|
A place to let it all hang out without destroying our mailboxes.
Right now, it's mainly a warblog, but all comments are welcome.
|
Friday, March 28, 2003
Unexplained growth of memes:
And the best chefs are from England...
Also, anyone notice how, no matter where you travel to in the world, they sell the same junk at every stop? Is there some thai factory that specializes in the same 'island' gear you can get anywhere?
posted by DLoyd76 at 2:37 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/travel/28HOUR.html
F@#k this war shi'ite, they mentioned Holiday house over Kerbey or Mag!?
posted by DLoyd76 at 2:35 PM
Thursday, March 27, 2003
MEME OF THE DAY:
You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance and Germany doesn't want to go to war.
—Anonymous
posted by DLoyd76 at 4:22 PM
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Welcome Sara!
To Ian's assertion about Chirac and the UN:
I disagree with that assertian Ian. Firstly, no one person can be the sole cause of events, Russia and a few other countries felt the same way too, so it's hardly all France's fault.
Most importantly, France did not force us into our current action: we chose this current action. Yes one of the largest reasons was France's threat, but i think you would agree that we were always on track to act with or without UN approval, and that decision was our own.
To to support my earlier statement, I feel the UN is irrelevant in part due to the US's choice to act outside the bounds of the UN. We felt that because certain members of the SC did not support our actions, we did not need our hand to be bound by the desires of other countries; therefore we chose to act alone.
What I always felt about the UN was its noble experiment to be not only a discussion forum for nations, but a proto-group/global governing body. All patriotism checked and called for, the Un was closer to a global governing body than ever before. Part of that function was to bring greivances to the group and to mete out solutions globally as well. Iraq's non-compliance was the first straw, and our current actions were the last. Any governing body can govern only by the will of those comprising it. Our country works the same way, (although the concept of a state refusing to comply with the rest of the union is not as feasible now as it was during the first 50 years of our nation).
By simultaneously thumbing a nose to the UN in both compliance (Iraq) and punishment (US), the UN is now little more than a think tank that gets away with too many NYC parking tickets. I am not placing the blame fully on any single party, I am laying the blame at the feet of ALL parties involved in this. Iraq, US, the security council, the UN at large.
Reminds me of the old Robin Williams joke about British Police catching criminals, "STOP!.....Or I'll say STOP! again!"
posted by DLoyd76 at 3:26 PM
Monday, March 24, 2003
Why isn't North Korea invading the south right now? A lot of american forces are committed elsewhere. Wouldn't this be a great time to do bad?
posted by DLoyd76 at 12:12 PM
From Mike Wendland's Blog
Baghdad blogger back online
Salam, the blogger who says he's in Baghdad, is back online with new posts after two days of no Internet access. It's a good read.
Posted by mike at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Is this the Internet War?
Like World War II was called the "Radio War" because of the way the medium was used to inform the public, is this the "Internet War?"
With news portals offering streaming live video, interactive maps and constant updates and Web logs supplementing that with niche commenting and special-interest links, the Internet is providing realtime coverage like never before. Here's an overview on how important the Net has become. Here's another.
Posted by mike at 08:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
posted by DLoyd76 at 12:06 PM
I'm very glad we're able to continue the intelligent discourse here!
-
Relevancy of the UN. I feel that the UN is now irrelevant based on 2 related points.
1. By refusing to take serious action in the face of Saddam's many documented transgressions, the UN became the parent of a bad child who only chides, never backing up the threats with actual force.
2. By the US going ahead with the current War, we have taken the authority from the UN and rendered it obsolete. If the parent chides but the Big brother does the actual punishment, who has the power? The Big Brother does. NOT the parent.
Why listen to the UN now? If you disagree, then go it alone. I place the blame on UN irrelevancy on both shoulders.
I feel that war with Iraq was inevitable. I do not know the parties involved, but I wish (this is a wish folks), that the diplomacy occurred Not to stop the war (which was inevitable), but to begin the war with a larger consensus. I find it ironic that in our bid for larger involvement in world events, our actions may leave us more isolated.
The UN and the League of Nations are noble experiments, both seeminly doomed to fail.
posted by DLoyd76 at 12:04 PM
Sunday, March 23, 2003
2 Other thoughts on the "Not criticise military".
I want to make the firm distinction that Anti-War with me is NOT Anti-Troops, nor Anti-Personell. We are in Iraq, I want us to win and get home as safely as possible.
