Baghdad Residents Protest U.S. Troops

[tcsenter]

That doesn't sound anything like Michael Moore. But it does sound alot like GWB and his administration. I'll admit that they haven't rubbed much salt into our frustrations and grievances, but they are pros at whipping the US populus into a rage fueled by fear and ignorance.

Hey Jahawkin, back for more ass-whipping on the Moore issue, eh? Some people never learn...

It sounds exactly like Moore and nothing like the Bush Administration. When has the US populus been 'whipped' up in to a frenzy by GWB? Links and sources, please.

The US populus was outraged when 9/11 happened, whereas GWB went on national television and tried to allay people's fears, encourage calm, and discourage revenge attacks on seeming Arabs and Muslims. That doesn't sound at all like the inflammatory populist tirades and raving diatribes which Moore writes on a weekly basis in his 'Open Letters' or in his speeches at Berkeley (or most recently before the Academy).

What I'm referring to, obviously, is "demagoguery":

dem·a·gogue

A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. To speak about (an issue, for example) in the manner of a demagogue.

A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and factious mob orator or political leader.

That is a precise and fitting description of the 'street corner' mob orators to whom I'm referring. Even liberal columnists heap fitting descriptives onto Moore like 'rabble-rousing' and 'muck-raking'.

As usual, you're just confused, bitter, and lashing out against the Bush administration, without a stitch of merit in your argument.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
That is a precise and fitting description of the 'street corner' mob orators to whom I'm referring. Even liberal columnists heap fitting descriptives onto Moore like 'rabble-rousing' and 'muck-raking'.

Others admit to it themselves eventually and manage to speak it aloud:

Liberation Day
by Gary Kamiya
April 11, 2003 http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/11/liberation/index1.html

-snip-

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more
nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes
of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.
Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?

As usual, you're just confused, bitter, and lashing out against the Bush administration, without a stitch of merit in your argument.
Say goodnight, Gracie.

They would prefer to war effort to fail along with the requisite deaths of our troops rather than have Bush be right.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Spyro
Bah, they'll get over it eventually.

Sure just dismiss the protestors and continue doing whatever we want.

There's certainly no reason to listen to what any Iraqis want for Iraq.

A small question that I would like to propose for you is this: "In their current state, do you think the Iraqis are capable of forging their own government without the help of the US?" Right now, the region is highly unstable, so IMHO I think that the answer to that question is no. What I *meant* by my original post is that since the region is soooo unstable, it would be a benefit to the Iraqis if we were to atleast start them out with some kind of government to build on.

 

[jahawkin]

It sounds exactly like Moore and nothing like the Bush Administration. When has the US populus been 'whipped' up in to a frenzy by GWB? Links and sources, please.

Ohhh, I don't know, maybe when Bush used the fear of 9/11 to convince the public to support his war with Iraq.

The Communists are masters at this kind of thing; exploiting times of public panic

Like exploiting the public panic from 9/11? Yep, Bush exploted that alright. The patriot act, leading people to belive Iraq and al-Qaeda are linked, all exploiting the public fear.

dem·a·gogue
A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. To speak about (an issue, for example) in the manner of a demagogue.

Shrub speech from october 2002.
"We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth."
Sounds like an appeal to the emotions of the public. In fact, most every Iraq speech Bush has made has had its foundations in appealing to the emotions of 9/11. Since Iraq and 9/11 have absolutly nothing to do with each other, why else would Bush, the demagogue, appeal to the emotions and fears of the public?

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

It sounds exactly like Moore and nothing like the Bush Administration. When has the US populus been 'whipped' up in to a frenzy by GWB? Links and sources, please.

Ohhh, I don't know, maybe when Bush used the fear of 9/11 to convince the public to support his war with Iraq.

The Communists are masters at this kind of thing; exploiting times of public panic

Like exploiting the public panic from 9/11? Yep, Bush exploted that alright. The patriot act, leading people to belive Iraq and al-Qaeda are linked, all exploiting the public fear.

dem·a·gogue
A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. To speak about (an issue, for example) in the manner of a demagogue.

Shrub speech from october 2002.
"We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth."
Sounds like an appeal to the emotions of the public. In fact, most every Iraq speech Bush has made has had its foundations in appealing to the emotions of 9/11. Since Iraq and 9/11 have absolutly nothing to do with each other, why else would Bush, the demagogue, appeal to the emotions and fears of the public?

