| Author |
 Topic  |
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2007 : 02:10:50 AM
|
B.T., no real dispute with anything you've said, just a few minor quibbles:
quote:
Zombie, I could be wrong, but I think you are missing the authors point. He wasn't arguing that the US did not win the Tet offensive, but rather that college age students ignorance of this fact is no more indicative of biased thinking than their ignorance of all the other facts that he mentioned. VDH seemed to think otherwise.
Even if you're right, I don't see how Dogpile's argument bears on any point that Prankster was trying to make. It would be no different than if Prankster and I were arguing over whether Richard Wagner was an anti-semite, and Prankster responded by linking to a blog that said, "Oh, yeah, well, most young people today don't even listen to classical music." Huh?
quote:
don't think this is entirely fair. For starters, conflating "the left" with ONE ad sponsored by ONE group doesn't seem right, putting aside the fact that the right has routinely maligned generals with whose opinion they did not agree.
I posted a multiple choice. One of the choices was "label Petraeus a traitor". This was the tack employed by MoveOn.org, as you have indicated. But they were not alone. In response to the ad, Republican Senator John Cornyn pushed through an amendment that stated the following:
"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."
Twenty four Democats voted against this resolution, include Senators Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Dan Inouye, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and of course, the lovely and talented Hillary Clinton. So MoveOn.org called Petraeus a traitor and twenty four Democrats, including two Presidential candidates, took MoveOn's side over Petraeus'.
[url]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344[/url]
quote:
Secondly, I haven't heard anyone on the left make the argucment that the surge has nothing to do with the decrease in violence.
Alrighty then:
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/22022/5007[/url]
Read the whole thing if you desire, but here's the lede:
"The surge is not working and George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan were not right. Despite what right-wing blogs are saying, and despite what conservative observers are noting, the plunge in violence is actually the result of an Iraqi political decision made by and implemented by Iraqis—and the drop has little to do with the "surge"—an infusion of 30,000 troops (which wouldn’t fill a Major League stadium) into Baghdad, a city of six million people."
Not high-ranking enough for you? Okay. Let's move on to Democrat Representative David Obey, here speaking before the National Press Club:
quote:
If violence is decreasing in Iraq, it may be because insurgents “are running out of people to kill,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Monday.
“There are fewer targets of opportunity,” Obey said in a speech to the National Press Club.
Obey was responding to a question about reports touted by Republicans that security is improving in Iraq and that President Bush’s “surge” strategy is working.”
There are other examples I would cite if I only I had committed them to memory. The Democrats have been talking down the Surge since its inception. Only now are they grudgingly admitting its success.
quote:
If those benchmarks are not met, then essentially we are looking at extending the surge in perpetuity, simply to keep us at the level we are at now. You might not agree with it, but it's a valid argument, as opposed to an unprincipled stab at Bush.
How many times must I state that Sunni-Shiite reconciliation is key before I am given credit for saying it?
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 11/28/2007 02:59:45 AM |
 |
|
|
BT
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 09:54:08 AM
|
zombit, I will let you and prankster have it out, but I thought I'd make a few brief points:
-A leader who is unconcerned with his image does not fly onto the flight deck of an aircraft carrier in full flight suit regalia, in order to deliver a speech with a perfectly framed "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him.
-I think you are seriously overestimating the effectiveness of the werewolf brigades. Most historians classify them as an almost total non factor.
-I'd argue that a majority of the people were behind the war when it started, because it was sold to them so well. And, while everyone had their own reason for turning against it, and some undoubtedly did because of the length of the war, many others did because the reasons they were told we had to go in, slowly but surely turned out to be proven false (again, for the record, I was one of the looney left mired in the fever swamps who thought the war on terror was necessary, but the war in Iraq was not).
-I also have a huge problem with your logic that states that once a country is defeated militarily, defeat can ONLY be brought about by an anti-war movement. Defeating a nations military machine, and defeating a subsequent insurgency are two different beasts.
As for your responses to me, I will admit I didn't see the DailyKos stuff, but I don't actually hit that site more than 2 or 3 times a year. I will say that I don't think the idea that the surge isn't reducing violence is not part of the majority of thinking on the left. Certainly some posters on Dailykos might say otherwise, but it's not something I run into on the boards I frequent.
And again, I will freely admit the Surge has decreased violence, but I do think the question as to whether or not it has been a "success" is far from being answered. IF it leads to political concessions it will be a success, if not, it will still have been responsible for saving some lives, which is obviously a good thing.
