Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 201 To 210 Of 258 Comments
LA TIMES OFFERS MORE PROOF WHY NO ONE BOTHERS TO READ IT ANYMORE
JK,
You can take out the Gen-X term, but you still make generational generalizations. I supposed I can therefore make some of my own about the Boomers, who are a bunch of self-centered spoiled brats who rode in on the coattails of the WWII generation and gave little of value to American except spitting on the military, free sex and drugs and the decline of marraige as an institution. I'm sure I'm missing a few things there somewhere, but you get the idea.
Comment Posted By Andy On 16.06.2006 @ 11:42
Rick,
Please change the title of this post to "LA TIMES OFFERS MORE PROOF WHY NO ONE EXCEPT CONSERVSATVE BLOGGRS BOTHER TO READ IT ANYMORE" ;)
Also, it's nice to know that your liberal etymological tendencies are now out of the closet. If you start using “yo beotch†in your writing, then we’ll have confirmation.
JK Moran - Please quit with the sweeping Gen-X generalizations. It's not only mean, but also unwise to throw rocks in glass houses.
Comment Posted By Andy On 16.06.2006 @ 09:54
WHY WE NEED MORE INTROSPECTION FROM THE MEDIA
DEagle,
There certainly is some liberal bias in the media, but like any business, the media is in it ultimately for the money. I think the lack of war coverage has little to do with liberal bias and a lot to do with what American's want to watch and what types of programs increase viewership and therefore revenue from advertising.
I think most Americans come home from a hard day's work and would rather spend their limited downtime on mindless entertainment like American Idol than digesting the latest war reporting. It's unfortunate, but that's simply the way things are in my opinion. Fox News, which certainly has no liberal bias, is just as guilty if not moreso.
Comment Posted By Andy On 19.06.2006 @ 12:57
Henry,
I think the point is that Americans don't want to hear much about the war on TV because most of them would rather be catching the latest developments on the critically important Duke LaCrosse scandal.
What American TV viewers want, American TV viewers get.
Comment Posted By Andy On 18.06.2006 @ 22:21
Actually, he is a stupid weasel.
Comment Posted By Andy On 15.06.2006 @ 13:33
AMNESTY FOR SOME INSURGENTS MAY BE THE PRICE OF VICTORY
Apparently no one reads my comments, so I'll say my two main points again: You can't have a peaceful end to an insurgency without some kind of amnesty. Second, we already gave the Shia insurgents a blanket amnesty and no one said a word of complaint.
PC - your confusion on who we are fighting is understandable as the situation is complex and ever changing.. As it stands now, we are fighting multiple groups and there are other groups that conduct violent attacks that we are not actively fighting. We are primarily fighting foreign jihadists- terrorists who are not Iraqi nationals but are members of or affiliated with Al Qaeda. Zarqawi was the most famous example. We're also fighting Iraqi Sunni insurgents. You can break this group down into two main factions. The first are radical former elements of Saddam's regime. They have largely allied themselves with Al Qaeda, so they tend to get grouped together. They’re Rumsfeld means when he talks about “dead endersâ€. The other Sunni insurgents/militias are disaffected Sunni's who are against the coalition and current Iraqi government, but could be brought into the political process. Some parts of this group actually have joined the political process, but they play both sides of the fence by talking politics and supporting violence at the same time. A large focus of the new Iraqi government is on bringing these Sunnis fully into the process and get them to end violent action.
There are also several Shia militias. The largest is Muqtada Al Sadr's Al Mahdi militia. Sadr basically speaks for a large majority of disaffected Shia youth and his Mahdi army is pretty powerful. He’s the most powerful Shia figure next to Sistani. He's managed to infilitrate loyalists into most of the army and police force, which has led to accusations that government forces are actively murdering Sunnis. He's not actively fighting the coaltion (though he did back in 2004). Mostly he conducts reprisal attacks against Sunnis. Finally, there are the usual criminal gangs that you'll find in any society, except they are very well armed in Iraq. Many of the gangs have associations with or are directly part of militias. At that level, it’s really hard to tell who is a street thug and who is an insurgent since they often look and act the same.
I hope that clears things up
Comment Posted By Andy On 16.06.2006 @ 20:08
No matter what anyone says, you can't have a peaceful end to an insurgency without an amnesty. Period. Maliki will have to consider amnesty no matter what he claims now. What form that takes is up to the Iraqis. Besides, it's impossible to single out individuals who "attacked" US troops. It's not like the ones that get away leave their business card. Every insurgent will claim whatever is required to meet the eventual amnesty conditions and, for 95% of them, it will be impossible to verify their claims. So only those 5% who represent the leadership and some of the more active and brutal insurgents will likely have amnesty denied or seriously questioned. That's simply the way things work.
And like I said above, we've already given a 100% unconditional amnesty to the Shias who fought us. That was part of the price paid to get them into the political process. Now the same must be done with the Sunnis, except it won't be unconditional or 100%. Early bird gets the worm I suppose.
Comment Posted By Andy On 16.06.2006 @ 01:47
No one has yet mentioned Muqtada Al Sadr and his Mahdi militia, or any of the Shia groups actually. Remember that we were in open combat with Sadr and his militia not long ago. They killed American soldiers (I don't know the exact number) and we killed scores of his fighters. He was finally forced into an agreement and quit attacking Americans. Ostensibly he is now part of the political process, though he is still very anti-American, still has his militia, and probably commands more firepower and loyalty than Maliki does. He and his militia have a de-facto amnesty now and they paid no political or other price for that amnesty.
So I think some kind of amnesty for Sunni Iraqis, and I put an emphasis on Iraqis, is in order. The Sunnis won't play ball without it. Almost all insurgencies where a peace is negotiated involve some sort of amnesty, so this is hardly unprecedented. Foreign Fighters are another matter. I don't see how Iraq can grant foreigners amnesty, especially for entering the country illegally with the sole intent to kill Iraqis. I seriously doubt Maliki would do this, especially considering his strong ties with the Shia. The details of any Sunni amnesty would probably include most insurgents except for the most violent, but we’ll have to see what gets worked out.
Comment Posted By Andy On 15.06.2006 @ 13:32
PREVIEW: TEAM USA VS. CZECH REPUBLIC
Well, game just ended and what a disappointment. The Czechs totally outplayed them. Now we have to beat Italy and hope Italy ties Ghana. We'll see if the team has the discipline and leadership to shape up before the next match.
Comment Posted By Andy On 12.06.2006 @ 12:52
Well, I'm watching the game and the CR just scored their second goal. So far I've been pretty disappointed with the USA's missed opportunities on corners and the numerous czech penalties. The USA is playing much too slow as well.
Hopefully being down 2-0 will light a fire in their belly and not deflate them. Admittedly, it's look dark for the USA in 2006.
Comment Posted By Andy On 12.06.2006 @ 11:40
