[Count Zero]

Originally posted by Undertoad
CZ, I have a deep interest in having a real discussion of all of the issues. I really wish your essayist had a similar take, but she's ignorant, ill-informed, and when she isn't sure she makes stuff up. But don't take my word on that, read the news item.

I read the thing, and seriously I don't know what's your point. It talks about some food warehouse that was taken. It contained "tons of supplies". Those being "vast amounts of food staples, tea, sugar, tires, car batteries and sewing machines". How much of it was actually food? Is it good food? Would it be enough to stop the need? They don't say.

And in the end they have this warning:
"EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details."

How can you trust news sources that are directly censored by the pentagon ?

Meanwhile, look: you're a Brazilian activist quoting an Indian novelist working in a British medium to claim that Americans are led by their noses by propaganda. And when the American challenges that notion on its lack of merits, you say he's in denial.

The irony really could not be thicker.

I tried, but I can't see the irony really. I said you're in denial not because you challenged it, but because you did so in such a childish and unsubstantial way.

By the way, not only is the argument patently ridiculous on its face, it's also offensive as hell.

You say it's ridiculous but you fail to elaborate on it. So only people who already agree with you share the same opinion.

And how do you find it offensive? Please give me an example.

And frankly, if I'm simply led and propagandist, I'm not sure why an honest examination of the facts would be what you want from me.

Because I want to know how far it goes.

I'm just gonna parrot the usual ill-considered non-arguments, like "stop the torture" and "end nuclear proliferation" and "international terrorism is bad", you know, stuff like that.

Funny, that's normally part of my argumentation against the US government's policy.

Originally posted by Whit
     CZ, have you considered the approach you chose is no different? That initial essay was propaganda.

It's very different. The text is elaborate on its discussions. It's not just "saddam is bad, m'okey".

You say he's "turning what could be a good debate into a flamewar" but where is your debate? I've tried to engage and I've been ignored while you focus on griping at UT.

I haven't really tried to start it. I don't feel like going into a crusade here where obviously everyone already has his mind made. There's no ambient for a comfortable discussion on this.

;Also you talk about Bush turning the world against us, is this new? I thought he'd been pissing the world off since he was elected?

It's very new. He's been pissing people off even _before_ he got "elected", but since he started to want to go to war the world public opinion on him, and on the US, reached a configuration _never_ seen before.

Trust me, we are very much aware of it. I'm sure it will cost him some votes, even if it's impossible to say how many. What other response would you expect?

In the US ? None.

Internationally, I don't know what to expect, but none of it is good. Increase in terrorism toward the US is probably going to happen.