Wrong. A cite isn't a comment that so and so said such and such. A
cite gives the source. If it's a speech, for example, it mentions where
and when the speech was given. In that way the reader can look it
up and see if the quote was accurately portrayed and what the context
may be. Your source was sloppy in not doing so. Probably because
their main objective was whipping up emotion rather than being informative.
In the way they did it, it was slanderous. They have his quote on his
belief the Iraqis welcome them and the fatalities of the war effort.
That's unethical and wrong headed. It could be 90 percent of a population
welcomes a liberating army but if 900 die it makes it null and void? The
death toll does not reflect acceptance.
An opinion piece on what the author thinks might happen?
Self serving? I'm not running for office or general. The analogy serves my
purpose to illustrate that showing fatality figures is a meaningless way
to guage national "welcomes".
Sheesh. Are you going to deny that any of those quotes are accurate?
Come on, the cits are plenty clear enough to find the exact source for
any quote given. Which one, specifically, is beyond your reach?
Is it unethical and wrong-headed to notice that guys are being killed
over there? Or are you actually going to claim that 90% of the Iraqis
A report by the British Royal Institute of International Affairs. I
suppose you are better qualified to assess the situation in Iraq than
they are? Or maybe this is just another Liberal thinktank, trying to
Definiton Self serving (adj): "working or acting for your own
You are attempting to equate Iraq, a venture of doubtful justification
and dubious outcome with the proven success of WWII. WWII was a much
larger struggle, led by more capable leaders, with more far-reaching
consequences. Your analogy kind of reminds me of when Dan Quayle
compared himself to Jack Kennedy in the debate with Lloyd Bentsen.
Apparently you agree the Bushies are using quotations out of context.
However, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate where any of the
quotes in the original link were inaccurate.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's up to the journalist to make his work
It's unethical to connect the two the way they did. I don't know the percent but
neither did they. That's the problem.
It's a thinktank piece offering a few possible scenarios as they see it.
Are you picking the worst one as gospel? I don't even know what your point is.
I'm equating a nonsensical opinion piece with trash. Nothing more.
There's no reason to take it for more because, like Germany, soldiers
died but we were welcomed. You seem to acknowledge that but want
to dismiss the point because you believe Iraq was under inferior
leadership and objectives. That makes no sense.
I don't even know what you mean by "Bushies". Is that anyone officially
representing Bush or anyone that supports him? Most of what you say
is based on assumptions.
Since many aren't properly cited it's a bit difficult to know. It feeds
your political bias so its good enough for you. I prefer looking at
things in context. When properly quoted one can look up the source
and get the full picture.
I mean that the cits are plenty clear enough to find the exact source
for any quote given, at least for any person who is interested in
finding it. Exactly as I said. Again, which quotation, specifically,
is too difficult for you to find a source for?
Just because *you* don't find it credible doesn't mean that it isn't
accurate. Show me some proof otherwise.
"Unethical"? Wow, that's a pretty serious charge to level against a
journalist for a major US newspaper. Can you back it up?
You know, Fletis, there have been a number of polls in Iraq done to
gauge the support of the Iraqi people for the US occupation. Ever
think of looking for one?
Uh, the point is that the perspective on Iraq stinks, and that even
the best scenarios are unlikely to result in a pro-Western democracy.
Bah, by your weak logic we could compare any war in history with Iraq
-- because there will always some portion of the population that would
support us in any war, regardless of how the war goes. So you could
just as well compare Iraq with Vietnam, but instead -- for obvious
self-serving reasons -- you want to compare it with Germany.
A Bushie is someone who is so blinded by their partisan loyalty to
Bush that they intentionally ignore all evidence that his policies may
be imperfect or failed. You are being intentionally obtuse (again).
Just because it feeds your bias it doesn't make it credible. I explained
how quotes are properly cited. Just saying so and so said this on that
day is not a proper cite. True, I could spend the time and take up
the slack for sloppy journalism and possibly find it but why would I?
If it's too sloppy to take seriously I'm not going to take it seriously.
The piece was obviously written to satisfy a bias, not to inform.
I just did. And just because it's in a major paper hardly makes it credible,
accurate or fair.
I'm not that interested in it really. We were discussing the unscholarly
manner in which your opinion source was written. It was up to the
author to make the case, not me. Or you.
Uh, you can't seem to read with an open mind. The "rosiest" scenario
said no one group would dominate. How is that not a democracy?
We should. That's the point. How is that weak?
I'm not interested in goosestepping to your bias. My analogy was indeed
intended to support my point. It's idiocy to say it's a "self serving" point.
We never conquered the Vietnamese army but we did conquer the German's,
like Iraq. We occupied Germany, like Iraq. So we can see who is being self
serving here, to put it in your odd terms, but your analogy make little sense.
I don't share the left wing hate so I am not familiar with their nuances
of all their insults. I don't recall any supporter call either Bush or his policies
perfect so the obtusness is all yours (again).
After all, politics is a contact sport.
IMHO, the whole right wing that has grabbed control of the Republican party
the last 10-15 years are a bunch of hypocrites.
Basically, it is their way or the highway.
Just my thoughts.
... and that's why Ted Kennedy got to write the education bill to his
liking, why school vouchers were defeated and no strong push back was made.
That's why campaign finance reform was signed into law despite the fact
that the constitution specifically says, "Congress shall make NO law
abridging the freedom of speech..." which is exactly what CFR does (hence
the recent flap about 527C organizations). That's why the largest
entitlement increase in 40 years (prescription drugs) was passed and signed
into law. That's why steel tariffs were instituted a couple of years ago.
Yep, the far right really grabbed the reigns and had their way.
Let's see, to be fair, there were a few points the right did get:
It got a tax break for all taxpayers. It did manage to pass a law
prohibiting what is essentially infanticide (my son was born at the same
gestation period as these procedures permit the unanesthetized incision
into the head and suctioning of the brain, thus there is no argument about
these being "nonviable" tissue masses) illegal. Of course, some activist
judges have overturned that law, ruling that it must include provisions to
permit said procedures for "the mother's health", despite the fact there is
no medical evidence that this procedure could in any circumstance save a
mother's life since it is essentially indistinguishable from live birth or
a cesarian section. And there was a decisive response to the attack on the
US. I suspect we would still be wrangling with the UN and the Taliban,
with perhaps a few cruise missile launches had the other side won in 2000.
Yep, definitely my way or the highway, uh-huh.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.