U.S. wins hearts and minds -

[Guest American Woman]

Most of the discussion is about the medieval religious fanatics who hate us; or the Afghans who like us.

Or the terrible U.S. troops who do terrible things - which was one of the points of this thread.

No, those I mentioned are rarely discussed. Very rarely.

Really? You've been a member here for less than 2 weeks, yet you know what's been discussed and hasn't been discussed here? Let me help you out - a forum search for "Joya" resulted in 55 posts, 23 of them from member "Bloodyminded" alone (who, btw, said exactly the same things you said).

On the other hand, I've been a member here for a few years, and I can tell you that Joya has been brought up more than individual acts of kindness/heroism by the troops.

It was not a dismissal; no more than your decision to provide some context of military personnel behaving admirably and courageously is a dismissal of other points of view.

This thread is about military personnel who have behaved admirably. As I've said, the focus is always on those who do not, and they are always made out to represent the whole. So yes, your glossing right over what I said was, as I said, "basically a dismissal" of what I had said. That you think I took your response as some sort of "attack" speaks for you. Try responding without guessing how I took your response, ok? Thanks.

I'm assuming you aren't dismissing other points of view; I ask only for the basic civility of assuming the same about me.

Then perhaps you should give me the "basic civility" of not "assuming" how I took your response, claiming I took it as an attack. Furthermore, you asked me why I repeated my stance - and then when I told you why, you complain about my explanation?

Well maybe you could be so kind as to clarify what you mean.

Is an elected MP not part of the "power system"?

She does not have the "power" of those who are imposing their will on the Afghans. Hope that helps.

Who? The Afghans?

What are you trying to get at exactly?

The Afghans of which I was speaking; the Afghans who feel that the country will erupt into a terrible civil war when/if the western troops leave. The Afghans who recognize the good that the western troops have done/tried to do for them.

What I'm trying to get at, exactly, is that all Afghans don't see the west, our presence, as evil and undesirable.

[bleeding heart]

Or the terrible U.S. troops who do terrible things - which was one of the points of this thread.

Yes, while responsibility for other involved nations' forces is casually diminished, as if the US is the only culpable agent. So on that matter we touch on some sort of agreement.

However, I was talking specifically about the way we speak about the Afghans themselves--either as supportive of the West, or as crazed fanatics. I was responding to your remark:

A lot of them do support our efforts and appreciate the good will that our troops have bestowed upon them

Which is true; just as my response is true.

Really? You've been a member here for less than 2 weeks, yet you know what's been discussed and hasn't been discussed here? Let me help you out - a forum search for "Joya" resulted in 55 posts, 23 of them from member "Bloodyminded" alone (who, btw, said exactly the same things you said).

That's not entirely surprising, since he and I are the same person.

On the other hand, I've been a member here for a few years, and I can tell you that Joya has been brought up more than individual acts of kindness/heroism by the troops.

I don't see why one must be equal to the other. If you feel it's an imbalance--remarks about Joya versus remarks about military folk behaving admirably--that you're trying to rectify, then by all means, more power to you. But it seems a false dichotomy. Joya isn't screaming about "the troops"; she's suspicious and critical of the NATO intervention wholesale.

As I've said, the focus is always on those who do not, and they are always made out to represent the whole.

Perhaps you're right. And that has nothing whatever to do with my remarks, which were not about bad behaviour of certain military personnel, but rather a rejoinder that some Afghans who are not crazed lunatics nonetheless do not like our presence there, and do not support it.

So yes, your glossing right over what I said was, as I said, "basically a dismissal" of what I had said.

I'm "glossing over what you said" because I'm not nodding eagerly at your every word, and am adding another, mostly ignored, point of view.

That you think I took your response as some sort of "attack" speaks for you. Try responding without guessing how I took your response, ok? Thanks.

As I've already openly admitted, based on your cute little "rollseyes" response, that my assessment was "incorrect"...what more do you want?

Should I have conceded the point twice, rather than once?

Then perhaps you should give me the "basic civility" of not "assuming" how I took your response, claiming I took it as an attack.

Again: see above.

Furthermore, you asked me why I repeated my stance - and then when I told you why, you complain about my explanation?

What makes you think that I considered your explanation a good one?

She does not have the "power" of those who are imposing their will on the Afghans. Hope that helps.

So by "power system" you didn't mean all of them--you only explicitly said it. You were only talking about "degrees of power" (a distinction not intitially present, but which evidently we're meant to take as a given, thanks to our mind-reading abilities). Degrees of power is a complex measurement which I assume you've got all worked out.

What I'm trying to get at, exactly, is that all Afghans don't see the west, our presence, as evil and undesirable.