With that my post is not an indictment of our soldiers, just a question about the smartest and and safest way to conduct this war.
Secondly, no matter what others may think of my comments, criticising the current administration AND the actions of the military command, whether commited or not, is protected by 1st Amendment Free speech rights.
Jim, please tell me if the law says otherwise.
Cheers
--d
posted by DLoyd76 at 10:20 PM
Embedded reporters and "we"
And here's another e-mail I just received, this one from a journalist friend who works for a U.S. local TV station and is in Kuwait, hoping to get into Iraq with an advancing military unit:
There is a journalist log jam with many planning their own trips to the border and past check points. Not bright. Most of the journalists killed here to be quite honest, die really from stupidity. Some of them were making attempts to prove how creative they were in getting to Hot zones when they were killed. One blew up while traveling thru a mined area, the other was caught in the cross fire of a firefight. Everyone saw the SKYNEWS Brit with his fuzzy microphone actually hounding troops live in Umm Qasr during a gun battle I almost expected to see one of them get their heads blown off because they weren't paying attention. I think its cool to watch and maybe even narrate but certainly I wouldn't want my loved one getting killed because he or she was chatting it up with some person in the media.
I'm still personally offended by the FOX news people who constantly use the word "WE." They are contributing to anti-American "Journalist" sentiment here. The people think we want and profit from the war and are pushing it to sell cars that use the gas, that comes from he oil we want to steal.
I wish the Tabloids sensationalists would shut up and stop trying to impress us.
Would I show a live battle if I could? Of course. Would I harass people on the firing line? Absolutley not.
I going to sleep now after the second missile warning of the night.
That's one of the things about the embedded TV reports. The reporters sometimes seem to talk like they are soldiers instead of journalists, using military-speak and indeed saying "we" as in one report I just heard from an embedded reporter who just said "we took out about 30 or 40 Iraqis" in a firefight.
It's hard not to develop strong bonds with the soldiers they are living and sleeping and risking their lives with and being protected by. Trying to stay objective has to be very difficult.
posted by DLoyd76 at 8:19 PM
From: Randy's Blog
"It's amazing that when Bush asks Congress for $100 billion to fight a war, it somehow finds the money. Yet, we can't find $100 billion to build the best public school or health care system in the world, give teachers the salaries they deserve, fix the Medicare and Social Security system,... I'd like to hear on CNN one day that Congress has come up with $100 billion for any one of those things."
A-FUCKING-MEN!!!
posted by DLoyd76 at 7:07 PM
Any one ever read snowcrash?
http://www.earthviewer.com/
posted by DLoyd76 at 6:36 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12215-2003Mar22.html
posted by DLoyd76 at 6:33 PM
[3/23/2003 4:47:02 PM | Ian Haufrect]
"But when we disagree with their message, we can say why we disagree, and make stronger arguments than they can. Otherwise, the debate dissolves to namecalling.
And remember folks, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING (except ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism)."
et tu, Ian? ;)
I will not argue that war was the largest factor in ending those movements. Except communism, which is still at large in China, Cuba and North Korea. If you are referring to the USSR, then that collapsed upon itself, saying to me that the system is inherently flawed. But for a system that is inherently flawed, it is still running strong in China. (Not a supporter by any means, just amazed that China is still doing it!)
I am just saddened at the human condition that War is still 'necessary'. Before you make fun of me for wanting 'can't we all just get along?' I ask: " What is wrong with that?"
I think the main reason why I would never want to be president is a wholehearted desire NEVER to make a decision that results in the death of a human life. I could not take that on my conscience, no matter what the reasoning behind it. Yes, saddam is bad, but because of this one man, many undeserving on both sides will die. That is shameful. Not to us, the United States, but to the Human Race as a whole. and most of all, to Saddam himself.
War sucks because people die. That's all. I challenge anyone to say that War is a 'good' thing. Even if the results of war are preferable over the course of history, I challenge anyone to put War in the same catagory as, say, puberty. War is not good. War sucks. Why? Because people die in war. That's why.
posted by DLoyd76 at 5:09 PM
:)
posted by DLoyd76 at 5:01 PM
I feel there are some major themes running through our conversations.
I, brad, Raf, Angela: Quicker to distrust Government. Feel that there is much going on that is not released by the administration. Angered that the Patriot act and similar laws, while enacted in good faith and for good reasons, are seriously changing the beliefs and rights, that we feel, define America.
