Article

2005-01-14 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-01-14 9:14:27 AM|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Heads You Lose, Tails We Win"

Beautiful summary of the ankle-biters and pundits. They'll have their fun decrying everything in Iraq that isn't perfect - at least until something of substance occurs, such as the elections. If they come off with any measure of success, the wankers will pull their Afghan Ploy, shifting focus without a word of fess-up for being wrong and asinine in extremis, and go write about some other as yet undecided ongoing issue and decry it - until substance drives them away from it, as well.

Substance is something about which the wankers are understandably wary - having none themselves and never having created any.

Posted by .com 2005-01-14 10:18:29 AM|| 2005-01-14 10:18:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 NPR, NYT; The Lord Halifaxes of the WoT.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-14 10:41:59 AM|| 2005-01-14 10:41:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 NPR, WaPo, NYT, Dummycrats all make half arguments. For example, their claim that unless the Sunnis vote in mass the election will be (presumably) illegitimate.

Do they offer the other half of the argument which is: What happens if no election takes place? NO

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-14 11:10:53 AM|| 2005-01-14 11:10:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I always love the WWII analogies that VDH uses so well. Lucky for us the MSM 24hr spin cycle did not exist at that time - we would have pulled out before ever getting to Normandy. It never ceases to amaze me how many short-sited spineless pussies have so much access to shaping people's opinions on this war. How quickly this country forgets its own past wars.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-14 11:12:37 AM|| 2005-01-14 11:12:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Spot on, Jarhead, lol! Those who can't do, angle for the jobs where they can pass judgement on those who can and do. The Zero Deliverables crowd. They own the MSM, most of the Education System, the Civil Service, much of the upper and upper-middle management corporate positions, and a helluvalot of the political postions, both among officeholders and consultants. Sad and pathetic.

If we could take their children away from them to prevent indoctrination in LLL memes, why then it would only take about 1.5 generations to end it.

As things stand, however...

Posted by .com 2005-01-14 11:20:18 AM|| 2005-01-14 11:20:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 .com, I was just discussing w/a friend the other day that IIRC only about 40% of colonists favored going to war w/England and roughly the same amount of Northerners during the CW supported fighting to keep the Union together - amazing. Thank God for the 'cowboys' Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and GWB.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-14 11:28:12 AM|| 2005-01-14 11:28:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 We lost 7,000 soldiers trying to cross the Elbe river in Italy in 1943. Many blame Mark Clark for lapses in leadership, and I second the motion. But, Mark Clark did carry on and yes the Allies did reach Rome. The question here is Rumsfeld's head is on a platter because we don't have armoured Humvees. Armour is a good idea and the men doing the fighting deserve the best we can give them. Note: "the best we can give them". The Media want us to fight a war where no one dies. That's why censorship gave us the victory in WWII and could cost us defeat in WWIII.

Posted by Rightwing 2005-01-14 11:29:11 AM|| 2005-01-14 11:29:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Jarhead - Sorry I didn't see #6 sooner. I think you're dead right about the CW - that topic I know a little about, thanks to Shelby Foote and a few others who can tell the story. For the North, it was a close-run thing, given Lincoln's back-stabbing cabinet and the low support. The NY draft riots are a good example - Lincoln had to suspend habeus corpus and use harsh methods to subdue them.

As for the support level in the RW, I'm not sure, but it was not better than 50-50. I read a fascinating account of Franklin vs his son - on opposite sides, of course, with a very sad end - and I believe that it was stressed that public support was less than 50%.

Observation: I think the real key was the rural nature of America in both instances. People had a full plate running their farms, for the two time periods I think approx 80% and 65% (respectively) of the population were farmers, working from dawn to dusk... didn't leave a lot of time for getting involved in politics.

Today we have the opposite - way too many people with way too much time and doing way too little thinking before jumping, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-01-14 5:15:31 PM|| 2005-01-14 5:15:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Given the recent study showing that only 4 in ten trust MSM, I suspect that the pundits have had far less impact than envisioned.

The credibilty challenge for MSM and armed chair generals is that it is hard for them to stake a winning position, given so many angles and the fluidity of Iraq.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-14 10:29:39 PM|| 2005-01-14 10:29:39 PM|| Front Page Top

23:58 Barbara Skolaut
23:56 Frank G
23:55 Frank G
23:54 Frank G
23:51 Atomic Conspiracy
23:51 Barry Bonds
23:47 Dishman
23:39 Aris Katsaris
23:36 Angash Elminelet3775
23:35 Alaska Paul
23:33 Aris Katsaris
23:33 lex
23:24 Atomic Conspiracy
23:16 Anonymoose
23:11 Karl Rove
23:09 Dishman
23:09 lex
22:59 Atomic Conspiracy
22:54 SwissTex
22:50 Captain America
22:48 lex
22:47 Frank G
22:46 anon
22:44 Frank G