Well, of course; I never implied otherwise. My initial response started with "And there are also": an unequivocal agreement with your main thesis.

Edited April 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

That's not entirely surprising, since he and I are the same person.

Really? Wow. I'm shocked, I tell ya, totally shocked.

[bleeding heart]

Really? Wow. I'm shocked, I tell ya, totally shocked.

That's an odd response, yeah?

[Guest American Woman]

That's an odd response, yeah?

No. What's odd is that you would re-register under a different name - and even more odd that you would claim that a topic you yourself brought up many times yourself is "rarely discussed" - in a thread about a topic that is truly rarely, if ever, brought up.

[bleeding heart]

No. What's odd is that you would re-register under a different name

The different name was an accident--I meant it as a signature, not a name (I still have "bloodyminded" as a login); and it amused me, so I kept it. Plus, I couldn't really care less.

You are the third or fourth person to whom I've mentioned that "bleeding heart" is formerly "bloodyminded"...it's not as if I'm trying out a new identity.

So, yes, your response was slightly odd.

Edited April 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

Or the terrible U.S. troops who do terrible things - which was one of the points of this thread.

The point of the thread was to use the death of some poor sap to try and diminish the terrible things our countries are doing over there.

You see a very similar thing happening in threads where some murderer's parole hearing is used to highlight arguments that we should transform our justice system into something that resembles what the Taliban would use.

Edited April 1, 2012 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

The point of the thread was to use the death of some poor sap to try and diminish the terrible things our countries are doing over there.

Normally I choose not to respond to you, but this is too ugly to ignore.

The purpose of the thread was to recognize the selfless act of Sgt. Dennis Weichel Jr.; to give him the recognition he deserves - recognition generally reserved by too many for the few who commit acts of violence. If that truly escaped you, it speaks of your ignorance, not the "point of this thread."

"Smell ya later."

[Guest Manny]

I read about it a few days ago, before your thread. The media doesn't show it too much. I don't know why... could be people just like to hear bad news about horrible things more than they like to hear about good things.

I always tell that to my kid, when he watch the news. The news is telling us avery day about 1000's of bad stories, but it ignores thousands of good things that take place every day in every city in the world, acts of generosity, charity, selflessness. People who care about someone else. We never get to hear about them. Because the news wants to make money attracting more viewers, and people like to see and hear about dead people.

[Guest American Woman]

I read about it a few days ago, before your thread. The media doesn't show it too much. I don't know why... could be people just like to hear bad news about horrible things more than they like to hear about good things.

I think it's also because too many people like to believe the worst about some things - they aren't interested in anything good, anything that doesn't support their view, and especially something that counters their view/agenda.

I always tell that to my kid, when he watch the news. The news is telling us avery day about 1000's of bad stories, but it ignores thousands of good things that take place every day in every city in the world, acts of generosity, charity, selflessness. People who care about someone else. We never get to hear about them. Because the news wants to make money attracting more viewers, and people like to see and hear about dead people.

It's a good thing to tell your child - a good learning experience. I'm sure it'll help him/her become a more critical thinker if he/she heeds your advice. I told the same thing to my girls as they were growing up, and they know not to take the news, or the opinions of those pushing an agenda, at face value. I think stories like this, though reported, in effect "die" because of the lack of attention. As I said, if this soldier had killed the girl instead of saving her, it would be all over the media still, all over the net, and all over forums - and it would be being presented as representative of U.S. troops.

I think that's terrible, and that's why I'm attempting to counteract it here. I wish more people would do the same. Fact is, there are so many incidents of selfless acts by our military personnel, and if one branches out and reads a variety of sources, if one truly wants to know the whole story, it is out there - but as I said, without any fanfare.

Edited April 1, 2012 by American Woman

[dre]

Not sure why anyone would act all suprised about this.

This is just how the news works. Helping an old lady cross the street wont get you on the evening news, but if you beat her up and rape her, youre pretty much a shoe-in. At the end of the day its a matter of which stories sell corporate advertising slots.

Edited April 1, 2012 by dre

[Guest Manny]

Not sure why anyone would act all suprised about this.

This is just how the news works. Helping an old lady cross the street wont get you on the evening news, but if you beat her up and rape her, youre pretty much a shoe-in. At the end of the day its a matter of which stories sell corporate advertising slots.

Ok, so even to the detriment of their own nationalist agenda?

So does the government really "control" the media...

[dre]

Ok, so even to the detriment of their own nationalist agenda?

So does the government really "control" the media...

Id say that both influence each other. Government holds the regulatory reins, but government is also completely dependant on the media to spread its message in a way thats helpfull to government. So both sides have some leverage they can exert on the other.