And yes, of course I will give you credit for saying we need a sunni-shiite reconciliation, but that is my point. The surge can't be seen as a success unless we at least get some hope of that happening.
|
|
|
|
thewarden
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 10:16:26 AM
|
Did someone actually mention the Werewolves in Germany?
Never existed. No American soldier died to hostile enemy action in Germany after the surrender of German forces.
A lot died in car crashes, barroom brawls, love-triangles, etc. The stuff you would expect in any regular population of young men. But none died from "werewolves."
And before you cite me some article from the National Review Online or something, I will ask a simple question. If there were such attacks, then just give me the name of the victim and the location and date of the attack. I have never been able to find any such incidents.
Some soldiers did die to "partisan" activities in Germany -- mostly bypassed enemy formations prior to May 1945. But when the surrender was signed, that violence stopped.
Iraq is not, in any way, shape, or form comparable to post-WW2 Germany.
On the surge... a good case can be made that what really happened was the mix-ethnic neighborhoods were effectively cleansed, which diminished the violence. And anyway, turning the Sunni tribes against AQ was not ever a goal of the surge, which was focused on an ink-blot strategy largely in Baghdad. That said, violence is down, and the uptick in American presence almost certainly was part of the reason for that. In that narrow sense, the surge worked... Can we leave now? If we still can't leave because the situation is too fragile, doesn't that call into question any assessment of the surge as a success? |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 11:27:16 AM
|
BT:
The "Mission Accomplished" banner wasn't Bush's idea. It was the brainchild of the crew of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. The banner referred to the completion of the Lincoln's ten month deployment, not the completion of the war itself. Bush never said "mission accomplished" anywhere in his speech. In any event, the fact that you have to go back four years to dig up this one photo op only demonstrates to me that how little interest Bush has shown in buffing up his image. If he truly was as image obsessed as you and Prankster seem to believe he is, you would only have to go back four weeks to cite an egregious example. Or days.
Other points:
It was Prankster who first brought up the Werwolf brigades, not I. If they were a non-factor, so be it. (If you and the Warden were to read my earlier post more carefully, you will see that I clearly referred to them as a "paltry insurgency".) My point, which many of you appear to be oblivious to, is that insurgencies are always tougher to defeat than a conventional military enemy. FDR and Truman would likely have fared no better against this current insurgency than Bush. The Bush regime did not create the insurgency. That is not its failing. The pox on this adminstration is its failure to recognize the insurgency for what it was at its inception and thereby adopt appropriate countermeasures.
And yes, B.T. (sigh), a nation losing its will to wage a counterinsurgency will end up costing its country the war.
Let us be clear on this: not once during this entire insurgency has the enemy had the upper hand. They were never winning. Even in the pre-Surge days, our military defeated them in every head-to-head confrontation, routing them in any city where we deployed our forces. However, past a certain point we were failing to gain new ground. We win in Fallujah, they escape to Mosul. We beat them in Mosul, they head off to Ramadi. Or Hamandiyah. Whack-a-mole. But they never held beat us back, and they completely failed to achieve any tangible military success. Our troops didn't leave, the training of the Iraqi security forces went forward, the Iraqis held free elections, and the Iraqis wrote a new constitution.
The only arena where the enemy has enjoyed any degree of success is in their deployment of IEDs and VIEDS; however, even these weapons failed to defeat us militarily.
In truth, that was never their purpose.
The insurgents know they can never beat our military with car bombs. Not with suicide bombers, either. Can't be done. Nada. Will never happen. Then why bother waging this strategy at all? Answer: propaganda.
"... I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma." - captured letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Every explosion that ends up on the front page of the New York Times or al Jazeera on NBC News with Brian Williams or CNN is designed to sour public opinion, both here and abroad, and slowly sap the will of our Coalition forces to see the fight through to the very end. The terrorists clearly understand this. That is their gameplan. That is textbook Insurgency 101.
Further, I note you have no response to my point that 24 Democrats refused to defend Petraeus against the MoveOn.org ad.
I also notice you have no comment on David Obey's claim that violence has gone down simply because the insurgents have no one left to kill. (Memo to Obey: there remain 24 million Iraqs. Plenty of bulls-eyes still out there.)
Want another quote from Democrats stating the decrease in violence has nothing to do with the Surge? Here's Democratic senator Charles Schumer on his own website:
[url]http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=281854[/url]
I see we are in agreement about the political dynamics of the Surge so let's leave it at that. Thank you for the thoughtful and civil discussion. Next time let's tackle something easier, like whether or not Bloodrayne was worse than Alone in the Dark.