Ian, Jim: Quicker to believe Government. Feel that the president is telling 100% the truth in everything he says. Believe current policy is just and right, feel that the Patriot act is a just cause and that such restrictions need to be enforced.
I think a concern on both sides is a general regurgitation of both pro and anti sentiment from the media and media luminaries. A comment I have heard is that most anti-war people are only re-saying slogans, that their evidence is not researched enough to be an opinion. I have also heard that the pro-war people are merely repeating what the president says, and all opinions to come from the administration are immediately, unquestionly accepted.
Perhaps we're both dolts.
Or catholics....
posted by DLoyd76 at 5:01 PM
Responding to Ian's Response:
I respectfully disagree with Ian's request to not 'criticize our military's wisdom while in a land war'. First off, I highly doubt any troops in the gulf are going to be reading this blog; and secondly, I feel the right to criticize the military and the government, especially during moments of war and crisis should not be stigmatized. Without getting all speechy, I feel this is a facet of our society that makes us strong: The freedom of differing opinions and the right to make them public. An america where there is no dissent would be wrong. No matter how small the dissenting faction may be, criticisim allows us to be more objective, to try to see the situation from an outside point of view. Even if you continue in your current beliefs, you are not less for viewing criticism. (in many cases, you may be reaffirmed in your position).
I have not had the luxury of CNN this weekend as I have been working: all my news has been web-related and as far as I have read, my question of the landwar timing has not been published yet (ergo, I am not repeating what NPR said, I thought of it myself). I do not feel I am monday quarterbacking. I am questioning the timing due to a variety of factors:
1. Historical deployment of the US in the last 15 years.
2. The trend that AirWars are the way to go.
3. Historical evidence that demoralizing an enemy through bombing campaigns aids in the reduction of home team loss of life and the weakening of opposition military targets and command structure.
Ok, so we may have surprised Iraq by invading so soon, but they have been building up for months. Therefore I feel that a dedicated Air bombing campaign across Iraq, not just the capital, would have aided our cause currently. To me, reading of front line battles seems, archaic. AND the thought that we will have to fight many city to city guerilla battles is not appealing.
I also respectfully disagree with Ian's argument :" I believe our military wanted to show those in Baghdad how quickly we surrounded that city and how many of their army surrendered, suspecting that will make Baghdad's surrender more likely (and thus less killing all around)."
Saddam has shown time and time again his resolve to stay where he is. That's why we are in Iraq: he won't leave. Saddam is not a stupid man. In fact, I am sure he is incredibly intelligent and charismatic (all despots who reign as long as he has usually are). Therefore I'm sure he has some grasp of the military capabilities of the US, especially since he experienced it first hand back in '91. Therefore, the concept that news of our swift early successes would prompt Baghdad to surrender similar falls apart. Saddam is not going to give up until he is dead. He is surrounded by men who are in similar positions. Like an intelligent despot, he will have surrounded himself with utterly loyal guards and troops. Men he has overseen the closest. He is on his home turf. Just because you torch the ports doesn't mean they're going to abandon the castle. Baghdad is the big one, the hardest target, and the last stand of Saddam. He is not leaving without a fight.
As for the liberation of Kuwait, I do not know all the reasons, but it does seem to me that a person like saddam would try again. We didn't stop at germany's borders, nor Japan's. In Japan we insisted on the emperor publicly disavowing many of his powers, AND we had a hand in recontruction of the country, including the drafting of their new post-war constitution. Both Germany and Japan had limited military due to those laws post war. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the sanctions, Saddam and mainstream Iraq was not hurt in any physical way. It's easy to see how Saddam can spin the 91 war when there are not many monuments to his defeat (unlike say, Nagasaki or Dresden).
The biggest thing I don't like about the aftermath of 91 is the way we promised the dissedents that we'd support them in an uprising and then backed out. Yes, we wanted them to do the coup for us, but it just doesn't seem nice.
posted by DLoyd76 at 4:53 PM
Ok, I am a realist. As much as I do not like, nor wanted the War, were are currently engaged in it, so it is not going to Go Away. Therefore, we need to finish it, and finish it well. So, here's a question: Why have we started the ground war so early? Granted, every war has casualties, and to expect 0 on the home front is stupid. But in the '91 war, and Kosovo if I remember correctly, we did an extensive bombing campaign, prior to going in on foot. So far we've bombed Baghdad alot, but not the month-long campaign I was expecting. Awe may come in the first days, but Shock usually occurs after the 3rd week, when it seems like the bpmbing will never stop and many targets are obliterated. I think by going in now as we did, the Iraq army still has a lot of their morale, and if they know their tactics any, be able to operate independent from Baghdad.
