Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (238354)	7/31/2007 8:57:08 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Dont get too excited Nadine. We havent won a thing yet and the folks who published the op ed arent exactly pro war types and the same holds for joe klein. Some folks can see nuance and some possible somewhat not all that bad outcomes. You, otoh, are often viewed as a bot for this administration as well as Likud in Israel. Neither this admin or likud has a majority of their nations folks onboard. You have never admitted that US policy in the first place failed in iraq and that either the war shouldnt have been fought or should have been fought very differently. Thats what Kagan and O'Hanlen and Joe Klein are all about. Dont go thinking they have switched sides. MSM is a bull shit argument. Some of the best reporting on iraq comes from the NYTimes. Where do you get your news from thats so much better?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (238354)	7/31/2007 1:46:01 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, re: "[progress in Iraq has been] a bad thing for dems for several years now. That's why the MSM accounts have been so heavily invested in failure. The whole thing needs to be seen as an unequivocal hopeless quagmire, because then Dems have their issue and their support. It's just politics you see. It's totally separate from reality on the ground in Iraq, and should be viewed as such." Your reasoning seems to follow a totally rigid path. You decide what it is that you WANT to believe, reject all the evidence that contravenes that belief and then search for something, anything, to support that belief. The rejecting of all the evidence that contravenes your desperate belief is the tough part. Those looking at the "other side of the coin" must be viewed as anti-good, selfishly motivated and generally the worst kind of people. The media that reports the "bad facts" is simply acting as an instrument of those trying to tear down the builders of "good." Such people's opinions and reporting need not be seriously considered because, after all, they're not worthy of trust. Even better, one must guard against accepting their unprincipled twisting of the facts even to the extent of disbelieving pictures and first party accounts. Do you think I'm wrong? Why don't we take your quoted message and see how well it stands up to even cursory analysis? What specific "progress" in Iraq over the last several years can you identify as having been a "bad thing" for the "dems?" And how, specifically, was that alleged "progress" harmful to the democrats? And if it's democratic "just politics" then how do you explain the growing groundswell of public REPUBLICAN disgust and despair with respect to the entire Iraq "adventure?" And, in your magically monacled world, what is the "separate reality on the ground in Iraq" that's so hopeful? *And what was it that turned all the "mainstream media" talking heads from asking no tough questions going into the Iraq war and occupation to talking heads who seem to have concluded that the Iraqi story is not a "good news" story? Your post is a joke. Because, to be frank, all I've seen lately is a lot of grasping at straws and feeble attempts to redefine anti something else as pro-American or pro-puppet Iraqi government. It's surprising how little isolated "good news" information it takes to create a sense of impending Iraq "victory" in those who so desperately want to "succeed." That's human nature, I suppose, but when men and women are dying and killing I'd expect a lot less cheerleading and a lot more objective thinking. Who was it that used to say that "hope is not a strategy? It certainly wasn't you. Ed