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 11/28/2007 12:34:44 PM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 11:42:58 AM
|
The Warden is quite correct that the Anbar and Diyala awakenings were initially independent of our current Surge strategy. Even Petraeus expressed surprise at the sea change in the Arab Sunni communities. However, while the Awakening did not itself arise from the Surge, it remains dependent on the Coalition to maximize its success. Sunnis and the Coalition have been working side-by-side for near six months now, militarily as well as politically. In short, the Awakening may have been the Sunnis idea, but they couldn't have pulled it off with our troops to back them up.
[url]http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html[/url]
In fact, just bookmark Michael Totten period. And Michael Yon, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 11:50:29 AM
|
quote:
Outside of his State of the Union speeches, he rarely addresses the nation.
Which is a big problem and one of the reasons both he and the war are so unpopular. During wartime leaders are supposed to be at front and center exhorting the populace to exertion and sacrifice. How would moral have been during World War 2 if Roosevelt barely talked to the nation?
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
Edited by - Ericb on 11/28/2007 12:08:34 PM |
|
|
|
thewarden
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 1:24:50 PM
|
quote:
Every explosion that ends up on the front page of the New York Times or al Jazeera on NBC News with Brian Williams or CNN is designed to sour public opinion, both here and abroad, and slowly sap the will of our Coalition forces to see the fight through to the very end. The terrorists clearly understand this. That is their gameplan. That is textbook Insurgency 101.
Well, yes, of course.
So, what do you do about it? I mean, seriously, what kind of a world would we live in if 5 American soldiers getting blown up was not news? Or where 200 people massacred in a market was just glossed over? I never understand this argument. I would be irate, irate if the press tried to cover up the reality of the war. A democracy only works if the people are informed. And yeah, sometimes that means you face different limits than others in wartime. Rule of law also means you face constraints in pursuing criminals. Personal freedom also means you can't transform your economy as quickly as you might like. Complaining about press coverage is such an incredibly short-sighted, ill-conceived position that I am always surprised to see otherwise thoughtful people make it.
The problem is not the press coverage. It is the disconnect between the President's refusal to ask for sacrifices and his rosy rhetoric and the reality of a nasty brutal war. You cannot, cannot ask the American people to remain committed to Iraq and at the same time urge them to do nothing more than continue shopping. It just does not work. Political leadership has to be more than just hoping no one gets to hear about bad news.
About "seeing it through." What sort of fantasy world do people live in where Iraq in 10 years looks much better than it does today. There is no example anywhere in the Arab world of a state that looks like what we seem to be hoping for -- a stable, peaceloving democracy, willing to reconcile with Israel, and providing strong support against terrorism. We are behaving like those women who are attracted to convicts because they think they can fix them. You can't fix Iraq. It is what it is. And the moment, we get to the point where is is unlikely that AQ will be able to take over -- as is already the case -- we should get out. There is nothing in Iraq at this point worth the lives of any more American soldiers and marines.
And yeah, I feel bad for the Iraqi people who might die if violence continues. And I feel bad for Iraqis who worked with us and might face retaliation. But I also feel bad about the Darfuris, and the Somalis, and the Burmese, and the Zimbaweans, and on and on and on. If this is now about protecting Iraqis from themselves... count me out. We've given them 4 years to get their act together. That is more than we have done for anyone else. WE DON'T OWE THE IRAQIS ANYTHING MORE. |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 10:31:04 PM
|
Forget it, Warden. We've been making the same argument over and over in this thread, and Zombiewhacker has reduced it to "THE FIRST AMENDMENT HASN'T BEEN REPEALED YET!" as if anyone were actually arguing otherwise. He's either got severe ADD, or else his main concern is simply moving the rhetorical goalposts until he can create the illusion of winning the argument.
See also: his tap-dancing around "We lost Vietnam militarily" when my point couldn't have been more bloody obvious in my original post, his contention that we're electing leaders who are "committed to defeat" (yeah, no outrageous exaggeration there!), his elaborate dredging out of stats to demonstrate something I never actually disagreed with (while ignoring my actual point), and his talk of how there were "differing viewpoints" going into Iraq, as if the people who didn't tell Bush what he wanted to hear weren't being shut out, and in some cases fired.
