|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
In your prior comments here, you clearly heap disproportionate condemnation on the U.S. for actions far less barbarous than what Iraqi resisance and al Qaida inflict on U.S. civilians and soldiers.
And I think that is the right thing to do - its correctly disproportionate. Consider what Mccain has said.
Your own indignation indicates that the actions of your country's soldiers should be measured against the actions of a band of murderous thugs, not against a higher standard. I don't think you actually mean that.
Quote:
And ad-lib when called on it.
You can circumvent the truth all you like, but anyone who reads these two quotes of yours and mine (in the above post)can plainly see that you share the views of "the story".
"The story reads..."(which is shorthand for how the press distorts U.S. harrassment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, in the anti-American Arab, European and other global press, disproportionately labeling as "American atrocities" the renegade actions of a small pocket of U.S.soldiers, the exact number of soldiers and officers investigated of which detailed in the TIME cover story article I posted above. In all, less than 20, UNauthorized abuses, out of 135,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq. Turned in by U.S. soldiers, court-martialed by U.S. soldiers, actions condemned and apologized for all the way up the chain of command, all the way to the President, by a special appearance on two Arab news networks, no less.)
"The story reads", as you say, yes.
But you also hold the U.S. to a higher standard, while infuriatingly alleging that because the U.S. is expected to do good things in Iraq or any country, that the good is not worthy of reporting, only the bad.
"The story reads" is your own unclear shorthand for "the Arab press spins it as...". I understand that now, but it was unclear to me in your earlier posted comment. But it's not a strawman argument on my part as you allege. It's your own shorthand lack of clarity.
Sorry it wasn't clear enough for you. I'm not going to fight with you on it, having read back through this, and anticipating that you didn't read my exchange with bsams. And I'm not "ad-libbing" (whatever that really means).
Quote:
And given how you feel that the Arab, and global, anti-American press should on principle spin it that way, because Americans are the representatives of democracy and espouse bringing these democratic principles to Iraq, and any abuses should be emphasized, and any progress and benevolent action should be ignored by the press and not reported (because, as you say, it's expected that America does these benevolent things. How can it be "expected" by people in the Arab world and elsewhere globally, if these benevolent and democratic-process American things are never reported, only the mis-steps? It's an infuriatingly distorted notion.)
Oh, not, I'm not saying that at all. I think the good things that the occupation is achieving should be fairly reported. What I'm saying is that the bad stuff should also be transparent - and in the view of any sensationalist press, its going to be anyway. I'm hardly going to backpat the sensationalist tabloid press, am I?
Quote:
Given these stated views of yours, even after you've explained your views with clarification I still fail to see how I've misrepresented your views in some kind of alleged "strawman" argument.
I do understand why you postulated a strawman argument, but I understand why - I concede I wasn't clear enough. So its a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
.
If four cops in L.A. beat up a suspect, that doesn't undermine the criminal justice system in California. Those are the actions of four cops, not those of the legal system of California. And those cops are accountable before the California legal system for the laws they violated.
Actually, I think it does undermine the legal system in California, and so did the rioters who protested when the cops in the Rodney King trial were acquitted. Perhaps you've picked a bad analogy.
In any event, we are not talking about 4 bad cops bashing a guy on the street. What we have here is an already volitile situation where many soldiers tortured prisoners, and who say they were told by their superior officers to do this.
Quote:
The soldiers in Iraq are similarly facing court-martial.
The disciplinary system in Iraq's military prisons are being completely overhauled.
Apologies have been exhaustively made at every level of the U.S. military and government.
Whether to say it as your personal opinion, or in a more veiled way as "the story", endorsing coverage of it in this way, as "American atrocities", in a twisted misrepresentation of what the U.S. is doing to democratize Iraq, that ignores all the good being done, it is still very partisan and distorted of you to say:
"This story reads like the US have overthrown one tortuous regime and replaced it with another."
You can climb down, Dave. Next time, I'll write, "This story must read to many people, both in the West and the Middle East, like the US have overthrown one tortuous regime and replaced it with another."
bsams had enough sense to ask me if I actually believed that was the case. And to repeat my answer: if it was systemic, right from the top down, then I'd have to agree. Since I can't imagine that to be remotely likely, I do not agree.
Quote:
That's not a "strawman argument", it's your own lack of clarity, and your own wordplay and circumnavigation of your previously stated views. Or perhaps just your not fully realized understanding of the full ramifications of covering "the story" in the manner you suggest.
The sad thing about the story and how it portrays US democratic institutions is that it was disclosed by the "liberal press".
Many Arabs are going to think, "oh, those soldiers are being court marshalled and punished only because the stories were shown on TV by an independent press".
It took 60 Minutes to bring this to light. The photos were not disclosed by the US government in a "we're coming clean and we're willing to make amends" press conference. If not for 60 Minutes, the photos might never have seen the light of day, and the soldiers would have been honourably discharged at the conclusion of their tours. And many people in the Middle East, and elsewhere, are going to rapidly draw that conclusion from the damage control that the White House has mounted.
So, hooray for the liberal press.
A question for those people who believe in "an eye for an eye" justice..... Seeing the beheading by the terrorists of the American man no doubt makes many people think that the terroists should be treated in a similar manner. Its a barbaric crime, and many people understandably might think it deserves an appropriately gruesome response.
Bear in mind that this crime was reportedly in response to the torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers - clearly, this was disproportionate as well as inhuman and cruel. How do you think the American soldiers should be dealt with, if you believe in an "eye for an eye"? Wouldn't it also be inhumane to force them to engage in the same poses for photographers?
|
