Comments on: Here’s how the story could have been reported

By: Here’s how the story could have been reported, Part II « Bookworm Room

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:03:51 +0000

[...] could have been reported, Part II Posted on November 13, 2007 by Bookworm A few months ago, I took umbrage at a BBC news story that reported that Israel killed Palestinian children and only saw fit to mention, in the 5th and [...]

By: emberglow

emberglow — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:31:56 +0000

Very well said. Incidentally, that is the truth and stands in direct contradiction to the official slogans of spreading ”democracy” and ”freedom” just for the heck of it.

There is always one’s own axe to grind, first and foremost.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:37:58 +0000

Why so much staying power in South Korea and Japan but not in Vietnam. And why these heroic resolves to stay on in Middle East but not giving a Shinola when not far from the Middle East people get butchered in Rwanda and Darfur?

America leads and therefore decides for herself, via different faction power struggles, where to go and where to stay.

Anyone that disagrees can send their own forces to Rawanda, after all. Or maybe not. Not many nations or people are willing to shoulder the crushing burden of a world wide military logistical capacity to actually send troops across the globe.

United States force protection can extend to the entire globe, so long as everyone pays us a reasonable tax of their total gross income and of course providues us with adequate warriors of a high enough IQ or natural intelligence level.

By: emberglow

emberglow — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:32:00 +0000

Someone help me understand why American military presence seems to follow a selective path when it comes to protecting human freedom or life.

And at any rate, legendary American military presence in Saudi Arabia and Turkey doesn’t seem to be doing much in promoting the liberties of the inhabitants in these countries… Sigh…

By: Putting the sob story in context « Bookworm Room

Putting the sob story in context « Bookworm Room — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:51:46 +0000

[...] can give a little more context, because I blogged about this story when it was first reported, at the end of August. It turns out that there were several rocket [...]

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:58:51 +0000

As you just portrayed, Don, American views are flexible and easily changed. So it doesn’t matter what people agree with or not, because they are easily changed. The real question is how to change them, not what opinion polls and elections demonstrate. Since they don’t demonstrate much statistically given the overlapping causality problems.

By: Don Quixote

Don Quixote — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:33:24 +0000

Hi Y-man — American don’t like casualties & they don’t like our being where we aren’t wanted. We also don’t like fighting when we don’t see the fighting as necessary to American interests. Since most Americans don’t see a real threat from Iraq (the failure to find WMDs was devastating in that regard), they don’t see any reason for us to be there. Your solutions, which involve heavy flexing of American might, might be the correct one, but a large majority of Americans disagree with that approach. If all of the opinion polls which show that don’t convince you, the election results in 2006 should have.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:46:07 +0000

The reason why I wouldn’t agree to the Democrats cry for increased troops, especially when I knew that there were plenty of reinforcements to send, because I knew their motivations for their loudness. Increasing troops on their plan would only play into their hands, and they would simply say that troops aren’t enough anyways soon after. There had to be more reason to send in troops than agreeing to Democrat machinations, and Petraeus has given that reason, Don.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:43:14 +0000

Still, it’s hard to imagine the long-term outcome being changed, since the American people simply will not support a long-term American involvement and will throw out of office anyone who advocates such involvement. The Islamic extremists have more patience and staying power.

That is discounted by the facts, however. Given that AQ could not stay in Afghanistan, even when some of their previous fighters had American backing as they fought the Soviets.

The American record of long term American involvement in South Korea and Japan is more length than any competitor.

Of course Americans will support long term American involvement, including the use of troops, in such places as Kosovo, Germany, and Japan. And these were the places of some the most notable enemies of humanity, don’t you forget, rather than a country like Iraq being attacked by enemies of humanity.

What you are really saying is that Americans don’t like casualties. So what’s stopping them or you from redeploying all the forces America has occupying everyone else, to Iraq?

By: soccer dad

soccer dad — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:16:28 +0000

Scott Wilson surprised me today with this:
A member of the Abu Ghazallah family who witnessed the airstrike said a rocket launcher was near the area where the children were playing. The relative, who declined to be named for fear of reprisal, said the launcher belonged to Islamic Jihad, an armed movement responsible for much of the rocket fire into Israel.

“I hold the Islamic Jihad responsible for the killing of these children,” the relative said.

Yes, as DQ wrote the headline leads with the “bleeding.” It is rare for the MSM to confirm the Israeli narrative. And here Wilson did it with the testimony of a Palestinian witness.

(Wilson isn’t always so careful. Last year when HRW accused Israel of killing a family on a Gaza beach, Wilson credulously reported everything from the faulty HRW standpoint.)