I guess I don't get his humor and that is odd because I have the oddest sense of humor.
An honest question here: Who is his target audience? I don't see it as those I fight agree to disagree with here, so who is it?
Ted Rall's humor is best descrbed as sadistic. It was such before the war, and it remains so now. As such, I am glad he is a cartoonist, not a prison guard. I don't believe in sadism among prison gaurds. It leads to embarrassing scandals for one thing.
It makes me wonder if there's a genetic predisposition to this type of sadism, if it's a possible result of a common chemical imbalance, or if it is just a personal choice.
If it's genetic, there will likely be a push to manipulate our makeup so such genes do not hamper the humanity of society.
If chemical, the man needs his meds... now.
If it is his choice, the arguement for the existance of evil has new evidence.
But then even if the others are true, should he not embrace humnity by using his own free will to fight his own anti-social urges? There's always a choice.
Wow, Rall's as funny as Jarhead's portrayal of all women connected the the military as whores or mentally ill.
I don't question the man's patriotism. It's obvious by his years of 'cartoon' (bwah, hack crap is more like it) that he has none. One can not question that which does not exist.
That said, too bad a bomb can't 'go astray' by several thousand miles...
It seems to be an allegorical depiction of the U.S. actions in Iraq. That is, how we're screwing over the promise of something that should be something different. Like the joy of dating.
As I said over at another blog, his stuff is intended to get the rise that it does. I've seen this 'cartoon' appear on more blogs this morning and he is taking it all to the bank, so to speak. It's too bad that he gets the attention that he does. It's not like he is going to change anytime soon due to the negativity towards what he puts out. He knows it pisses people off and he doesn't give a shit; it's what fuels people like him.
This leads me back to my biggest complaint about the administration: it should have been explaining stuff like this all along. I knew it, because I read Den Beste. I'm only middling good at the complex sort of systems thinking that Den Beste and the Opiniated B-st-rd do so well, but I am good enough at it that when it is explained, I get it.
And Ara, he explains troop levels, too. Would it surprise you to hear that your strategy (more troops, more troops, more troops) is the one that failed in Vietnam and that Vietnamization (where we draw down our troops and turn it over to the locals) is the one the worked.
In fact, Iraq is beginning to look like the reverse of Vietnam in many ways - notice how we are avoiding the puppet government syndrome, so much so that the people are allowed to tell us they want us out! (Even though I still hope they change their minds I have never said I wanted us to stay if they tell us to get out.)
Would it surprise you to hear that your strategy (more troops, more troops, more troops)
That's not my strategy. Where did you get that idea?
is the one that failed in Vietnam and that Vietnamization (where we draw down our troops and turn it over to the locals) is the one the worked.
Wince, everything failed in Viet Nam. What on earth are you talking about?
As far as Bush's "plan," I tuned him out this morning after a few minutes. You know, you just can't trust anything he says -- instead, you have to watch what he does.
But...can you please, briefly summarize for me: How many troops are coming out? When? Which ones come out first? Where do they go? Who stays behind? What will they be doing? And so forth.
In summary, Bush presented a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" nearly three years after announcing that major combat operations in Iraq were over.
This should tell you everything you need to know about the Bush administration.
It only tells me that you and your buddies have no military background because you seem confused as to the meaning of major combat operations. I guess that's why the Dem Leadership keeps harping on it, it's easy to confuse the ignorant masses about military matters.
If you click through enough links you get to Melvin Laird. Vietnamization worked in Vietnam right up to the point where we cut off military aid to the South while the U.S.S.R. kept violating the peace treaty and sending triple the agreed aid to the North. And yes, I blame the Democrats in Congress including the dastardly Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy for pitching honor out the window and selling Vietnam and Cambodia to the Coummunists. I also blame Nixon for the Watergate coverup, which weakened him and Ford to the point where they couldn't fight for what was right. We needed leaders with spines like Churchill and Thatcher. We got Neville Chamberlain.
Baby boomers! What a perverse and cowardly generation we belong to.