But please, Zombie, continue lecturing me on how I'm "ignoring you". I certainly will from now on.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 11:04:50 AM
|
Warden:
quote:
So, what do you do about it? I mean, seriously, what kind of a world would we live in if 5 American soldiers getting blown up was not news? Or where 200 people massacred in a market was just glossed over? I never understand this argument. I would be irate, irate if the press tried to cover up the reality of the war. A democracy only works if the people are informed. And yeah, sometimes that means you face different limits than others in wartime. Rule of law also means you face constraints in pursuing criminals. Personal freedom also means you can't transform your economy as quickly as you might like. Complaining about press coverage is such an incredibly short-sighted, ill-conceived position that I am always surprised to see otherwise thoughtful people make it.
Well, I appreciate the "thoughtful" compliment. :)
You misunderstand my point. Absolutely the media should cover every bomb blast, every sniper attack, and, yes, every Abu Ghraib whenever every it rears its ugly head. What I am arguing for is that those events be placed in their proper context.
Insurgent bomb blasts make the front page, even if they're militarily insignificant (which the majority of them are). Coalition forces capturing and killing AQ and Iraqi insurgents until very recently have almost never made headlines, unless the operation was so immense (e.g. Fallujah) or the target so high profile (e.g. al Zarqawi) that the story couldn't possibly be brushed to the back burner.
A responsible media doesn't filter out the bad, it doesn't filter out the good. It presents a complete picture of what is going on.
Our forces dropped leaflets to save innocent lives in Fallujah; how many times was that on the cover of the New York Times? Answer: zero. How many times was it reported on CNN? I didn't see it... did you? But if Kevin Sites shoots video of one panicked soldier shooting one wounded prisoner he mistakenly thought was an armed insurgent, that video goes on every news network in the world. The one impression people watching their TV sets in Boston or London or Singapore or Beirut is, "Here they go, American soldiers committing atrocities again." Meanwhile the efforts Coalition troops make on a daily basis to minimize casualties goes largely ignored.
Again, who has gotten more press coverage: Lyndie England or Jason Dunham?
In short, when the MSM reports all the facts then it is doing its job. When the MSM chooses to emphasize the negative over the positive, then it unwittingly makes itself a propaganda arm, and not for our side.
quote:
It is the disconnect between the President's refusal to ask for sacrifices and his rosy rhetoric and the reality of a nasty brutal war. You cannot, cannot ask the American people to remain committed to Iraq and at the same time urge them to do nothing more than continue shopping. It just does not work. Political leadership has to be more than just hoping no one gets to hear about bad news.
Here we are in one hundred percent agreement. To quote a favorite pundit of mine: "People say America is at war. America is not at war. Our military is at war. America is at the mall."
Historians years from now will be able to render judgement as to how Bush fared behind the scenes as a wartime leader. But as to his public personna as Commander in Chief, that verdict is already in: F for Failure.
quote:
What sort of fantasy world do people live in where Iraq in 10 years looks much better than it does today. There is no example anywhere in the Arab world of a state that looks like what we seem to be hoping for -- a stable, peaceloving democracy, willing to reconcile with Israel, and providing strong support against terrorism.
Well, the monkeywrench here is reconciliation with Israel. I can give you an example of a stable, peaceloving democracy providing strong support on the war on terror, and that's Turkey. Not only is it a democracy, albeit of a distinctly Middle Eastern vintage, but it's also a NATO ally. If Iraq ten years from now ends up resembling Turkey, that would certainly represent a lion's step forward, wouldn't it? Especially considering what Iraq has looked like for the past thirty years.
quote:
And yeah, I feel bad for the Iraqi people who might die if violence continues. And I feel bad for Iraqis who worked with us and might face retaliation. But I also feel bad about the Darfuris, and the Somalis, and the Burmese, and the Zimbaweans, and on and on and on. If this is now about protecting Iraqis from themselves... count me out. We've given them 4 years to get their act together. That is more than we have done for anyone else. WE DON'T OWE THE IRAQIS ANYTHING MORE.
Even if I granted your last point (which respectfully I do not) we still owe our soldiers something.
It's not 2004 anymore.
The argument that our soldiers had no idea when they first signed up that they'd likely end up serving in Iraq doesn't wash anymore. Today's military are largely men and women who've enlisted or re-enlisted since the invasion of 2003. When they signed up, they knew exactly what they were getting into. They understood the risks. And they went anyway, some because they believe in this fight, others because they don't want their brethren who have already fallen to have died in vain, and doubtless others would argue a little of both. And a few would even argue that they've met the Iraqis, they've befriended them, they now see the Iraqis as fellow human beings and not mere pins on a Centcom map, and they have come to the grudging conclusion that maybe the Iraqis are worth fighting for, after all.
