I like to post to you because you give such detailed critiques of one's work. You would be make a great professor, not simply skimming papers, but writing extensively in the margins, giving helpful hints as to substance and style. You challenge assertions with provocative questions, stimulating further thought and research. You missed your calling. (When I was a professor I hated reading student papers and was grudging in my comments).
er, as to the substance: Your position is entrenched now as a member of the opposition party. You are a defeatist of the first rank, confining your interest (reading and posting) only to articles that reinforce your view that the Iraq war is a failure. I tried to explain why the opinion piece citing British commanders does not merit serious attention. I could have gone further, reminding you of the defeatist attitudes that permeated Britain (including its military leaders) in the early years of WWII, and which were only overcome by the extraordinary strength of personality of Churchill. The second article about Mosul is hardly more than another opinion piece. It is painfully obvious that the Reuter's reporter is not there, as all his "facts" are provided by un-named "residents who said ..." or what "witnesses said ..." We can be sure this reporter is not embedded on the scene,and is only providing heresay evidence. You don't quibble about such subtleties, which would be inadmissible in a court seeking truth, because you are hearing what you want to hear.
A majority of your fellow citizens endorsed the President's conduct of the war. Perhaps they do feel safer because the war on terror is now being waged in the ME and not on U.S. soil. As a member of the opposition and therefore a defeatist concerning the effort to bring democracy to Iraq, one would hope that you draw the line at not becoming TOO gleeful over every report you come across of setbacks involving casualties and deaths. |