Bush presented their strategy before the war, and re-presents their strategy every so often to remind the press that they have one, but the press always forgets. I agree that Bush needs to be more forceful. It seems with Democrats you have to repeatedly remind them of what was said or they forget. (All right, Republicans too, but Democrats more often lately.) but I believe we would both like the reporters to do some reporting.
I'm referring you to all these links so as to keep reminding you of the truth: those of us who were, are and will remain pro-war have always had excellent reasons for our position, as well as a coherent grand strategy for the broader conflict.
Exactly. It's like she didn't even listen to Bush's speech. Maybe she shouldn't write her remarks beforehand. Now Ara will probably point out something that Republicans like me gloss over. And he'll be right. But lately, since the Democrats are trying to change their minds without admitting they were wrong, they've done more of it. Trying to change your mind and blaming someone else that you got it wrong is very tricky. Considering how well they've been doing with tricky strategies lately, I suggest they go for something simpler.
It only tells me that you and your buddies have no military background because you seem confused as to the meaning of major combat operations.
I don't need to have a military background to understand what that means, nor do I need a military background to understand what "Mission Accomplished" means.
Pam, Wince:
Pelosi said this: "I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable." Bush hasn't presented a plan for that; Murtha has.
I'll say it again -- if Murtha becomes the face of the Democratic Party, Republicans are going to get creamed next November.
The top Democrat in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, endorsed a proposal by a senior member of her party calling for an quick pullout of US troops from Iraq.
That is the plan. Pull out quickly. Cut and run. We can't win.
Funny that vote was 403 to 3 and she wasn't one of the 3! That makes her a liar! A lying liar!
The Democratic leaders said the speech failed to give a clear indication of a White House exit plan from Iraq.
It's a nice claim with no basis in reality. Bush has been explaining his exit plan for a long time now. I think since 2001. I am very tired of either the fake obtuseness or the utterly misleading spin the Democrats have chosen. They could have an honest debate about the significant differences between Murtha's plan and Bush's plan (if the Republicans let them, which admittedly, they are not), but no, they claim no plan. One of those differences is that Murtha's plan has timetables for the enemy to game. One of the lessons of Vietnam is that timetables are a bad idea, because your enemy will take advantage of them. Thus, Murtha is planning on reducing our security from the get go.
And frankly I'm not sure the Republicans in charge should engage the Democratic leaders in honest debate. After all, the Democratic leaders have been misleading some of us - not me - with the no plan charge for about four years, and show no signs of stopping, so I'm not sure thaey deserve the time of day, much less an honest debate for them to twist, distort and lie about.
Bush has been explaining his exit plan for a long time now. I think since 2001.
Well, I may not be reading the appropriate newspapers, but I haven't seen anything tied to aything measureable. Not even "we'll leave when asked to by the Iraqi government."
If you've seen anything precise, I'd like to know about it.
Measureable? Measureable? It took over 150 years before we started measuring the effectiveness of public schools, something that we know how to measure. I'm deeply suspicious of the notion. Looks like a fool's errand to me.
Would you consider "we'll leave Iraq if the elected Iraqi government asks us to" as being a measurable milestone for departure?
Sorry Wince, but just saying that the mission is accomplished (sorry, re-accomplished) when (insert stock phrase about defeating terrorism or liberty walking the land here) isn't a plan. It's wiggle room.
I think it's fine to say things like "the military and political situation is fluid, and we can't present a plan to withdraw when conditions are changing." Really, I do. But let's not call this "explaining an exit plan."
Well I guess that's measureable, although I would never choose that word to describe it. Your characterization of Bush's plan, however, does not match Bush's actual plan.
Your characterization of Bush's plan, however, does not match Bush's actual plan.
I read it the day it was released. The reason that I say that the goals are not measurable is because they define victory in subjective terms. For example,
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
These are all pretty feelgood conditions, but there is nothing specific to measure whether they have been attained. For example, "peaceful." If terrorism in Iraq is reduced to, say, one bombing a month, is that considered peaceful? Does measurement of "peaceful" include crime statistics? Similarily, how does one measure whether Iraq is a partner on the global war on terror or not?