Agreed 90%

 

[tcsenter]

They would prefer to war effort to fail along with the requisite deaths of our troops rather than have Bush be right.

Absolutely, this typifies the ideological and moral bankruptcy of the left.

Its a common theme which runs through many of their most cherished 'causes' and 'ideals'. Since you linked to a Salon article, search the archives for articles by David Horowitz, who is particularly articulate and adept at exposing this common theme. Horowitz should be good at exposing the bankruptcy of the left, he was firmly one of them not so long ago.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

They would prefer to war effort to fail along with the requisite deaths of our troops rather than have Bush be right.

Absolutely, this typifies the ideological and moral bankruptcy of the left.

Its a common theme which runs through many of their most cherished 'causes' and 'ideals'. Since you linked to a Salon article, search the archives for articles by David Horowitz, who is particularly articulate and adept at exposing this common theme. Horowitz should be good at exposing the bankruptcy of the left, he was firmly one of them not so long ago.

Very typical of you to try to generalize masses of people. Mkaes it so you don't have to think so much huh?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: jahawkin

It sounds exactly like Moore and nothing like the Bush Administration. When has the US populus been 'whipped' up in to a frenzy by GWB? Links and sources, please.

Ohhh, I don't know, maybe when Bush used the fear of 9/11 to convince the public to support his war with Iraq.

The Communists are masters at this kind of thing; exploiting times of public panic

Like exploiting the public panic from 9/11? Yep, Bush exploted that alright. The patriot act, leading people to belive Iraq and al-Qaeda are linked, all exploiting the public fear.

dem·a·gogue
A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. To speak about (an issue, for example) in the manner of a demagogue.

Shrub speech from october 2002.
"We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth."
Sounds like an appeal to the emotions of the public. In fact, most every Iraq speech Bush has made has had its foundations in appealing to the emotions of 9/11. Since Iraq and 9/11 have absolutly nothing to do with each other, why else would Bush, the demagogue, appeal to the emotions and fears of the public?

Agreed 90%

If the average uninformed, unworldly American bothered to actually keep informed with world events, they would know better than to fall for that ploy. Why do you think most of the opposition to this war is on college campuses? "Cause they are liberal" you say. Maybe so, but people in college are generally more worldy and in touch with world events. Critisize the Europeans all you want, but you cannot deny that they are a lot more in touch with the world than most Americans are. The majority of us get our information off of TV, and US channels at that. Why are we so afraid of Al Jazeera? Maybe because they show the unfiltered, uncensored reality of the war? The casualties, blood and guts that may sway public support for the invasion? Why do you think the rest of the world is so pissed. They have many reasons, but one of them is b/c they actually get to see what is going on. We like to live in a sheltered world away, and like ostriches, if we don't see it, its probably not happening.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

They would prefer to war effort to fail along with the requisite deaths of our troops rather than have Bush be right.

Absolutely, this typifies the ideological and moral bankruptcy of the left.

Its a common theme which runs through many of their most cherished 'causes' and 'ideals'. Since you linked to a Salon article, search the archives for articles by David Horowitz, who is particularly articulate and adept at exposing this common theme. Horowitz should be good at exposing the bankruptcy of the left, he was firmly one of them not so long ago.

Bush is the one putting troops in harms way for political gain. So don't try to shift the blame here.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: tcsenter

They would prefer to war effort to fail along with the requisite deaths of our troops rather than have Bush be right.

Absolutely, this typifies the ideological and moral bankruptcy of the left.

Its a common theme which runs through many of their most cherished 'causes' and 'ideals'. Since you linked to a Salon article, search the archives for articles by David Horowitz, who is particularly articulate and adept at exposing this common theme. Horowitz should be good at exposing the bankruptcy of the left, he was firmly one of them not so long ago.

Very typical of you to try to generalize masses of people. Mkaes it so you don't have to think so much huh?

I would certainly put you in the category. I have yet to see any bad news not hailed nor any good news not downplayed by you the past few weeks.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That doesn't sound anything like Michael Moore. But it does sound alot like GWB and his administration. I'll admit that they haven't rubbed much salt into our frustrations and grievances, but they are pros at whipping the US populus into a rage fueled by fear and ignorance.

Hey Jahawkin, back for more ass-whipping on the Moore issue, eh? Some people never learn...

It sounds exactly like Moore and nothing like the Bush Administration. When has the US populus been 'whipped' up in to a frenzy by GWB? Links and sources, please.

