Inside Iraq's green zone. When I got this book from our local library, I thought it would be about Iraq, the war, our soldiers, etc. But instead it is all about the supposed injustices which America has inflicted on Iraq. It was all accusations and no solutions. Maybe there are a very few intelligent claims in this book, but I am not going to wade through all 297 pages of gloom to find them.
"MISTAKES WERE MADE!" protesters proclaim.
Well, Duh. You don't seem to realize that this is war. And I do not believe that the Americans in Iraq are as stupid and cruel as you say they are.
In order to close the day on a more positive note, here's an old favorite for you to enjoy.
METHUSELAH
methuselah ate what he found on his plate,
And never, as people do now,
Did he note the amount of the calorie count;
He ate it because it was chow.
He wasn't disturbed as at dinner he sat,
Devouring a roast or a pie,
To think it was lacking in granular fat
Or a couple of vitamins shy.
He cheerfully chewed each species of food,
Unmindful of troubles or fears
Lest his health might be hurt
By some fancy dessert;
And he lived over nine hundred years.
11 comments:
"MISTAKES WERE MADE!" - that's not what the protesters are saying, it's what the Bush administration is saying.
War does horrible things to people - unjust wars even more so. Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident, it was an indicator of what sort of things do actually go on.
And that's why more than 650,000 Iraqis have died since "mission accomplished", and why millions more have left the country and become refugees.
You know I disagree with you utterly and completely on the Iraq war, and yet you choose to bandy words with me just for the fun of arguing? I resent your unjust accusations against the American people, and I resent your effort to engage me in useless arguments. I'm not interested in spending my time that way.
I don't argue with you just for the fun of it. I honestly think that the invasion of Iraq was an evil and unjust act. On occasion I hope to engage with you on this subject to get you thinking about the issue because you don't seem to want to let your preconceptions get challenged.
I may believe that America has done the wrong thing here, but I don't hate the American people.
I know we disagree. If you want me to think, broad accusations against Americans, without proof, are not the way to do so. Also, because you believe very liberal news sources and I do not, I think we will very rarely, if ever, change eachother's mind on this subject. Challenges, fine. Your comment was not challenging.
Which news sources do you trust?
Why does that matter?
You're questioning how I get my information so I'm questioning yours. You're saying that I completely trust the MSM but before I get into that I want to ask you a very basic question:
How do you know if the information you get is true?
I did not do either of those things; stop trying to egg me on.
you don't seem to answer his questions. it really appears he's just trying to ask you why you believe what you believe.
it doesn't seem that wrong of a question.
I am not answering his questions on purpose- he is baiting me just because he wants to argue, and it's pointless. He knows what my beliefs are on this subject.
Apparently, Emily has been through this before with you, so didn't want to answer, but I will answer for her. She reads mil blogs, reports of soldiers who are in Iraq, Michael Yon's reports, World magazine, watches MSM world news, listens to reports I give her from what I've heard on talk radio (Rush, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity), reads books on wars. There's probably more, but that's all that's coming to me.
How do you know if the information you get is true? - that is a tough question. One characteristic is the amount of research and detailed information given. When details are sparse, not much research has been done and probably no investigation. Are sources named or anonymous? - Sometimes there's good reason for being anonymous, such as wanting to save your life, but sometimes it's because the person is lying and doesn't want to be found. Name-calling is a bad sign that points to emotional attacks rather than facts. The character of the person talking, as seen through continuous reporting. The bias of the reporter - they all have a bias and I am really leery of those who say they don't, because they don't even know themselves well, so how can they report what is true. I'd love to hear how you decide what's true - can you add to the list?
You bring up Abu Ghraib. I haven't refreshed my memory on the details as that happened quite some time ago, but this is what I remember: a report came out that a Koran was flushed and other abuses were happening. It was reported as fact before any investigation was done. After extensive posturing and complaining, an investigation was done and no abuses were found. It was a prisoner who did the flushing. The prisoners have all gained weight since arriving there. Many of our congressmen have gone down there, some which hate Bush and would love to find fault with him, but they came back with no story to report. The story faded away. So what are you talking about it being, "an incident". It was an incident for the MSM, showing how gullible they are for anything negative against Bush.
And why is this an unjust war? Or have you covered that already?
Post a Comment