Posts
-n the subject of bias.
Agreed. Suggest you demonstrate bias by talking about Middle East.
[three eyes squint, one rolls, one defocuses] Okay. Turn on the blog function.
On.
Shelob's just been explaining to me that he didn't think he'd demonstrated how polarizing bias really is. I've noticed how extremely views can differ about causality and current situation and motive and--well, everything. Here's an example:
Anti-Obama pundits have claimed variously that Obama after failing to resolve problems in the Middle East, that he, against advice from military, pulled American troops out, destabilizing the area, causing ISIL to form, calling ISIL ISIL, made the problem worse by referring to them as "junior varsity," not having a plan, not putting troops back in, and blaming G.W. Bush for some or all of it.
Pro-Obama pundits claimed variously that Obama inherited the problems of an unstable region, planned all along to let the region do more of their own fighting, and didn't make anything worse by calling ISIL anything. That the current mess can be blamed entirely on Bush. That Obama's right about everything.
1. Obviously problems in the Middle East pre-date America, and, likely, if America were uninvolved, there would be cycles of barbaric ruination and various degrees of renaissance.
2. America wouldn't elect a president for Obama's first term without them having an 'exit plan' for American troops. In this case, Obama was foolish enough to follow a campaign promise like a person instead of a politician, so that he could be hated for it later instead of right then. --So it's actually the American people that didn't listen to the military. Obama listened to America and did what it said. THAT WAS PARTLY THE WRONG CALL. The average American voter does only have the average American intelligence.
3. If ISIL hadn't formed now, it would have happened later. Was America to occupy Iraq forever? The Middle East has never been stable for an impressive length of time . . . see #1.
4. Calling ISIL ISIL is actually logical, as it points out how ISILated they apparently wish to be. Calling them junior varsity is logical, as it points out how much intelligence it took to form, how much philosophy it took to pervert a world religion, how much wisdom it took to declare war on most of the world, and how much good sense it took to incorporate trades (marketing) and other elements in a new way. We're all lucky they don't deserve to be called varsity. The home team is guaranteed an easy win if it just doesn't get called out the wrong way. I suppose the Republican party wants to try healing America's economy with a war? It didn't hurt America to call ISIL names. It might be time to openly mock them--belief in free speech comes from being not so insecure as most other governing bodies. It's the coward that can't allow truth to be heard or is worried a majority will believe a lie that censors more.
5. Clearly, by the timing, Obama's plan was to rescue a few people with small missions and not to reverse himself by sending too much of anything back to Iraq. It's a shame those plans didn't work as well as he'd hoped. Pundits trying to claim there was no plan haven't paid attention to the news. More details are easily extrapolated in both emotional directions.
6. Blaming the former president for the former aggression? Well, he was involved. Interestingly enough, Americans were enthusiastic about the operations and temporary occupation for a while. America flip-flopped. What does fascinate me is that apparently no American president has the power and authority to properly set up a lasting pro-American government in a foreign nation. Congress must assist, if I understand correctly. It looks like Obama should have blamed Congress too?
That about wraps it up. The two sides are pretty messed up. Here's hopin' for progress. [disconnect]
No comments:
Post a Comment