[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
- From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:19:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
I stand by my earlier statements. As far as defining propaganda, it might be safe to say using ideology instead of facts. "We have to win", stuff like that. Blaming Clinton for Bush's mistakes. Not having facts to support one's position, just ideological mandates and desires. Given that even Bush says we're not winning, and you're convinced we are, where are you getting your facts? I heard Kagan interviewed and he said, in so many words, that we're at the "Break Glass in Emergency" point in this war. That's why, he said, we *have* to do a surge. General Odom said a surge is a tactical solution to a strategic problem; it's more of what hasn't worked to date. Why don't you just read Tom Ricks' book? Even the troops themselves support Bush significantly less than they did. At the last talk he gave them they sat quietly staring at their hands. Gone were the whoo hoos.
Also, there's no thinking involved here. It's just facts, numbers. You're applying ideology and logic and "critical thinking" while we're losing a blue streak over there. Where is your evidence that we're doing anything other than losing and/or have lost? What in your ideological bag of tricks do you counter reality with? Facts, Brian, not what we have to do and need to do and purple prose about the hazards of despair. If you want to rely on "milestones" like the election, that's dead in the water. Every milestone came to nothing. Facts, Brian, where are your facts about what's going on over there?
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian
Sent: Jan 15, 2007 2:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
You never answered my question about defining "the military" so since you've used the phrase military expert here I'll use that as a working definition. Is Frank Gaffney a military expert? What about about Michael Ledeen? Ralph Peters? Robert Kaplan? General Jack Keane? Victor Davis Hanson? They all disagree with your statement.
The conspiracy deepens. You say that this view is ubiquitous but is also underground and you've absorbed it without noting who is saying it. The hallmark of critical thinking. Soylent Green is people! You're right that you've argued this point incessantly and that is why I'm calling you on it and find it without merit.
Are you going to answer me on what you meant by propaganda?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
