Desicritics Comments on Sexing Up Disasters

Comment by p5v7e9h99e

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:14:47 EDT

6me89jqi0zfd [URL=http://www.518890.com/704563.html] ar97kld550 [/URL] okd9yszmt2tykzm5

Comment by p5v7e9h99e

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:14:08 EDT

6me89jqi0zfd z4ywp71p9d2c94 [URL=http://www.518890.com/704563.html] ar97kld550 [/URL] okd9yszmt2tykzm5

Comment by commonsense

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:25:19 EDT

Re: true patriots (ie. hardly the enemies of the nation) so to speak are distressed about the sexing up of disasters. A letter in today's NYT, from a retired senior officer: ""Restoring the draft will have another beneficial effect. Never again would Congress and the American people permit a president to use the military on an unprovoked foolhardy venture to invade and occupy a foreign country under false pretenses while squandering the national treasure. James F. Brodie Jr. Burlington, Vt., June 23, 2008 The writer is a retired senior military officer who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.""

Comment by commonsense

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:22:26 EDT

Chandra, Thanks. I did not see your message until now. But really, it had nothing to do with me. I just think that in the end, commonsense prevailed ;)

Comment by Chandra

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:52:16 EDT

CS You deserve a special reward for ridding us of the fundamentalist Mr. Reuven. Hopefully he will find the blogs of Afghanistan and their Afridis more welcoming to his rhetoric. Apparently Shahid Afridi is a long lost fellow from Israel and will now relocate to Israel to Captain the cricket team there.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:30:29 EDT

sexing up disasters indeed: NYT, 18 June 2008 ""There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry. Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.""

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:27:56 EDT

yeh sab tel ka khel hai (to be crude about it, "it's the crude, dude"); plus of course other stuff: NYT June 18, 2008 (news, not editorial) ""BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. A Peculiar Deal for Some of Iraq's Oil Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.""

Comment by Anamika

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:19:44 EDT

Amen! Although won't wait with bated breath...

Comment by Ruvy

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:02:15 EDT

Deepti, I sent an e-mail concerning the edited comment. Let it stand that what is in the e-mail is sufficient explanation. I have no desire to communicate further with the named individuals in the edited comment. There is a limit to forbearance that has been passed when defamation or slander is written on a public forum. At that point, one communicates through attorneys. I'll say no more on the matter.

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:23:29 EDT

Is it possible to practice forbearance? Incase people want to carry on the discussion which was ongoing on the closed thread please make it private.

Comment by Ruvy

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:56:34 EDT

[EDITED]

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:25:53 EDT

[EDITED]

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:19:46 EDT

Temporal, You asked for the link on the thread you'd started which is now closed. I put the links in my comment # 106 above. But, here it is again: ""here is the link from where i got the quotes. just in case anybody suspects i have edited them. i am embarrassed to be a human when i come across such views.... http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/18/171624.php"" still shaking my head in disbelief; but, such is life! Aaman, while closing the thread wrote "no agreement has been reached". Fair enough. [EDITED]

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:38:33 EDT

Guido, I acknowledge your long post as a prime example of what I mean by "wishful thinking" . Other than that, believe it or not, I have no more brilliant and earth-shattering insights to offer you. Ciao BS (Banal Sense / Bullshit)

Comment by Guido

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:10:22 EDT

CS #99 1. "I looked at them [Iraq bloggers]; unfortunately what they are presenting is a wishlist of wishful thinking. I am not sure what exactly they mean by "win". This is an unwinnable situation." And your qualifications to make such statements are? Perhaps, just perhaps the people actually on the ground are in a better position to make such assertions. Maybe they possess a more realistic view of events, i.e. they live there. It is quite possible they believe their own eyes vise foreign "news" to evaluate the situation and their chances for success. The reason "The Long War Journal" exist, is because vets returned to Afghanistan and Iraq and put themselves back in harms way, due to the distorted stories feeding the US and world from the aforementioned "news" sources. These men could be back in the US with their families living comfortably, but instead are enduring hardships, begging for money, and risking their lives for something bigger than themselves. But you dismiss their reporting as "wishful thinking" and base your personal opinion on information from what? The NYT, IHT, WP? Banal commonsense? 2. "I am not sure what exactly they mean by "win"." All the things that you and I enjoy and something generations of Iraqis have never known, but are just beginning to understand. Iraqi Bill of Rights: "20. a. Freedom of religion, belief, and performance of religious rites are guaranteed in accordance with the law. b. The state shall provide for the defense of the Iraqi citizen from intellectual, political, and religious compulsion. [Elsewhere in this document, I have translated similar phrasing as "Iraqi citizens" rather than the more literal but stilted English phrase "The Iraqi citizen." I have not done so here in order to make clear that the draft bill of rights here places the freedoms on an individual basis, not on a communal basis as is frequently done in other constitutions in the region.] c. Postal, electronic, telegraphic, and telephonic messages are protected. Inspecting them and placing them under surveillance is forbidden except for legal necessity and defense of security in accordance with law. d. Compulsory service (the corvee), slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, or any work that is imposed on the Iraq citizen not in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or the law are forbidden. 21. Freedom of opinion, expression, organization, publishing, printing, the press, media, advertising, meetings, peaceful demonstration, and parties is guaranteed in accordance with the law and insofar as public security and morals are not harmed. [The words "organization" and "parties" are written in by hand. Article 26 seems to overlap with Article 21.] 22. The idea of the dissolved Ba'th party and all thought based on racism, sectarianism, accusations of apostasy, and terrorism are forbidden and are not permitted to be a part of political pluralism in the state. [The term "accusations of apostasy" (takfir) refers to a trend among some radical Sunni groups to declare self-proclaimed Muslims as apostates if they reject certain doctrines. Historically accusations of apostasy are fairly rare in Muslim societies.] 23. In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements, and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of international law, so long as these do not contradict Islam. [The provision on international human rights instruments is very strong. The only qualification has to do with the Islam. Notably, this draft refers simply to "Islam" rather than "Islamic law." Nowhere in this bill of rights is any guidance given for authoritative determination of what constitutes Islam; if such guidance is given (and it may not be) it would have to be in other sections of the constitution.] 24. The state shall provide for the care of relatives of martyrs, prisoners, politicians, and those harmed by the practices of the fallen regime. This shall be organized by law. 25. Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security, education in all its stages, health care, and social insurance. The Iraqi state and its governmental units including he regions, provinces, municipalities, and local authorities shall ensure these rights within the limits of their resources, taking into consideration that the state shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities for all members of the Iraqi people. 26. Freedom of the press, printing, publishing, media, and advertising are guaranteed and the law regulates the exercise of these freedoms. 27. There shall be no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, media, and advertising except by law." 3. "I will not call it "war" because it is an invasion and occupation, not a war." It is a war...preceded by invasion (the second) and initial occupation. The invasion is long past as is the occupation. The US would leave tomorrow if the Iraqi government so wished. I'm happy to discuss military terminology ad nauseum. 4. "The Iraqi government is not peopled with fools. They know what they are doing." Concur...they are not fools. By reading your definitive statements, you seem to be the expert on Iraq. So what are they doing? 5. "The Iranians are taking full advantage of it too." They're making their intentions known, but I doubt anyone is surprised. The last thing they want is a US ally on their border...especially a democratic one. 6. "The whole country is in a mess in every sense of the term - human, infrastructure, religous fundamentalism etc. etc. Against this backdrop, it's nice to know that some embedded bloggers can see something positive. The expression "head in the sand" comes to mind." That little thing called war (or whatever you choose to name it) has a tendency to foul up things and rebuilding takes time. Especially when some very bad actors are blowing you up in the reconstruction effort. However, there has been tremendous progress despite the unbelievable odds. But you won't find these stories in the msm. Why do you suppose that is? Because they have a better sense of the environment 5000 miles away than those bloggers with and their buried craniums? Or maybe the msm follows events and chooses not to report them; or shoves the stories back to page nine next to the "Eat Healthy" article. But they wouldn't do that, because they're only liberally biased in their editorial section. Who's got their "head in sand"? 7. "Nobody in the current administration, despite it's constant repetition of the mantra, really believes that one day they will be able to, to use your words "defeat the insurgents and terrorists."" I'm happy you can speak for the administration. 8. "Just re-read the history of Vietnam, the Algerian war etc. to understand what I mean. If these, possibly well-meaning reporters for the blog really believe that regular Iraqis will just roll over and one day everything will be just fine....well, they really are kidding themselves." "...Iraqis will just roll over". What? Are you referring to the Iraqi insurgents or foreign terrorist? I'll assume you're implying both. Who (besides you) said they would roll over and things would be fine? I missed that. Please provide the quote and link. 9. "As in Vietnam, the promised turnaround was always just around the corner. Key issues such as nationalism, sovereignity, people's pride in their own nation, �ccupation etc. etc. are of course always forgotten in cold-hearted calculations of how much force is required to subdue how many bodies of insurgents and terrorists. The real world of passions, emotions, calculations, rationnality etc. does not work like this. There is no shortage of example from history.' I'll assume you're presenting Vietnam as an illustration that an insurgency can't be defeated by brute force, but must include hearts and minds. And that failure in Vietnam equals failure in Iraq. I'll keep this short because it can tangent. First and foremost, I am no expert on counter-insurgency. But I do know that the vast majority of American military pre 9/11 was invested in meeting the conventional threat. In fact, applying our conventional forces against like forces proved our investment in that strategy. No time in past history (with the possible exception of the Israeli Six Day War) has an opposing force been so thoroughly dominated on the battlefield. I'm referring to the initial phases of the first and second Iraq wars. But you may be correct concerning the US transition from conventional to asymmetrical warfare. It appears that our manning, equipment, and tactics (to include hearts and minds) were not up to the task, and therefore some of the Vietnam lessons lost. Another mistake we seem doom to commit is support...or lack thereof. We know 33 years after the fact, how critical domestic opposition to the Vietnam War was to the success of our enemies. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's Army: "Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory? A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us." http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm It's not the anti-war opposition that undermines efforts in Iraq...it's the anti-win crowd. Unfortunately as we now know, they're one in the same. Motives are irrelevant because their actions serve the enemy and jeopardize our troops and the mission. You cannot say I support the troops, then turn around and demand withdrawal. The latter contradicts the former. 10. "A tiny country like Vietnam prevailed in the end, not because it rec'd help from the "other side" in the cold war, but because the focus of the Amricans was entirely on rational calculation (how much fire-power we have versus them) ignoring completely the human factors." The former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea supplied Vietnam with millions of dollars worth of material, technical training, and manpower. Furthermore, Vietnam had a large standing conventional army (and still does) when they declared victory in 1975. Finally, there are a multitude of mitigating factors contributing to the US defeat in the Second Indo-China war. Your statement is over-simplified and erroneous. 11. "Robots never fight wars, regardless of which side you root for. Humans do. Banal commonsense, but this point needs to be reiterated, especially for any side that supports occupation or invasion and then is surprised when the occupied/invadees are not grateful, not welcoming the occupiers with garlands and exotic home made sweets. Just commonsense, but I repeat myself!" I don't know where to start with this one. I'll just let it stand on its own merit. 12. "Now that I know which perspective you are coming from, and I say this with all respect, without a trace of sarcasm, I do feel it is best not to continue this conversation. We are talking past each other." Concur. Although, if recent history is any indication... Ciao, Guido

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:40:58 EDT

Ruvy: ""Or is that beyond the ken of "desi" culture?" Ken said and did nothing. Besides, he is not even one of the editor. Not to mention that he is not even desi. Please refrain from dragging him into this mess.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:51:45 EDT

Chandra: ""The simple fact is that Ruvy is a racist guy. His last comment about desis confirms what he has been thinking all along.""" And not surprisingly, coloured with the attitude of a colonialist, since both attitudes usually come in tandem, and since he literally happens to be a colonialist settler:: editing our english, issuing instructions to editors, exploding in an irrational tantrum when his minor inrrational comments make people either laugh or sad etc. etc. etc. His default attitude is looking down at desis; makes one wonder why he hangs around here so much.

Comment by Ruvy

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:44:58 EDT

huh? i don't see a word about "baiting" in the comments policy. must be going blind.... You are right, CS. The comments policy as written does not forbid "baiting" My words in comment 103 ought to have read, "To begin with, if the comments policy as enforced at this site forbids 'baiting' and if someone openly admits to doing so, then that person's comments should be looked at closely - because that person is spitting you and your standards in the face." My questions still remain unanswered.

Comment by Chandra

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:29:54 EDT

CS The simple fact is that Ruvy is a racist guy. His last comment about desis confirms what he has been thinking all along. Guido It does not matter how many years you worked as a Marine or wherever, the comments I posted are from a UN debate before the unilateral American invasion. I support the Invasion but WMD being the reason for the invasion is bull shit. If WMD was such a big issue you guys should be invading Pakistan. They are the biggest proliferators, islamic, unstable and source of most terrorist activities on this planet.

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:54:31 EDT

here is the link from where i got the quotes. just in case anybody suspects i have edited them. i am embarrassed to be a human when i come across such views.... http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/18/171624.php

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:44:23 EDT

Aditi: ""Wow, never thought I would see such a wild leap in logic from a commentator I've always thought to be a rational one."" Wow! On my part, I'm still waiting to see some rationality emanating from the keyboard of my friend Ruvy. Some quotes from him, taken from BC (editors feel free to delete if this is irrelevant to the discussion of rationality - not that my permission is needed): Ruvy: (19 June 2007) "THE ARABS HAVE WANTED WAR FOR ALL THIS TIME! LET THEM HAVE THEIR WISH! LET THEM DIE, EXTERMINATED AS THEY DESIRE US TO BE; LET THEM STARVE AND FLEE AND BEG, AS THEY WOULD HAVE US DO! IF THERE MUST BE A BLOODBATH, LET THERE BE A BLOODBATH. BUT LET'S BE RID OF THE BASTARDS - FROM THE LIBYAN DESERT TO THE PERSIAN GULF. If the stinking camel fuckers want peace,. let them bend over and make the concessions, let them come on their hands and knees and beg! Then we can think about reconciliation." Ruvy: (19 June 2007, in response to somebody quoting a prophecy from Isaiah): ""In either event, the prophecy you quote from Isaiah WILL occur - only after a bloodbath and purification."" Ruvy: (June 18, 2007): ""Peace, Liam? Peace is bullshit. At least the peace you keep talking about. No, we do not need peace at all. We need victory. The Arabs have to suffer so badly from war that they will beg for peace. If they don't beg for peace - well, then they will have made their own beds: and they'll die in them."" And now, the official BC comment policy: ""we reserve the right to edit/delete comments that are some combination of pointlessly vulgar, vile, cruel, without redeeming qualities, and an embarrassment to the site."" I submit that Ruvy's comments (on BC) do make me wonder if they contain any redeeming qualities. They also make me sad and despondent, but that's just me I guess.

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:45:39 EDT

huh? i don't see a word about "baiting" in the comments policy. must be going blind... as for "personal attacks", plenty of blame to be shared...those living in glass houses....

Comment by Ruvy

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:39:08 EDT

My first question stands unanswered Aditi. I'm used to a certain level of objectivity in editing policies - this is a daughter site of Blogcritics, and that is what is found there. What I see here is anything but. I'm sorry if I get disgusted, but I can only call it as I see it. And bear in mind, I asked questions - I did not make assertions. Now if I'm wrong about desi culture, I'd like to see evidence. If I see evidence that contradicts my words, that fairness and objectivity are well within the ken of desi culture, I'll be glad to apologize. At the moment, looking over this comment column and others, I see no such evidence. To begin with, if the comments policy forbids "baiting" and if someone openly admits to doing so, then that person's comments should be looked at closely - because that person is spitting you and your standards in the face. The ball is in your court, madame. I have nothing further to say on the matter.

Comment by Aditi Nadkarni

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:10:18 EDT

Ruvy: A statement about "desi culture" extrapolated from editorial policies? Wow, never thought I would see such a wild leap in logic from a commentator I've always thought to be a rational one. It is sad that adults would need supervision during a discussion with people they have never met and don't have anything against. A discourse is one of the most basic forms of human interaction and if people lack the civility or basic responsibility to keep it going in a peaceful and respectful manner, the editors are not to be blamed (we are not sniff dogs) and most certainly not the culture (!).

Comment by Ruvy

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:52:13 EDT

Editors, I admit I baited Ruvy So when the hell are you "objective" editors going to delete the reams and reams of baiting from the virtual pen of "commonsense"? Or is that beyond the ken of "desi" culture?