Comments on: The Opposite of “Support” http://donklephant.com/2005/07/29/the-opposite-of-support/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Joshua http://donklephant.com/2005/07/29/the-opposite-of-support/comment-page-1/#comment-818 Joshua Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:35:03 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=468#comment-818 <i><blockquote>WASHINGTON â€â€? The administration’s talk about sharply reducing the number of American troops in Iraq starting as early as next spring gets a strong endorsement from military experts, both those who support the war and those who question it.</blockquote> The newspaper’s writer chooses to see the spectrum of opinion about the Iraq War as black and white. Or rather, black and gray. On the one side, people “supportâ€Â? the war. The opposite of “supportâ€Â? typically is “oppose.â€Â? But not here. Here they merely “questionâ€Â? it.</i> That's not the only way to interpret the author's choice of words. Maybe their talk isn't being endorsed by those who flat-out oppose the war (who presumably would want the troops to come home now, not next spring). Or maybe no military experts known to the author have gone on record as explicitly opposing the war. Or, as I suspect, maybe the author is treating "question" and "oppose" as though they are synonymous, at least as far as the Iraq war is concerned. The implication of this: Those who support the war must have never seriously questioned it, and those who do seriously question the war are bound to oppose it. A false dichotomy, to be sure, but given how the news media thrives on conflict, not a surprising one.
WASHINGTON � The administration’s talk about sharply reducing the number of American troops in Iraq starting as early as next spring gets a strong endorsement from military experts, both those who support the war and those who question it.

The newspaper’s writer chooses to see the spectrum of opinion about the Iraq War as black and white. Or rather, black and gray. On the one side, people “support� the war. The opposite of “support� typically is “oppose.� But not here. Here they merely “question� it.

That’s not the only way to interpret the author’s choice of words. Maybe their talk isn’t being endorsed by those who flat-out oppose the war (who presumably would want the troops to come home now, not next spring). Or maybe no military experts known to the author have gone on record as explicitly opposing the war.

Or, as I suspect, maybe the author is treating “question” and “oppose” as though they are synonymous, at least as far as the Iraq war is concerned. The implication of this: Those who support the war must have never seriously questioned it, and those who do seriously question the war are bound to oppose it. A false dichotomy, to be sure, but given how the news media thrives on conflict, not a surprising one.

]]> By: Callimachus http://donklephant.com/2005/07/29/the-opposite-of-support/comment-page-1/#comment-806 Callimachus Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:50:25 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=468#comment-806 <blockquote> <i>Because America can NOT win in Iraq � only Iraqis can win. America can choose to stay and help democratic Iraqis win; or leave too soon and let the death squad Iraqis win.</i> </blockquote> Exactly. That's about the wisest, and most terse, summation I've read of the current situation.

Because America can NOT win in Iraq � only Iraqis can win. America can choose to stay and help democratic Iraqis win; or leave too soon and let the death squad Iraqis win.

Exactly. That’s about the wisest, and most terse, summation I’ve read of the current situation.

]]> By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad http://donklephant.com/2005/07/29/the-opposite-of-support/comment-page-1/#comment-798 Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:03:59 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=468#comment-798 The "failure of execution" is actually a mislabelled demand for Unreal Perfection. If an Iraq Constitution is approved, and a multi-party, Free Press country of Iraq evolves with less than 2500 US soldiers killed, it is a HUGE success for Bush, Rumsfeld, and the USA (and the world, AND especially Iraq). Where has it been done better? What would non-failure have looked like? If these questions are not explicitly answered, the criticism of Bush is more like whining about the costs. Any policy involves costs; except Unreal Perfection. "Not enough troops" -- for Occupation. There were plenty for Liberation; and the fault for the terrorists is on the mostly Iraqi Sunni Arabs who support the terrorists. I question Bush, and his execution, and try to quantify what failure would look like -- "too many" soldiers being killed. So far, it looks like success. Because America can NOT win in Iraq -- only Iraqis can win. America can choose to stay and help democratic Iraqis win; or leave too soon and let the death squad Iraqis win. Like America let death squad Vietnamese win, 30 years ago. The “failure of execution” is actually a mislabelled demand for Unreal Perfection.
If an Iraq Constitution is approved, and a multi-party, Free Press country of Iraq evolves with less than 2500 US soldiers killed, it is a HUGE success for Bush, Rumsfeld, and the USA (and the world, AND especially Iraq).

Where has it been done better? What would non-failure have looked like? If these questions are not explicitly answered, the criticism of Bush is more like whining about the costs. Any policy involves costs; except Unreal Perfection.

“Not enough troops” — for Occupation. There were plenty for Liberation; and the fault for the terrorists is on the mostly Iraqi Sunni Arabs who support the terrorists.

I question Bush, and his execution, and try to quantify what failure would look like — “too many” soldiers being killed. So far, it looks like success. Because America can NOT win in Iraq — only Iraqis can win. America can choose to stay and help democratic Iraqis win; or leave too soon and let the death squad Iraqis win.

Like America let death squad Vietnamese win, 30 years ago.

]]>