Identify you're moonbats.
ridenrain @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:08 am
$1:
Opposing the Bush-Hitler Afghan War
It is often instructive to read writings that oppose the mission in Afghanistan either in general or in the way it is being prosecuted. The problem is that opposition pieces far outnumber support pieces, so one tends to get tired of reading the same old arguments. I’ve found that the best way of wading through such op-eds is to look for the undeclared purpose of each piece. In this way, some can be dismissed after a quick scan, simply because their undeclared thesis makes them irrelevant. When reading, ask:
Is this a “pacifist” work that never really admits the writers pacifist position? If you are not a pacifist, and believe in the mission, why read further? Few pacifists like Jack Layton of the NDP openly admit they are pacifists; but their suggested solutions always scream pacifism. They can’t conceive of a time that armed conflict would be necessary.
Is this a hit piece aimed at the Conservative government; one which uses the Afghan conflict simply as a platform to denigrate the Harper administration? If so, the writer will always, no matter the case, criticize the mission. Intellectual lazy works of this sort serve only to boil the blood as they seldom suggest any carefully considered alternatives. They are “question period” in writing.
Is this a classic leftist piece, which uses any situation to cast dispersion on all things right of center? Works of this sort may offer valuable alternatives, as long as one can wade through the “all things right of center are evil” rhetoric. Keep in mind, that rightwing pundits tend to do the same when leftwing administrations prosecute an armed conflict… that is criticize just for the sake of criticizing.
Is this a post-modern utopian piece, where the unspoken belief is that all conflicts can be solved through bettering the standard of living of those involved, through multilateral talks, and that all belief structures are basically equal? Once again, a work written from this perspective will attempt to skew reality to favor the utopian point of view and will entirely ignore the negative fallout if the suggested remedies are applied.
Is this a serious analytical piece which openly values the successes while offering critique based in reality? The key here is reality. Works of this sort offer alternatives that are realistic and recognize the nature of the conflict and the complexity of any armed conflict. Furthermore, they recognize the makeup of the enemy, the quality of the allies, and fully admit the possible negative fallout of suggested alternatives? You may not agree with what works of this type have to offer, but they are always worth reading and on occasion eerily prophetic. There are those who oppose the Afghan mission and base their opposition on some very forward thinking realistic analysis.
source
It is often instructive to read writings that oppose the mission in Afghanistan either in general or in the way it is being prosecuted. The problem is that opposition pieces far outnumber support pieces, so one tends to get tired of reading the same old arguments. I’ve found that the best way of wading through such op-eds is to look for the undeclared purpose of each piece. In this way, some can be dismissed after a quick scan, simply because their undeclared thesis makes them irrelevant. When reading, ask:
Is this a “pacifist” work that never really admits the writers pacifist position? If you are not a pacifist, and believe in the mission, why read further? Few pacifists like Jack Layton of the NDP openly admit they are pacifists; but their suggested solutions always scream pacifism. They can’t conceive of a time that armed conflict would be necessary.
Is this a hit piece aimed at the Conservative government; one which uses the Afghan conflict simply as a platform to denigrate the Harper administration? If so, the writer will always, no matter the case, criticize the mission. Intellectual lazy works of this sort serve only to boil the blood as they seldom suggest any carefully considered alternatives. They are “question period” in writing.
Is this a classic leftist piece, which uses any situation to cast dispersion on all things right of center? Works of this sort may offer valuable alternatives, as long as one can wade through the “all things right of center are evil” rhetoric. Keep in mind, that rightwing pundits tend to do the same when leftwing administrations prosecute an armed conflict… that is criticize just for the sake of criticizing.
Is this a post-modern utopian piece, where the unspoken belief is that all conflicts can be solved through bettering the standard of living of those involved, through multilateral talks, and that all belief structures are basically equal? Once again, a work written from this perspective will attempt to skew reality to favor the utopian point of view and will entirely ignore the negative fallout if the suggested remedies are applied.
Is this a serious analytical piece which openly values the successes while offering critique based in reality? The key here is reality. Works of this sort offer alternatives that are realistic and recognize the nature of the conflict and the complexity of any armed conflict. Furthermore, they recognize the makeup of the enemy, the quality of the allies, and fully admit the possible negative fallout of suggested alternatives? You may not agree with what works of this type have to offer, but they are always worth reading and on occasion eerily prophetic. There are those who oppose the Afghan mission and base their opposition on some very forward thinking realistic analysis.
Delwin @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:34 am
I think he forgot one: Is this a right-winged piece of pro-bush propaganda? Does it do little else than provide a couple of silly catch phrases like"stay the course", or "cut and run", to attempt to exonerate the Bush administration of their massive mismanagment and shortsightedness in their approach to the possiblity of insurgency ?
Hardy @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:51 am
Delwin Delwin:
I think he forgot one: Is this a right-winged piece of pro-bush propaganda? Does it do little else than provide a couple of silly catch phrases like"stay the course", or "cut and run", to attempt to exonerate the Bush administration of their massive mismanagment and shortsightedness in their approach to the possiblity of insurgency ?