Yes, there are anti-war Iraq vets out there, too, of course. You're never going to find 100% agreement among soldiers on any war. Regardless, the soldiers I read about every day in milblogs, the ones who are fighting in Iraq right now, they don't want us to quit. They're willing to tough it out, risks and all.
Why, then, would you presume to signal the retreat on their behalf?
|
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 9:49:26 PM
|
Where do you guys get the time? Anyways...
I think everybody notices the brazen Fox right-wing spin. But for Yahoo portal users...have you ever noticed the cloying left-wing spin to the headlines?
Pip
"These five fingers: individually they're nothing, but when I curl them together like this into a single unit, they form a weapon that is terrible to behold!" - Lucy Van Pelt |
|
|
|
thewarden
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2007 : 07:05:02 AM
|
quote:
Well, I appreciate the "thoughtful" compliment. :)
Actually, I've said it at least twice this thread. And I mean it. I appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned responses.
quote:
A responsible media doesn't filter out the bad, it doesn't filter out the good. It presents a complete picture of what is going on.
This is harder than it seems. You always need to prioritize. But look, if you go back to the reporting from 2004-05, it is perfectly, unambiguously clear that the media reporting was more accurate and more sophisticated than what the White House was putting out and even than what the military's own assessment were. Senior military leaders have admitted as much. The media highlighted the problems with the collapse of security after the invasion, while Don Rumsfeld was dismissing it as just exuberance. The media covered the development of the insurgency a year before the military even acknowledged there was an insurgency. Yeah, they have made mistakes at time, overemphasized some issues, underemphasized others. But on the whole, the reporting has been very, very good. The Washington Post and New York Times have been chock-full of stories over the past month of good news in Iraq -- diminishing violence, reestablishment of commerce, return of refugees. The notion that the media only prints bad news is simply not true. And again, this is an argument that you hear more from partisan types than from senior military leaders, who on the whole have a grudging respect for the job the media has done.
quote:
. I can give you an example of a stable, peaceloving democracy providing strong support on the war on terror, and that's Turkey
I did say "Arab world." There are a large number of Muslim countries that are being quite helpful -- Mali, Senegal, Singapore, etc. There is no Arab country that can serve as a model of what we would like to see in Iraq. That does not make it impossible, but it does suggest taking a hard look at our goals. Turkey is a particularly special case owing to its formation and Kemalist ideology. Not a good model for Iraq at all.
quote:
The argument that our soldiers had no idea when they first signed up that they'd likely end up serving in Iraq doesn't wash anymore.
I never made that argument. Although in fairness, there is NO empirical evidence for the claim that American soldiers want to stay. Indeed, the few attempts at polling servicemen in Iraq suggest the opposite -- but these rely on volunteers and are subject to self-selection problem. But regardless, this argument is irrelevant.
quote:
Why, then, would you presume to signal the retreat on their behalf?
It is called "civilian control of the military" and it appears in a little read document that I happen to respect called the U.S. Constitution. Sorry to be snarky... but the notion that the military ought to decide when we stay and leave is one of the silliest arguments imaginable. Aside from the issue of who makes decisions in a democracy, there is a practical problem -- as much as I respect our servicemen and women (and make no mistake, I think they are the best parts of our society for their commitment, patriotism, and willingness to sacrifice for the common good), they are simply not good judges of grand strategy. They are too close to the fight. Their field of vision is too narrow to assess the tradeoffs and consequences of either staying in Iraq or leaving.
quote:
maybe the Iraqis are worth fighting for
Worth how much? I am in the "liberal interventionist" camp. I think we have a duty to make the world a better place -- by military force if necessarily. I subscribe to the Spider-Man Doctrine -- With great power comes great responsibility. BUT, the fact that we ought to help the Iraqis is only half the equation. The problem is the costs. If it were free, would I think we should stay? Of course. But do I think it is worth 500-1000 Americans dead per year and 10,000 wounded? No. Do I think it is worth the strategic consequences of being tied down? No. We can't deal with Iran. We are being forced to make all sorts of concessions to North Korea. We can't do anything about Pakistan. We can't do anything about Hugo Chavez. We can't do anything about increasing Chinese naval power. Iraq is not in a vacuum. And while I understand that there may be some negative consequences strategically of withdrawing, there are also undeniable massive strategic consequences of remaining tied down in Iraq.
