68 Pontiac wrote:
Comrade,
I have tried writing an indepth answer, twice. . .both occasions forgetting to "copy" and when sent it didn't go through. SO I'm writing a shortened version.
First, and fore most, I asked for BOTH sides to respect each other.
Time and time again, I have stated that I am NOT the world reknowned expert on Iraq. Everyone brings something to thetable. . .mine happens to be experience with the population, and most possibly, information you have never received. I have shared my thoughts, and because I am not against the war in Iraq, I comeunder attack.
I haven't attacked you, and certainly wouldn't attack you for not being against the war. For what it's worth, though, your perspectives on the population are not new information for me.
Alot assumptions are being made by you, and other posters. For instance, your stating "while in Iraq, you've been exposed to a limited range of information" and "You have seen a very, very narrow range of information in your stay in Iraq-- basically, the information the U.S. Government wants you to see". How the hell do you KNOW what my exposure to information was? It actually was higher there than it is in the US. . .and "big brother" didn't stop my access of information.
My previous post was written hastily. I don't think there's some sort of "big brother" attempt to limit your access to information. I do think that as a soldier, you have a certain job to do in Iraq, and that the information that the Government provides to you is intended to facilitate that job. "Information" can mean a lot of things, by the way-- for example, information can mean Arabic language lessons, or it can mean cultural training, or whatever else is necessary to facilitate your job. I also believe that the Government does not provide, nor does it want to provide, a wide range of information that would enable the merits of the war to be debated by the troops. For example, I seriously doubt that the Government distributes dissenting opinions. That doesn't mean that the Government is engaged in an Orwellian conspiracy to control your minds, but it does mean that the range of information the Government provides is narrow and one-sided. The military, after all, isn't a debating society. The Government isn't going to make the facilitation of your job any more facile by distributing analyses that demonstrate the strategic blunders the U.S. has made in invading Iraq, and it might just make it harder for the troops to do their job, so those analyses don't get distributed. Just speculation on my part, of course, but I do believe my speculation is correct. If it's not, I'm sure you'll correct me.
Now, as long as we're on the subject of assumptions, I've been under the distinct impression that you've made some assumptions about my politics, Would it surprise you to know that I was not againss the invasion of Afghanistan? Would it suprise you to know that President Shampanyov wouldn't have sat around waiting half as long as Bush did to go in after bin Laden? Would it surprise you to know that I was not against the invasion of Iraq-- not for it, but not against it-- at least not until I discovered the extent to which the Bush administration had deceived the American public about the war. Yet implicit in your posts is an assumption that I'm against Bush because I'm against the war. Wrong, I was against Bush before he ever set foot in the Oval Office. Also implicit in your posts, and most offensive to me and several other posters here, is the assumption that because we haven't visited Iraq, we don't know much if anything about what's going on there. Here's the latest egregious example:
"The most interesting part is that you can not possibly fathom what is going on there without fully understanding the culture, which can not be done from a computer desk."
Really? How would you know what I and other NOOLers can or cannot possibly fathom? You complain that we're making assumptions about you, and yet right there is an assumption about us that just isn't accurate. As I said before, we're a widely read group here, some of us, and it may be that we fathom Arabic culture more than you give us credit for.
You also make assumptions and pigeion-hole military personnel, to an extent it pisses me off.
I know you explain this below, but I have to respond here as well. If you think I've made assumptions about and pigeon-holed military personnel, please point to specific examples so we can discuss them. I'm flying blind here, because I really don't know (beyond what you've alluded to below) what assumptions and pigeon-holing I'm supposed to have engaged in.
In the lastpost you made assumptins on my education level; thus my ability to understand my surroundings; my ability to understand policy; my understanding of information I am receiving; and worst of all, that I am too incompetent to realize this.
I think you're reading that into my posts, based on your assumptions about me and my politics. I haven't said or implied anything about any of the above. What I have said is that we're a widely read group, and you can't just discount our knowledge base on the grounds that we haven't been there. That's a statement about our level of education, not a statement about your level of education.
Just because it's written in the clever passive-aggressive form, doesn't make it less insulting. Or was I not suppose to catch that.
JHC
I think you're catching something that isn't there. I'll be the first to say that you've been insulted here, but it wasn't by me, and I didn't even secretly approve. If you think I've been insulting, I would ask that you point to specific examples, instead of just mmaking the accusation, because I haven't intended to send any insults your way. As I said before, if you think that I've insulted you, I apologize, because it wasn't intended.
