NEWSFLASH!!!!! Hell has frozen over. Karl Keller and I agree. Jesus, I can't believe I'm going to say "you're right" to a Karl Keller post, but you are.
Is this like, what?, the 5000th time you've said this. Explain this to me. Why were Republicans so pessimistic about Clinton's economic policies? Why were Democrats so optimistic?
Dude, Rich. All I'm trying to say is that things are getting better, and Iraq is one step closer to democratic self rule. I was never under the impression everything was utopian over there, but i do know it is NOT an anarchistic hell hole.
I'm not disagreeing with your friend, but here's an alternative viewpoint from a Marine who just returned from Iraq, that was in the Dallas Observer, the news and entertainment weekly that tends to lean a bit towards the liberal slant: http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-10-09/news.html/1/index.html
Of course, where's the genius in saying some days you win, some days you lose, and some days it rains?
It's funny that you sometimes look like you really think that 1- War on Afghanistan was made to free the afghani women. 2- War on irak was made to spread democracy. i know, i know very few really do, the most of you hope that they will be good side effects. Maybe you should focus on why you need it. Btw I also like hollywood movies sometimes when they're not excessively dumb. Though I'm a bit angry with the fact you turned things upside down with the cowboys/pioneers vs indians stuff. I grow up with cowboys being good well mannered heroes bringing civilization and indians being very bad seminude men screaming and throwing arrows. And now... The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want... You should try with Jesus or Buddah, they're better. I personally believe in Jesus Child, not Santa Klaus. He is the one who brings presents on Christmas.
Now, is anyone really saying that it's an anarchistic hell hole? Why does it have to be A) Iraq is improving, or B) Iraq is forever mired in incurable disorder? I don't think anyone here would assert that Iraq is not better off than in the days or weeks immediately following the invasion. We all believe that things will stabilize one way or the other. The question is whether things are improving as rapidly as they could, whether the situation is being handled as effectively as it could be, and whether the ultimate result will be a secure democracy, indefinite lawlessness, another totalitarian regime, etc. So it doesn't improve your argument to say, "look, this street in Baghdad has electricity, and it actually works 25% of the time, so things are clearly improving."
Should I start posting the positive first-hand account from soldiers who are over there, or are they just "tools of the Bushies"?
The only first-hand accounts you should trust will include something along the following: "Young Arab women are hot but you got to wonder what future their fat ankles hold."
Wanna give the over/under on how long the marriages of those two soldiers to those Iraqi women last? I'm thinking the first dinner over at the in-laws should pretty much end it.
There's an astroturf campaign going on of "letters" from soldiers there. I can dig up the details and links if you don't trust me. But I'll be deeply hurt.
I'll post one, since I was just reading it: http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml Ridiculous. RS
Now just dig up CNN stories over the past 5 months and tell me they arn't trying to paint a negative picture.
That's very sad and embarassing. Really ridiculous. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that's the case with all of them. I'm talking much more personal accounts - bloggers getting email from people they actually know, and that type of thing. Not letters to the editor.
The living example of your quote: http://www.womenforafghanwomen.org/ Masuda, pictured here, who I know PERSONALLY submits that yes, its true that kids are getting a little (Western) schooling in Kabul and Kandahar, but the rest of the nation is dying....literally. A little better is not functionally better. Afghanistan has been betrayed again...
TWUB, You probably got blindsided with the form letters thing, so no foul. Can you provide links to these things you cite above? P.S., I'm not sure we've adequately distinguished between "getting better" meaning everyday life returning to normal vs. "getting better" meaning the establishment of a stable, recognized democratic government.
That would be the difference between "getting better" and "getting there" though. It could be "getting better" for another five years before we are "getting there". Are Semantics of this nature helpful/useful/relevant? Only if you tie this back into the title of the actual thread and say "Depends on how you define 'better', Mr President."
I'm going to have to agree with you here. I guess all Bush was trying to do is stress the fact a lot of things are better in Iraq. Are we "there" yet? Nope. are we going to get "there". Eventually.