Ronin

Thanks, vb.

markstake

vicesboy writes:sigh

Do I really have to go over this again?

Arnett is a supposedly well-respected objective western reporter. Iraqi's will believe him when he says the U.S. war effort is failing. Iraqi's who may otherwise surrender will not, and will get killed.Arnett is supposedly objective. The others are not. Iraqi's will not believe them.
Sadly, and understandably, this article could easily steel the resolve of many Iraqi's, causing them to fight to the death rather than surrender. Arnett's comments compound this, adding credible support to the idea that they may prevail.
Just an FYI - I know better than this.If an Iraqi is already going to fight to the death in support of his nation, then Arnett doesn't make any difference. However, I'm speaking about those who would otherwise surrender except for the fear of retribution if Saddam survives intact. Arnett will be a more credible voice to these people than any of their own state-run media.Actually, since Arnett has established himself as an objective reporter in the minds of the Iraqi people, he could undo the damage he has done if he reported that the U.S. got their act together and had a plan that would assure the downfall of Saddam. I wouldn't expect him to do this (unless it were true) but theoretically speaking it would work. Of course, it would never be played on Iraqi television.

ybnormal

Mark, that above quote represents your response to the bulk of my post, and it was wholly diversionary and wholly disingenuous, and it turned wholly hypocritical when you later referred to previous posts, which included mine, as simply another non-responsive post. The credibility one is granted upon arrival here is a fragile thing.

The following defensive statement of yours should be enough to negate your above waltz around my serious post, not to mention the facts, and not to mention the valid questions I asked you... yet it is I who has been non-responsive. Right?
You are not the only human who can make rational assumptions... if your "war stance" had not been so glaringly obvious, you would not have been mobbed by the general "assumption" that you were indeed pro-war.

Like I said, that should be enough, but why you inserted the above qualifier of ...in this thread? is beyond me.

These posts ain't written with disappearing ink ya know.
Sad!
It is obvious that you are a scanner, not a reader. Your loss. You are simply repeating what you've already said, as tho I never posted a response.

If you've scanned this far, maybe you'll care to realize that at this point in the thread, other folks were still challenging you for some evidence for your weak Arnett will get people killed claim.

What evidence do you have that the Iraqi people have ever seen Peter Arnett? Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people watched CNN ten years ago, or that they watch NBC today... maybe you want to think they all read National Geographic.

We're not even talking about the Iraqi people in Baghdad yet... we're talking about the Iraqi people in those mud houses we've all come to envy. You know, the Iraqi people who we see scooping up some drinking water from the gutter, yet your argument presupposes that they have been watching Western cable TV. Go on!

You say things like, Iraqi's will believe him because Arnett has established himself as an objective reporter in the minds of the Iraqi people, without even attempting to fake some evidence that they even know who he is, yet you call it your argument.
If I ever feel the need to respond to you again, I'll try to not talk over your head.
I've yet to see you imply anything else... remember all that sneaky denial regarding your alleged pro-war stance?
How did you put it? sigh

For the record, in lieu of refuting your still nonexistent argument, I offered you a completely logical, well-reasoned alternative argument, which laid out precisely why I supported Arnett, and I laid out precisely why ALL this mess falls on your head. I asked the impossible by asking you to look at the bigger picture. But it was way over your head I suppose, and in order to ignore it completely, you had to dance the War Stance waltz.

Non-responsive?

Whatever!

PopeInTheWoods

Maybe they should ask Germany, Italy, and Japan. The US seems to do well when it's a resource-rich country in which it has made a heavy (not to mention winning) military investment.

Andy

slept2long

Good point. My fault for a crappy analogy.

slept2long

Good point. Different circumstances though, I think. I need to read up on my history before I go into any detail.

Happy Wonderer

Of course, this might help explain what the incident was about. Don't forget that this guy is in Baghdad -- home of the super arch-evil master villian/rapist/murderer/user of poison gas/creater of WMD who happened to be holding three journalists in prison...

Three journalists released by Iraq

It is interesting how people convienently forget how evil we believe Saddam's regime to be when we want to smear a journalist reporting from the capital of that regime. IMO Peter has just saved three American lives by saying nothing very different than some analysists safe at home have been saying. It may even be what he believes (and it may be true.) What the heck do you expect him to say -- "Saddam, your days are numbered?"

HW

markstake

ybnormal -

You caught me. I'm pro-war. I fail to see the relevance to this thread, which is why I qualified my statement. Whether Arnett's actions will cause more deaths or not is not dependent on anyone's pro- or anti- war stance. Not mine, not yours, not Arnett's. There is no correlation.

You wrote:
I went back to read your previous response again to see what I missed. I read this: And a few more paragraphs of non-responsive railing about the pro war position, basically denying that anyone who didn't start it has any responsibility for the consequences of their actions after it's started, including Arnett. This is not a defensible position.

I have a confession to make. On first reading, I didn't bother to read the whole diatribe, since I expected the remainder to be along the same lines, but you actually did go on to make relevant points.:notworthy
This is actually a good argument that while Arnett's actions may cause a loss of life in the short term, there may be larger long term benefits to taking this course. I don't think it'll really make a difference in whether we pursue other wars unless this war seriously kicks our ass, but at least it's a rational point of view. You may even be right. See my comments below.

You go on to ask:
I really think that world opinion about the war in Iraq will be shaped much more by how the situation is handled afterwards than how we got to this point and what actions are taken to win the war. Part of what we do next includes our treatment of North Korea and other nations. The Bush administration has the opportunity to screw this up royally, but also has the opportunity to create a very positive outcome. In the event that Bush continues strong-arm tactics, your above argument may come into play. While I support this war (a topic for another thread) I personally don't believe we have any incentive to start more wars, and I would likely oppose another one.

Now on to your latest post: Ummm... The interview was for Iraqi TV? They didn't need to see him before this, since the Iraqi media would have played up his credentials to lend credibility to his report. I don't have evidence of this, and it's possible you are right, but it appears unlikely to me they didn't mention who he was and why they should listen to him. (This line of thinking is not compatible with your previous argument, by the way, although it does provide another possible case against my argument).

When I asked you to show me where I said Arnett should be silenced, your response was: Umm... You are a toad. I've yet to see you imply anything else. (No, I don't believe you are a toad. This example is for illustrative reasons only). For the record, I believe in free speech, and am not an advocate of silencing anyone. (Not even you.) This doesn't mean that speech is without consequence.

Finally, I guess you didn't get your own joke, so I'll explain it to you. You wrote:And then you use your free speech rights to cricize my free speech rights in the very next sentence: This is what is funny: You are being hypocritical about being hypocritical! Really, this had me laughing out loud!

I said earlier that I'm looking for truth, and I am. While I don't agree with the points you made, they are rational and no less valid than mine. It would be easier if your whole post was rational and relevant, but I suppose that's too much to ask.

Pomp

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that Arnet's remarks run counter to the USA propaganda effort designed to get the Iraqis to surrender without a prolonged fight. As such, more Iraqis may believe they have the ghost of a chance and continue to fight.

Pomp

Er...are any of those three particularly resource rich, not counting human resources?