But in many cases their interests simply align. War is a good example of that. In this case theres a natural synergy between government and media since media corporations are one of the principle groups that profit from war. More people watch the news during a war, and these companies can sell more corporate advertising space. Which is why during the runup to wars the media lobs softball questions, and redecorates their sets with fancy war graphics, and runs fluff pieces showing shiny military hardware etc.

Edited April 1, 2012 by dre

[Guest Manny]

The different name was an accident--I meant it as a signature, not a name (I still have "bloodyminded" as a login); and it amused me, so I kept it. Plus, I couldn't really care less.

You are the third or fourth person to whom I've mentioned that "bleeding heart" is formerly "bloodyminded"...it's not as if I'm trying out a new identity.

Now we know who you really are!!!

[Lumpy]

What makes you think the US(NATO allies) will fair any better this time in Afghanistan,than:

...

Alexander The Great

A quick clarification here: Alexander did indeed conquer Bactria (Afghanistan), and it remained under Macedonian/Greek rule for roughly two centuries. Alexander's conquest is a bad example for making this point - to stress this further, look into the origins of the name "Kandahar". I dislike the argument that Afghanistan "cannot possibly be pacified because no one has ever succeeded in doing so", because there are in fact many examples of Afghanistan being successfully conquered (Macedonian, Persian, Umayyad, and Timurid Mongol off the top of my head). Of course we have examples of failed attempted conquests/occupations - but this is little different from many other polities that have ever fought wars on their own territory.

I'm not trying to say that the current NATO mission cannot fail. Things aren't looking good at present. However, contrary to popular belief, there's no historical precedent saying that it will fail. The notion that Afghanistan is unbeaten and unbeatable is false.

[bleeding heart]

Now we know who you really are!!!

[eyeball]

The purpose of the thread was to recognize the selfless act of Sgt. Dennis Weichel Jr.

Horseshit. The purpose of the thread is to exploit his selfless act to take the edge off our side's absolutely disgusting and depraved act of waging these wars in the first place.

How unfair to those devoting their lives to making Afghanistan and Iraq a better place - such as this 29 year old soldier and father of 3, who gave his life to save the life of a little Afghan girl.

How transparent to those who know that the notion of making Afghanistan and Iraq a better place was also a steaming heap of horseshit.

[eyeball]

Ok, so even to the detriment of their own nationalist agenda?

So does the government really "control" the media...

Given the extent of the horizontal integration between corporations governments and political parties that's probably a two and even three-way street - and don't forget all the revolving doors that open onto it.

[Guest American Woman]

Horseshit. The purpose of the thread ....

I'll thank you not to tell me what the purpose of a thread is that *I* started.

Thank you, and "smell you later."

[eyeball]

I'll thank you not to tell me what the purpose of a thread is that *I* started.

Perpetuated you mean.

Thank you, and "smell you later."

I'm sure a thorny old rose will never smell sweeter. You're welcome.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not trying to say that the current NATO mission cannot fail. Things aren't looking good at present. However, contrary to popular belief, there's no historical precedent saying that it will fail. The notion that Afghanistan is unbeaten and unbeatable is false.

Even if there were such a precedent, historical precedence doesn't dictate the rest of time. As I said before, if everyone had the attitude that because something failed in the past it was un-doable, progress would be hard to come by. We would be a pretty stagnant society of people afraid to take a chance, people with a mindset of failure because of failed attempts by others in the past.

If things did look great right now I'd find it pretty amazing. Change of that magnitude doesn't happen over night.

Edited April 2, 2012 by American Woman

[eyeball]

if everyone had the attitude that because something failed in the past it was un-doable, progress would be hard to come by.

Except the attitude here is that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is normal.

Expecting the blood of dead and fallen soldiers to bring grace to a disgraceful war is even more abnormal if you ask me.

[bleeding heart]

Except the attitude here is that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is normal.

Expecting the blood of dead and fallen soldiers to bring grace to a disgraceful war is even more abnormal if you ask me.

Some serious intellectual heavyweights have displayed their foolishness, and their craven obedience to Power, throughout the past ten years (though I don't for a moment believe it a phenomenon new to the millenial era).

Here's Salman Rushdie, a month after 9/11:

And now that wise American heads appear to have understood that it would be wrong to bomb the impoverished, oppressed Afghan people in retaliation for their tyrannous masters' misdeeds.....

And then--four short months later!:

America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done, and did it well....Western critics of [the campaign] are enraged because they have been shown to be not only spineless but wrong at every step:[...]yes, the air strikes did work; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a government that is surprising people by functioning pretty well.

Oh, Salman, Salman.