This is a PR document, not a specific plan. It's a good PR document, and I thought its release worthwhile, but it isn't an exit plan.
This is a PR document, not a specific plan. It's a good PR document, and I thought its release worthwhile, but it isn't an exit plan.
Nonsense. This is exactly the sort of plan for a military operation which is appropriate at the political level. We had political micromanagers in the Clinton, Carter and Johnson White Houses and it never went well.
This is exactly the sort of plan for a military operation which is appropriate at the political level.
I never said it was inappropriate at the political level, as I think it quite appropriate at that level. I said it was a PR document, not an exit plan.
An honest question here: Who is his target audience? I don't see it as those I
fightagree to disagree with here, so who is it?More interesting to me than the answer to the question you've posed, would be the result of the question being answered.
Who is his target audience?
Not me. I don't find his stuff "humorous."
But, hey, it's a free country.
Yours,
Wince
If it's genetic, there will likely be a push to manipulate our makeup so such genes do not hamper the humanity of society.
If chemical, the man needs his meds... now.
If it is his choice, the arguement for the existance of evil has new evidence.
But then even if the others are true, should he not embrace humnity by using his own free will to fight his own anti-social urges? There's always a choice.
I don't question the man's patriotism. It's obvious by his years of 'cartoon' (bwah, hack crap is more like it) that he has none. One can not question that which does not exist.
That said, too bad a bomb can't 'go astray' by several thousand miles...
I don't think it was meant to be.
It seems to be an allegorical depiction of the U.S. actions in Iraq. That is, how we're screwing over the promise of something that should be something different. Like the joy of dating.
Regardless, it's crass.
Ron
This leads me back to my biggest complaint about the administration: it should have been explaining stuff like this all along. I knew it, because I read Den Beste. I'm only middling good at the complex sort of systems thinking that Den Beste and the Opiniated B-st-rd do so well, but I am good enough at it that when it is explained, I get it.
And Ara, he explains troop levels, too. Would it surprise you to hear that your strategy (more troops, more troops, more troops) is the one that failed in Vietnam and that Vietnamization (where we draw down our troops and turn it over to the locals) is the one the worked.
In fact, Iraq is beginning to look like the reverse of Vietnam in many ways - notice how we are avoiding the puppet government syndrome, so much so that the people are allowed to tell us they want us out! (Even though I still hope they change their minds I have never said I wanted us to stay if they tell us to get out.)
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
That's not my strategy. Where did you get that idea?
is the one that failed in Vietnam and that Vietnamization (where we draw down our troops and turn it over to the locals) is the one the worked.
Wince, everything failed in Viet Nam. What on earth are you talking about?
As far as Bush's "plan," I tuned him out this morning after a few minutes. You know, you just can't trust anything he says -- instead, you have to watch what he does.
But...can you please, briefly summarize for me: How many troops are coming out? When? Which ones come out first? Where do they go? Who stays behind? What will they be doing? And so forth.
You know....what is the actual plan?
This should tell you everything you need to know about the Bush administration.
If you click through enough links you get to Melvin Laird. Vietnamization worked in Vietnam right up to the point where we cut off military aid to the South while the U.S.S.R. kept violating the peace treaty and sending triple the agreed aid to the North. And yes, I blame the Democrats in Congress including the dastardly Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy for pitching honor out the window and selling Vietnam and Cambodia to the Coummunists. I also blame Nixon for the Watergate coverup, which weakened him and Ford to the point where they couldn't fight for what was right. We needed leaders with spines like Churchill and Thatcher. We got Neville Chamberlain.
Baby boomers! What a perverse and cowardly generation we belong to.
Bush presented their strategy before the war, and re-presents their strategy every so often to remind the press that they have one, but the press always forgets. I agree that Bush needs to be more forceful. It seems with Democrats you have to repeatedly remind them of what was said or they forget. (All right, Republicans too, but Democrats more often lately.) but I believe we would both like the reporters to do some reporting.