Why didn't we bomb the oil-brick road all the way to Baghdad so all the troops had to do was drive around the craters?
Now we're fighting an actual, hand to hand close combat war. I still think we're going to win, but that is fastly moving from 'quickly' to 'eventually'. And eventually is always messy.
Views please!
posted by DLoyd76 at 12:42 PM
From Mike Wendland's Blog:
The media technowar: Western vs Arab press
There's another war going on.
Arab television viewers are seeing a much different war than Western media viewers. And both sides are telling their viewers not to believe what they're being told by the other.
The same technology that allows western embedded reporters to show us the war with such immediacy is being used by Arab media to deliver live satellite images to its audiences.
Al-Jazeera television has shown terribly gory pictures of the bodies of alleged U.S. troops killed by the Iraqis. The video, though, was provided by Iraqi television - totally controlled by Saddam Hussein. An Al-Jazeera reporter did, however, do the questioning of U.S. prisoners-of-war, some of them obviously wounded, but that video and access was also provided by Iraq TV. Such exploitation of POW's, especially wounded ones, is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention .
The body shots are even worse. Western media seldom shows bodies, and never in close ups like Al-Jazeera has done. But in other parts of the world, this is not that unusual. There are very different journalistic standards in parts of the world where the media is government-controlled and there has been no tradition of a free and aggressive press. That includes virtually the entire Arab world, though the four-year-old Al-Jazeera network continues to insist it is independent and, indeed, has sometimes grated Arab governments, too.
But its decision Sunday to air the exploitive, inflammatory and stomach-turning shots of the dead Americans has crossed a clear journalistic line and repulsed the Western media.
"It looks like they were killed execution style," said Fox-TV's Tony Snow Sunday afternoon, who then went on to suggest that Al-Jazeera was being used as a propaganda tool of Iraq.
But on Arab TV, U.S. "embedded" reporters are being accused of being exactly the same thing for the coalition. And indeed, that mantra has been picked up on the streets of American cities where leaders of anti-war demonstrations, like the ones yesterday in San Francisco, blasted the embedded reporting and even urged demonstrators to "confront" the local TV reporters covering the protests.
The exact same live cameras focussed on the Baghdad skylike are used by both Arab and Western media. Coalition precision bombs have been carefully programmed not to disrupt that.
The U.S. says it wants the world to see what's happening and so will continue to make sure the bombs dropped on Baghdad don't take out the cameras or TV feedpoints that are used by both Arab and the Western press.
But the same images are being intrepreted very differently by the two sides. And through it all, as the BBC reports Iraq's controlled TV Sunday was showing file video of "Saddam Hussein ... seated at a table in the middle of a large hall, grinning and gesticulating, as hundreds of singers sung his praises with rapturous looks on their faces."
Technology, as good as it may be, doesn't always make the truth less elusive.
As the invasion approaches Baghad and the fighting intensifies, this promises to be the only war in which technology allows both sides to tell its stories, live, as it happens.
Discerning the truth, though, promises to be as confusing and frustrating as always.
Posted by mike at 02:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
posted by DLoyd76 at 11:50 AM
On a devil's advocate, at least the grisily depictions will help bring home to any viewer that War is not Quake III. People get hurt, and Men and Women will die. I am glad that the technology so far has reduced our casualties since Vietnam, but I feel a downside to that is the sense of 'we can't be hurt' that has grown in the US. The US media is very capable at laundering images from the world, and I think this generation has grown up with too much cartoon, bloodless violence.
If anything, after this war, I hope we're wiser. Grimmer perhaps, but wiser.
posted by DLoyd76 at 11:44 AM
Well, the first POW's have ocurred. Any thoughts on the subject? I think Iraq made a mistake showing them. Aside from the Geneva Convention (which is very important), brandishing them in a such a bravado way is only going to make our resolve stronger. Now it's going to move from "Take down Saddam" to "Get our Boys (and Girls) back". And I don't think we're going to shirk from that.
|
|