And then there's always "Islamofascism."
The third type has a right-wing mirror image, of course, but most of the others aren't even clearly leftist. I know some extremely conservative pacifists, and some right-wing critics of Harper. The fourth type may or may not be leftist, the fifth type has, almost by definition, no strong political slant.
But hey, this is an analysis from cjunk.blogspot.com, you get what you pay for.
Calgary123 @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:21 am
Delwin Delwin:
I think he forgot one: Is this a right-winged piece of pro-bush propaganda? Does it do little else than provide a couple of silly catch phrases like"stay the course", or "cut and run", to attempt to exonerate the Bush administration of their massive mismanagment and shortsightedness in their approach to the possiblity of insurgency ?
dubyah @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:40 pm
$1:
And then there's always "Islamofascism."
You are right to criticize that phrase; it is redundant.
$1:
I think he forgot one: Is this a right-winged piece of pro-bush propaganda? Does it do little else than provide a couple of silly catch phrases like"stay the course", or "cut and run", to attempt to exonerate the Bush administration of their massive mismanagment and shortsightedness in their approach to the possiblity of insurgency ?
This piece is about opposition to the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. They are entirely different countries and nations, although they are both comprised of nearly all brown-skinned muslims, so one could understand why a "progressive" would confuse the two.
Piece be up on y'all,
W.
Tricks @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:44 pm
Delwin Delwin:
I think he forgot one: Is this a right-winged piece of pro-bush propaganda? Does it do little else than provide a couple of silly catch phrases like"stay the course", or "cut and run", to attempt to exonerate the Bush administration of their massive mismanagment and shortsightedness in their approach to the possiblity of insurgency ?
How in hell did you get that the Bush Admin fudged up Afghanistan? Did you think this was about iraq?
USCAdad @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:09 pm
Tricks Tricks:
How in hell did you get that the Bush Admin fudged up Afghanistan? Did you think this was about iraq?
Bush screwed Afghanistan by not providing a clear mission and then following through. Did he want to go to find Osama? Well, then we all should have gone home about the time he closed down the team looking for him.
Did we all go because the Talliban are bad guys and religious extremists? That Afghanistan should be occupied because they can't controll their extremists? Peshwar isn't that far away... it could be a twofor.
Did we go because we were starting a global fight against teror mixed with a little nation building? Well then he should have gotten the first job done before he went running off to someplace oil and air targets. This option gets short shifted by the recent pleadings by the military for immediate rebuilding to secure the confidence of the people... nope.
So what exactly are the we doing there and why did we go? Canada is giving it its best. The yanks?
According to the American perspective isn't this just one front in war with infinite fronts?
dubyah @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:28 pm
$1:
As long as these organizations, who do not answer to anyone but themselfs, are allowed to continue this kind of practise, we're better off not doing anything at all to help anyone. Our "help" just causes more harm, and the failure of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to accomplish whatever it was they were supposed to do is a fine example of this.
We did not invade either Iraq or Afghanistan to help THEM. We invaded in order to help US. Do not be confused by all the pretense of compassion. America is just like every other nation in that it seeks its own interests. Those who do not like that are hypocrites and probably have a pavlovian hatred of the United States.
$1:
Haliburton and Bechtel to reap a quick profit that contributes nothing to the local economy of the nation being "built", and actually increases their debt to an amount they can't possibly hope to pay back, leading to further despotism and corruption. They may not even finish the projects they were hired to complete, devastating the communities whose hopes have been raised and creating more anti-western sentiment.
Sure. It is all our fault. It is not the somali's fault for sitting on his ass all day chewing khat. It is not the mexican's fault for perennially electing super-corrupt leaders that make republicans look like Mary Poppins. It is not the arab's fault for keeping his wife locked-up in the house all day, forbidding her from entering the labor market.
That's right, It is all OUR fault. Never blame the brown man for anything, oh soft bigot of low expectations.
There ought to be an "Anti-Western, marxist cute" medal on CKA. Or how about, "Self-loathing, projecting bastard" medal?
Bah.
W.
dubyah @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:19 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
dubyah dubyah:
$1:
Haliburton and Bechtel to reap a quick profit that contributes nothing to the local economy of the nation being "built", and actually increases their debt to an amount they can't possibly hope to pay back, leading to further despotism and corruption. They may not even finish the projects they were hired to complete, devastating the communities whose hopes have been raised and creating more anti-western sentiment.
Sure. It is all our fault. It is not the somali's fault for sitting on his ass all day chewing khat. It is not the mexican's fault for perennially electing super-corrupt leaders that make republicans look like Mary Poppins. It is not the arab's fault for keeping his wife locked-up in the house all day, forbidding her from entering the labor market.
That's right, It is all OUR fault. Never blame the brown man for anything, oh soft bigot of low expectations.
There ought to be an "Anti-Western, marxist cute" medal on CKA. Or how about, "Self-loathing, projecting bastard" medal?
Bah.
W.
Do you actually read anything you reply to, or do you just have a bunch of random, nonsensical crap ready to spew at anything you can't comprehend?
What does "further despotism" mean?