And that is just manpower. You want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent? Hard to do it if we're spending $200 billion/year in Iraq. Want to fix AMT? Want to expand child health insurance? Want to rebuild New Orleans? Want to invest in critical infrastructure? Want to strengthen the dollar so that we can bring oil prices under control? Want to invest in energy independence? And on and on and on. You probably don't want to do all those things, but maybe some? Regardless, the costs of the Iraq war means that while we may be helping Iraqis, it also means we are taking resources away from fixing things at home -- whether in the form of lower taxes or more spending. THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES. Every dollar spend in Iraq is a dollar was cannot spend here or is a dollar we cannot give back to American citizens in the form of a tax cut.
Anyway, I will stop here. Zombie, i'll give you the last word here -- if you want to keep chatting after, let's take offline. I am at thewarden (at) prisonflicks (dot) com.
Thank you for the spirited discussion.
Regards |
|
|
|
Ken HPoJ
Supreme Potentate
USA
1530 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2007 : 07:48:25 AM
|
I want to thank everyone for keeping civil enough that I haven't felt it necessary to put a stop to a very passionate discussion, something which I try to avoid. I'm glad that everyone seems to realize, even in the heat of argument, that at the end of the day we're all friends here. I'd like to thing that has always separated this message board from many.
PEGGY: I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme Court?
HANK: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.
--King of the Hill |
|
|
|
GalahadPC
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2007 : 4:01:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
I think everybody notices the brazen Fox right-wing spin. But for Yahoo portal users...have you ever noticed the cloying left-wing spin to the headlines?
I haven't noticed it much with Yahoo, but occasionally I have to use Netscape for something, and their headlines are spun so far left they just fall right the hell over.
Meanwhile, an article from Medialampoon.com:
quote:
No One Has Seen ‘Redacted’
Posted on November 29, 2007
NEW YORK – Distribution company Magnolia Pictures revealed Thursday that no person has seen the outlet’s new film “Redacted” despite the film being released in select theaters.
Moviegoers have not gone to theaters to see the film, ushers have not watched it while it’s in the theater, and director Brian De Palma has not even seen the film himself, a spokeswoman for Magnolia Pictures said Thursday.
“The director used a special procedure when making this film,” said spokeswoman Tina Gaffney. “Each piece of shot footage was carefully labeled immediately after being shot. The labeled pieces were then spliced together without anyone having to actually watch the movie,” she said.
“The reel changes are set up to be automatic, so that even the projectionist doesn’t need to watch it,” Gaffney said. “That way the projectionist can do something he’d rather do instead, such as smash his own toes with a hammer,” she added.
De Palma said that people must be staying away from the film in theaters because of the film’s premise, a story of U.S. soldiers who assault a girl in Iraq.
“I’d like to think that the reason is not because the film is badly made,” De Palma told reporters.
“In fact, I can say with much relief that I know that’s not the reason — because no one has seen it,” he said. “They would have to have seen it for that to be the reason, so I can rest easy,” he added.
|
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 02:50:20 AM
|
Mmm... I've tried to keep myself away from this thread, but I finally saw the movie.
The short version: it sucks.
The long version:
(contains mild spoilers)
And yet another turkey from De Palma. As one could expect from him, the visuals and the narrative have a few interesting ideas tossed in. The film is entirely composed of videocam excerpts, and the structure wisely alternates between footage taken by the American soldiers, by Iraqi insurgents and a French crew who are making a story on the platoon.
For instance, you have a scene taking from the POV of the French crew, edited and with music, followed by amateur American footage of the soldiers inspecting a zone, then followed by rushed images of the insurgents planting a bomb on the same place at night.
So simple it's almost a stroke of genious, really. I particularly was cracking up everytime the French footage appeared. I've seen a few of their documentaries on Iraq, and the way De Palma combines their rigidness with the urgency of videocam material is a riot.
But then there's the script, the acting and pretty much everything else. To what extent a film based on real events can be so unconvincing? Watch and learn. Characters are as cardboard as they can get, specially the 'villains' of the piece, acting is amateurish at best, and De Palma doesn't bother to offer a convincing explanation of the scenario that leads to the rape and murder of several Iraqi civilians.
Note that I said 'explanation', not 'justification'. As I understand, such things don't have a justification. But De Palma should have explained convincingly why these people end up doing that. But having a zero knowledge of their pasts, their psychology and so on, that's imposible. De Palma could have made a chilling character study here, instead he tells the story of several soldiers that one day decide it's fine to rape and murder civilians.
And that pretty much killed the movie for me. Redacted should generate some interesting and useful debates, but those don't belong to the political arena, but to film schools.
And let's hope next time De Palma decides to hire an screenwriter.
Rating 1 / 5. |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked