penumbra

I just don't get it. He didn't say anything that hadn't already been stated or suggested by various media sources worldwide. I'm sure it wasn't news to the Iraqis. What's the BFD?

hezekiah jones

Nah, just dumped for telling the truth.

Dr Rick

Oh, that's really swell; we've got two horses, four dogs, and one cat; if future events prove that you are right, how welcome are we?

Gurdur

You personally and your wife are also very welcome to stay with me.

Yes, I have enough room for you two as well as COAS/vicesboy as well as a couple of others (the new old house is fairly large).

If you can afford to pay transport for your horses over here, and livery/stabling for them here, they're welcome.
I have a friend you can rent a field from, too.
The dogs and cat are welcome, especially as they will distract the neighbour children from consistantly beating me up.
The neigghbourhood children are actually very nice (except when they wish to be chased by me).
Since Germans are obsessed with their innards, I assume you can find work here quite easily.

I am actually quite serious about all of this.
I am of the opinion the USA is sliding slowly into becoming a neo-fascist country; I would like to be wrong, I just think the potential there is very large.

themistocles

I'm sure he has a long distinguished career for Al-Jazeera on the horizon.

ybnormal

Fox News seemed to run this story non-stop all morning... a case of competitive media sabotage... I reckon Fox gets all bent outta shape when a reporter can't keep his bias to himself.

markstake

Why do you think this is the truth? I think there are some subtle misdirections going on in the White House and the field, but you'd need to be some kind of idiot to believe that our entire war plan hinged on Iraqi's surrendering en masse as soon as we set foot on their doorstep. Now we're unexpectedly rewriting the war plan because Iraq showed a little backbone? Ridiculous.

The United States will persist until they win. (This is, of course, an assumption, but is widely agreed upon). Much of the general population of Iraq hates Saddam, and fears retribution for assisting in his overthrow. Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, even those who wish to help the U.S. advance will not. Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, soldiers who may otherwise surrender will not. Since the U.S. will continue until they win, this means more deaths on both sides without changing the end result.

Arnett's interview supports Saddam and undermines U.S. efforts, which in the end causes more death and destruction for everyone involved. Given the superiority of the U.S. forces, Saddam's army and Iraqi civilians will more than likely bear the brunt of it. The U.S. will likely get much bloodier too.

There is no question in my mind that Saddam's regime will not survive. The only question is how many will die before it topples? For me, anything that increases that number is "bad," and Arnett's interview falls into that category.

The interview, by the way, carries weight due to Arnett's "objective" position within the western media. Even though many Iraqi's may have heard the same thing before, Arnett's support lends a great deal of credibility to the position.

joedad

That would be great if we were consistently going about, domestically and internationally, in a manner that discourages such regimes from existing. But we don't do that.

Are you stating that we're making some kind of fundamental change in policy to prevent the next Saddam or Osama somewhere else on the planet? That's the issue. We're hardly doing that.

joe

Gurdur

Nope, you're creating the next Osama.

markstake

I don't think I stated or implied any such thing. To boil down my message: Arnett made erroneous statements that will cause more death and destruction on both sides than there would have been otherwise. This is neither pro-war nor anti-war, only my assessment of the situation.