I'm referring you to all these links so as to keep reminding you of the truth: those of us who were, are and will remain pro-war have always had excellent reasons for our position, as well as a coherent grand strategy for the broader conflict.
Yours,
Wince
Kind of like this Wince?
Exactly. It's like she didn't even listen to Bush's speech. Maybe she shouldn't write her remarks beforehand. Now Ara will probably point out something that Republicans like me gloss over. And he'll be right. But lately, since the Democrats are trying to change their minds without admitting they were wrong, they've done more of it. Trying to change your mind and blaming someone else that you got it wrong is very tricky. Considering how well they've been doing with tricky strategies lately, I suggest they go for something simpler.
Yours,
Wince
It only tells me that you and your buddies have no military background because you seem confused as to the meaning of major combat operations.
I don't need to have a military background to understand what that means, nor do I need a military background to understand what "Mission Accomplished" means.
Pam, Wince:
Pelosi said this: "I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable." Bush hasn't presented a plan for that; Murtha has.
I'll say it again -- if Murtha becomes the face of the Democratic Party, Republicans are going to get creamed next November.
Funny that vote was 403 to 3 and she wasn't one of the 3! That makes her a liar! A lying liar!
I was thinking about this sentence:
The Democratic leaders said the speech failed to give a clear indication of a White House exit plan from Iraq.
It's a nice claim with no basis in reality. Bush has been explaining his exit plan for a long time now. I think since 2001. I am very tired of either the fake obtuseness or the utterly misleading spin the Democrats have chosen. They could have an honest debate about the significant differences between Murtha's plan and Bush's plan (if the Republicans let them, which admittedly, they are not), but no, they claim no plan. One of those differences is that Murtha's plan has timetables for the enemy to game. One of the lessons of Vietnam is that timetables are a bad idea, because your enemy will take advantage of them. Thus, Murtha is planning on reducing our security from the get go.
And frankly I'm not sure the Republicans in charge should engage the Democratic leaders in honest debate. After all, the Democratic leaders have been misleading some of us - not me - with the no plan charge for about four years, and show no signs of stopping, so I'm not sure thaey deserve the time of day, much less an honest debate for them to twist, distort and lie about.
Grumble, grumble, grumble, grrrrrr.
Yours,
Wince
Well, I may not be reading the appropriate newspapers, but I haven't seen anything tied to aything measureable. Not even "we'll leave when asked to by the Iraqi government."
If you've seen anything precise, I'd like to know about it.
Measureable? Measureable? It took over 150 years before we started measuring the effectiveness of public schools, something that we know how to measure. I'm deeply suspicious of the notion. Looks like a fool's errand to me.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
Sorry Wince, but just saying that the mission is accomplished (sorry, re-accomplished) when (insert stock phrase about defeating terrorism or liberty walking the land here) isn't a plan. It's wiggle room.
I think it's fine to say things like "the military and political situation is fluid, and we can't present a plan to withdraw when conditions are changing." Really, I do. But let's not call this "explaining an exit plan."
Well I guess that's measureable, although I would never choose that word to describe it. Your characterization of Bush's plan, however, does not match Bush's actual plan.
Yours,
Wince
I read it the day it was released. The reason that I say that the goals are not measurable is because they define victory in subjective terms. For example,These are all pretty feelgood conditions, but there is nothing specific to measure whether they have been attained. For example, "peaceful." If terrorism in Iraq is reduced to, say, one bombing a month, is that considered peaceful? Does measurement of "peaceful" include crime statistics? Similarily, how does one measure whether Iraq is a partner on the global war on terror or not?
This is a PR document, not a specific plan. It's a good PR document, and I thought its release worthwhile, but it isn't an exit plan.
This is a PR document, not a specific plan. It's a good PR document, and I thought its release worthwhile, but it isn't an exit plan.
Nonsense. This is exactly the sort of plan for a military operation which is appropriate at the political level. We had political micromanagers in the Clinton, Carter and Johnson White Houses and it never went well.
Yours,
Wince
I never said it was inappropriate at the political level, as I think it quite appropriate at that level. I said it was a PR document, not an exit plan.