't like or agree with it. Of course you can defame it all you want, but that doesn't mean anything other than you don't like it and choose to dismiss it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-21-2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[The.Relic]

I just want to take a moment to say that I want to applaud everyone for trying to communicate with each other about this difficult series of current events in an aproppriate manner. But I would also remind all of us that in times like this when tensions are running high, emotions are intensified and adrenal production and release are dramatically increased, endorphins are spreading, that even at our best, we can inadvertantly become a little hypercritical and even unintentionally condescending and even border on insulting with our well intended responses. Sometimes our normal methods of expression which serve us well 99% of time and would never under normal circumstances be considered insulting, and would even be considered humerous, will take on an insulting or demeaning "air" due to the sensitive subject matter being discussed and the vast differences between the views of those involved.
Dare I even mention the word? Yes, I shall, and I may be forever damned and banned from this glorious medium of international communication. But, gadz the word tastes . . dirty . . in my mouth.
We must remember that we are the "Diplomats" of IW . .

[Hayashi]

What sort of publication is National Review Online? Right-wing, left-wing, fuselage ( ), what? Republican/Democrat/??
Pls enlighten a non-American.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Hayashi: What sort of publication is National Review Online? Right-wing, left-wing, fuselage ( ), what? Republican/Democrat/?? Pls enlighten a non-American.

Just a hair to the right of well right would be a good description

[Ronn_Bman]

American right, but what that translates to internationally... I'm not sure. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit - What Davros said.

[ 03-21-2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]