Leave aside that most of what he says has been proven wrongheaded thanks to hindsight (a forgiveable error, except when you're accusing those ultimately proven correct of being "spineless" (while courageous souls like Rushdie and Hitchens support the most powerful political/military machinery in the history of human civilization, and eat dainty, expensive lunches in D.C. with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz...the bravery astonishes, no? )

No, what's far more interesting to me is the reflexive sycophancy of the intellectual Commissar: The US (apparently other nations' contributions, or culpability--however one looks at it--are irrelevant) is made up of "wise...heads" because, with their infinite sense of justice and right-thinking, they aren't going to attack Afghanistan.

Then, when they do attack Afghanistan, they "did what they had to do" (no choice, you see, rendering his previous opinion pure bunkum, though predictably unremarked)...not only that, but those who oppose it (ie the majority of the Earth, according to public opinion polls at the time) are so...well, so wrong! How could they be so wrong, sharing Rushdie's identical opinion (sans the bowing and scraping flattery about "wisdom") of four months earlier?

How could they be so "spineless"?

There is a type of liberal we might call the Establishment Liberal, from the ranks of which we dredge our Chretiens, our Trudeaus, our Clintons and Blairs and Havels and Obamas. On the intellectual side, slightly outside (but hovering at the margins) of power, are their courtiers and sycophants: the Rushdies, the Hitchens,' the Zakarias....these clowns are as bad, in most ways, as any celebrities of the Right-wing punditry. Worse, actually, because they're more respected, proving again that Establishment liberals make better, smarter imperial warriors than do conservatives.

And that's not meant even slightly as an insult to conservatives.

To hell with these clowns.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Jack Weber]

A quick clarification here: Alexander did indeed conquer Bactria (Afghanistan), and it remained under Macedonian/Greek rule for roughly two centuries. Alexander's conquest is a bad example for making this point - to stress this further, look into the origins of the name "Kandahar". I dislike the argument that Afghanistan "cannot possibly be pacified because no one has ever succeeded in doing so", because there are in fact many examples of Afghanistan being successfully conquered (Macedonian, Persian, Umayyad, and Timurid Mongol off the top of my head). Of course we have examples of failed attempted conquests/occupations - but this is little different from many other polities that have ever fought wars on their own territory.

I'm not trying to say that the current NATO mission cannot fail. Things aren't looking good at present. However, contrary to popular belief, there's no historical precedent saying that it will fail. The notion that Afghanistan is unbeaten and unbeatable is false.

Fair enough...

My pre-Greece history may be a little off...

Never the less,there is no evidence of any kind that suggests any of the modern "empires" (British,Soviet,and now,the United States) has ver had any success in pacifying or democratizing that country...It is the height of arrogance,and in this case Yankee "Manifest Destiny",to think this time things will be different...

[Jack Weber]

Some serious intellectual heavyweights have displayed their foolishness, and their craven obedience to Power, throughout the past ten years (though I don't for a moment believe it a phenomenon new to the millenial era).

Here's Salman Rushdie, a month after 9/11:

And then--four short months later!:

Oh, Salman, Salman.

Leave aside that most of what he says has been proven wrongheaded thanks to hindsight (a forgiveable error, except when you're accusing those ultimately proven correct of being "spineless" (while courageous souls like Rushdie and Hitchens support the most powerful political/military machinery in the history of human civilization, and eat dainty, expensive lunches in D.C. with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz...the bravery astonishes, no? )

No, what's far more interesting to me is the reflexive sycophancy of the intellectual Commissar: The US (apparently other nations' contributions, or culpability--however one looks at it--are irrelevant) is made up of "wise...heads" because, with their infinite sense of justice and right-thinking, they aren't going to attack Afghanistan.

Then, when they do attack Afghanistan, they "did what they had to do" (no choice, you see, rendering his previous opinion pure bunkum, though predictably unremarked)...not only that, but those who oppose it (ie the majority of the Earth, according to public opinion polls at the time) are so...well, so wrong! How could they be so wrong, sharing Rushdie's identical opinion (sans the bowing and scraping flattery about "wisdom") of four months earlier?

How could they be so "spineless"?

There is a type of liberal we might call the Establishment Liberal, from the ranks of which we dredge our Chretiens, our Trudeaus, our Clintons and Blairs and Havels and Obamas. On the intellectual side, slightly outside (but hovering at the margins) of power, are their courtiers and sycophants: the Rushdies, the Hitchens,' the Zakarias....these clowns are as bad, in most ways, as any celebrities of the Right-wing punditry. Worse, actually, because they're more respected, proving again that Establishment liberals make better, smarter imperial warriors than do conservatives.

And that's not meant even slightly as an insult to conservatives.

To hell with these clowns.

Well said...