The US populus was outraged when 9/11 happened, whereas GWB went on national television and tried to allay people's fears, encourage calm, and discourage revenge attacks on seeming Arabs and Muslims. That doesn't sound at all like the inflammatory populist tirades and raving diatribes which Moore writes on a weekly basis in his 'Open Letters' or in his speeches at Berkeley (or most recently before the Academy).

What I'm referring to, obviously, is "demagoguery":

dem·a·gogue

A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. To speak about (an issue, for example) in the manner of a demagogue.

A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and factious mob orator or political leader.

That is a precise and fitting description of the 'street corner' mob orators to whom I'm referring. Even liberal columnists heap fitting descriptives onto Moore like 'rabble-rousing' and 'muck-raking'.

As usual, you're just confused, bitter, and lashing out against the Bush administration, without a stitch of merit in your argument.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

You missed the most important part of a demagogue. Leader, and control. What is Moore the leader of, and how is he controlling the multitude. A demagogue would use an appeal to negative emotions and fear to achieve power. That would fit with Bush's linking of 9/11 to build a case for Iraq, uses of the word evil, and use of untrue evidence to build a case for Iraq. All the power Moore has seen is an Academy Award, which might be good for leading people who like sparkly things.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: AthlonXP
They miss saddam already?

Who knows, maybe we could reinstate one of his doubles for a while.

j/k

OK, seriously though, I think that they might as well enjoy their newfound anarc....... er....... freedom

 

[Squisher]

Freedom is something that is very hard to ingest in small doses.

 

[maluckey]

Right on Squisher! I'll add that societies and countries are often like children, and their leaders are like the parents. Kids don't want to eat their veggies, go to bed, or even take medicine that will save their lives. Neither do political parties, and religious organizations. You have to have a way of convincing them to do anything they don't want to do. Sometimes it's through leadership, punishment, or sometimes through mass murder a-la Stalin. All instances work, (though I hope you don't strangle your kids). The "kids" don't want to do anything until it's normally too late. They come up with excuses (but Johhny doesn't have to!), lies (I already ate), and misdirection (Look! Mommies home). All you need to know, to be a world leader is in most american households. ..... Parents, and Kids!

 

[Dangermouse33]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I think the Iraqi people should chase the US troops out of Iraq. We have no business being there and governing another country. I don't care how mean or nice Saddam is.

Hahah Barney...thats funny. Cute dinosaur.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Right on Squisher! I'll add that societies and countries are often like children, and their leaders are like the parents. Kids don't want to eat their veggies, go to bed, or even take medicine that will save their lives. Neither do political parties, and religious organizations. You have to have a way of convincing them to do anything they don't want to do. Sometimes it's through leadership, punishment, or sometimes through mass murder a-la Stalin. All instances work, (though I hope you don't strangle your kids). The "kids" don't want to do anything until it's normally too late. They come up with excuses (but Johhny doesn't have to!), lies (I already ate), and misdirection (Look! Mommies home). All you need to know, to be a world leader is in most american households. ..... Parents, and Kids!

My mother is a benevolent dictator...................

Seriously though, thats a pretty interesting way of looking at things.

 

[tcsenter]

You missed the most important part of a demagogue. Leader, and control. What is Moore the leader of, and how is he controlling the multitude. A demagogue would use an appeal to negative emotions and fear to achieve power. That would fit with Bush's linking of 9/11 to build a case for Iraq, uses of the word evil, and use of untrue evidence to build a case for Iraq. All the power Moore has seen is an Academy Award, which might be good for leading people who like sparkly things.

You know, I had spent quite some time writing a response, even did a little compare/contrast between Bush's rational speech and some of Moore's raving lunatic stuff, probably spent about 40 minutes on it altogether. Then I hit "reply" and received the infamous 'could not detect your network or internet connection' error page. My dial-up connection had been dropped and I didn't realize it. I quickly hit 'back' but everything was gone.

I freaking hate when that happens!

Now I can't seem to find the motivation to write it all again. Maybe if you were to insult me, call me a few names or something?

 

[Zebo]

I hate when that happens.
Usually it a curse word that gets me to the perverbial "you have a prohibted word in your post page" then I click back and all gone.:|

 

[Insane3D]

I would imagine the lack of water, power, and medical supplies coupled with a lack of any substantial policing might be contributing to this. Take a city like Boston or NY, cut power and water, close down hospitals or remove their medical supplies, and remove the entire NYPD and I bet something similar might happen there.