Skip to main content

View Diary: The Iraq Election: Defining Success (489 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm (4.00)
    I think your sense is wrong.

    What most people here are expressing is 1) well-justified skepticism and cynicism about this administration's ability and intent to actually do something good for the Iraqi people, 2) well-justified skepticism and cynicism about any claims made by this administration, and 3) a strong suspicion that what's actually going on is a PR stunt.

    I must also note that I think your assertion smacks heavily of typical right-wing talking points.  If you're here to incite and troll, you won't get very far.  If you're honestly confused, I suspect you re-evaluate.  Kossacks have much good reason to be pessimists about this deal.

    •  Err (none)
      should be "suggest" you re-evaluate.

      I think you're likely on the up-and-up, but please.  There are so many reasons to think that, even if this election turned out to be a smashing success and liberal democracy flourished henceforth in Iraq, the war and occupation have been spectacularly bungled, that I don't think there's much need for people "on the Left" to hope for disaster in this instance.

      Bush is a gift that keeps on giving to liberals everywhere.  There's no reason to think he'll be lauded as a hero for all time, regardless of how things turn out.

    •  confused? troll? (none)
      J.S. speaks of feelings that any thoughtful person opposed to the war must struggle with.  To even suggest a troll rating is reactionary.  I for one do not want to see America ever do again what it's done in Iraq.  The most certain insurance that we will not would be the total failure of what we've done in Iraq.  But to hope for that is to hope for misery, death, suffering, etc. for the Iraqi peopole. The Bush administration has been a profound spiritual challenge for me, perhaps the most difficult I've faced (not that my spiritual difficulties are as mportant as the death or suffering of a single person), for this reason.  I want to pray for what's best for the Iraqi people and I want to pray for what's best for the world.  A neocon would say "No problem, pray for success in Iraq," but for those of us who think that an American attack on a sovereign country that has not attacked us or our allies is a very bad thing, it's not that simple.  Just what do we pray for?
      •  I disagree (none)
        I've spent many years arguing politics online, in many forums, so I don't cry "troll" lightly

        I didn't mention the possibility of J.S. being a troll because he/she "spoke of feelings of a thoughtful person".  I did so because 1) he/she expressed an opinion of many "on the Left" that could have been quoted verbatim from those on the right, including freepers, and 2) his/her tone implied that people here just couldn't face the fact of Bush's greatness.  That's a pretty unusual combination coming from a legitimate poster.  In fact, I thought the original post was fairly inciting.

        Perhaps this was a false alarm, and based upon J.S.'s other postings in other forums, I think that's a good bet.  Nonetheless, I do think his/her original post misinterpreted the sentiments of posters here today.

        •  thought control (none)
          If a freeper might think it, then you can't think it.  Got it.  I was confused at first about who's calling the shots here.  For a minute I thought it was us.
          •  You can think anything you want (none)
            ...and I didn't claim otherwise.  

            But you don't have the right to expect everyone to agree with you, or accept your position.

            Or, for that matter, to refrain from calling you a troll, if that's really what you are.

            Please don't be overdramatic.

            •  Heh n/t (none)

              "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

              by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:54:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  over dramatic (none)
              I suggested that calling someone a troll for writing something you disapprove of is an over-reaction, and you call that over dramatic?  Or was it my reaction to your suggeting that troll calling is an appropriate reaction to anyone who says something that might sound like something said by a freeper?
              •  First of all... (none)
                ...I did not call anyone a "troll".  Second, I did not and would not do that simply for "writing something I disapprove of".  I noted that the original poster might be trolling because the content of the original post looked like something a troll might write.  Namely, it looked to be something a wingnut might post merely to get a reaction.

                As I've also stated, I think I was probably wrong on that score, judging by other things the poster has written elsewhere.  But I don't apologize for suspecting that he or she was trolling here, based on the original post alone.  It was, in fact, rather inflammatory, and IMHO badly mischaracterized the sentiments and the motives at dKos regarding the Iraqi elections.

                Honest-to-goodness trolling does happen at dKos, you know, and it wastes everyone's time.  That's why there's a rating system that includes "troll" and "super-troll" as options...

                •  responding to trolls (none)
                  I've been on sites pestered with trolls baiting readers on abortion, etc.  I've suggested pledging as a response--that is that each person responding to an abortion obsessed troll pledge to donate $5 to their local Planned Parnthood clinic each time they respond.  That way, something good actually comes of feeding the troll and the troll himself/herself gets twisted in knots about baiting others to respond.  As  for the comment you originally responded to, I've seen a lot of kossacks on yeterday's open threads struggling with similar uncertainties, though maybe not in such provocative language.  But I've seen a lot more provocative language passing for civil discourse on this site, not intended to challenge the prevailing wisdom, but rather to silence uncertainty and wavering.  I'm not thinking of your post in that category, which was pretty civil even if it did play the "troll" card.  My criticism of that was really an afterthought; the substance of my feelings was what I'd hoped would matter.  In that I miscalculated and so will shut up.
                  •  I hope you don't (none)
                    shut up, that is.

                    I may disagree with you regarding this one thing, but you don't give up easily and it seems to me you want to advocate the free exchange of ideas.  It's pretty tough to argue against that :)

                    •  Thanks (none)
                      I was reading David Brock's Republican Noise Machine last night, and he compared the rationale for right-wing talk radio to the rationale for all jazz or all country stations.  People who tune in for jazz don't want to have country intrude, etc.  Even as he was deploringthis rationale pushing its way into the shpere of plitical speech, I was thinking to myseld that my own favorite stations are those that play good jazz ("Fables for Faubus"), good country ("There's a dark and a toubled side of life . . ."), good rock (But PowerCo couldn't cut Sun down/She was welded to the eagle's beak"), good reggae (Funky Kingston!), good hip-hop (The Miseducation of . . .), etc.  None of this means I want to see freepers on dKos--check the word "good" above--but that I want to see the full exchange of thoughtful ideas.  I'm glad we're on the same page about that.  Differences in rhetorical sensibility shouldn't obscure common interests.  (My own rhetorical sensibility derives in part from having lived long enough to have said a lot of things I wish I hadn't.  The word, once uttered, can never be recalled.  I've learned that the hard way too many times.  Maybe even this time!)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site