T Nation

New US Iraq Strategy: Staying Put


Here is a neutral account of a new strategy being used in certain parts of Iraq which I found interesting.


Interestingly, I found the link to this story at the very top of the front page of Antiwar.com, a well known site for international news as well as non-interventionist viewpoints.


That is a charitable description.


The article's from the Christian Science Monitor though, which is about as respectable and unbiased a paper as you can find these days.


I don't think so. The site makes no secret of its political leanings (libertarian/paleo-conservative/non-interventionist). But there are two sections to the site, the editorials and the front page news links. The latter is an excellent source of information about foreign affairs, even if you disagree with the editorials. The fact is that mainstream news sources don't report international news because most people in this country simply don't know and don't care.


I chose to post this news link specifically due to its neutral point of view, and the fact that it was at the top of Antiwar's front page says a lot about their neutrality, as well.


antiwar.com is far from neutral.


This is utterly irrelevant; the linked article is from the Christian Science Monitor.


NP was making a point about antiwar.com as was I.


The point I was making had a lot to do with the distinction between the editorials and the front page news links on the site. I'm not sure you got this. In any case, your response did nothing to address it.

Antiwar.com is no different than an ordinary newspaper in that it displays neutral information in one area and non-neutral analysis of that information elsewhere. Whichever political bias it holds in its editorial content, it freely admits to.


You are sadly confused.


I can't help but notice that you and other neocons always come from a philosophical position of absolute objectivity. That is to say, you not only believe in the existence of absolute truth, but you seem convinced that it is some privileged domain to which only a few can be granted access.

Naturally, you consider yourself to be one of the few, and so it follows that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong and is hardly worth addressing, except as a source of comedic entertainment (the universal justification provided by your intellectual peers for their continued presence on this forum).

The latter is as infantile a mentality as one could possibly hold, but I can see exactly where it's coming from. I do believe we have Christianity to thank, in large part, for the tangled mess that is the typical neocon world view.

Everything can be reduced to philosophy. A person who has a completely warped basis in metaphysics is nearly impossible to reason with and all but incurable, since he usually has no direct conception of his own metaphysical foundation (most people aren't philosophy students).

It's quite a shame, but this theory sheds plenty of light on things that would otherwise remain mysteries of human nature.


This is silly. It has nothing to do with the FACT that antiwar.com is not objective and it has an antiwar agenda.

BTW I also think you don't know what a neocon is.



That antiwar.com's tagline is, word for word:

"Your best source for antiwar news, viewpoints, and activities"

So maybe it's a valid conclusion to say that there is a bit of a slant in regards to the treatment of the Iraq occupation issue... among other things?

The links provided on the front page of the site are chosen for their negative content, which is their prerogative of course, but this is hardly the policy of a neutral reporting media outlet.


Now, YOU are beinging charitable.



Please don't stop! This is better than Chapelle!

Are you connected somehow to a guy named Tim Phoenix?



Why yes, that would certainly be a valid conclusion to draw from reading the tagline. However, it is contradicted by the evidence I presented in the form of the article.

They quite obviously aren't. What was negative about this article? I thought it was a relatively positive account of American progress in Iraq. And as I mentioned before, it was sitting at the very top of Antiwar's news page, in large print. Likewise with the US-favorable news regarding Zarqawi's death, a day later. There really are two seperate components of the site. And one of them really is neutral, or damn close to it.


The problem is, you're not actually laughing. No person with a shred of sanity (a condition which you meet, though barely) gets behind a computer screen every day and "laughs" at bullshit that gets posted on an online political board. I mean, I'd love to see that, just for the sheer novelty. But as it is, I'm not buying it. Not only because it's highly implausible, but because it serves as far too convenient an excuse for you to weasel your way out of replying to an argument. I mean, do you really believe that I (or anyone else) can't see straight through such a tactic? My suspicion is that you simply don't care.

At this point, I will make the observation that you use debate tactics favored by morons which I have encountered across the internet.

This is a neutral statement, from my point of view. I'm not calling you a moron or necessarily implying that you are one, I'm just pointing out that you use identical tactics to morons which I've encountered.

The "pretend laughter" is one of the most common tactics I've run across. You've gotta admit, it's extraordinarily lame in an online setting. Nobody has the means to verify that you're actually laughing, and nobody is going to be so taken in by your e-laughter that they will spontaneously forget that you just dodged their question.

But in the remote possibility that you are, indeed, "laughing" at what gets posted on this forum, and thus certifiably insane, I would highly recommend paging through a dictionary or encyclopedia. If you found my post amusing, those will probably have you in tears for a long time to come. You can thank me later.


Dude, when I visited the site just now, the articles about Zarqawi were blubbering about questions raised by his autopsy and how results are being withheld -- and as for the article you posted at the top of this page:

Yes, it has a somewhat more positive slant than the rest of antiwar.com's drudgery, but if you read between the lines of the article, one surmises that it is espousing that the only hope of gaining any ground in Iraq is to increase our troop presence many times over. If you are an antiwar guy, this is reason to scream in protest... which is anybody's prerogative of course, but hardly a neutral stance... yet again.

I like positive news from Iraq. I started a thread about it a few months ago. I like hearing how we are winning against tyranny. I liked your post.


The reason antiwar.com has it linked on its website has nothing to do with how "neutral" antiwar.com is. They have ulterior motives here... which they freely admit right at the top of the page. Go to antiwar.com right now. The top story is "50,000 GIs in Iraq 'for Many Years'"

Which is, of course, more "neutral" reporting. With ulterior motives. Tell me you can see this now.


He surfs the net hunting for us, guys. Maybe he's the Thought Police, constantly on guard against us evil thinkers. "You, Headhunter, are guilty of thought-crime and are hereby consigned to room 101."

Look, Tim, come clean. Admit who you are and we'll all have a good laugh.



I really, REALLY am laughing at this post. This is pure gold! "If you won't argue with my stupidity, then you're insane!" Oh wait, correction: "certifiably insane".

See what a little freedom does to immigrants, like NP? They come here and go nuts; yet WE'RE the one who're crazy! ROFLMAO!!



He'd never admit that. He's Ted Kennedy's bitch. See where he's from?



He's right though, you generally do use the same tactics as morons, preferring to play little games than actually make a coherent argument of your own.

Yes, I'm checking my watch to see how long it takes for this comment to be used against me...