Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Iraqi Airways flying again

Iraqi Airways resumed international flights for the first time in 14 years, with a plane taking off Saturday from neighboring Jordan for Baghdad and another leaving the Iraqi capital for Damascus, Syria.

Discussions - 9 Comments

That is NOT a good article on how things are going in Iraq. That is an editorial, disquised as reporting, attempting to paint the most negative picture possible of what is happening. It is nothing but a parrot of all of the bad news pieces that have emerged from other sources this week, intended to sway public opinion away from the important - and successful - work that is being accomplished. This "reporter" has certainly never left Baghdad; has never seen the thousands of villages that are experiencing freedom and democracy and rejoicing with the process. This type of "reporting" makes me angry and sick to my stomach. It is incomplete, dishonest, and damn near criminal. To think that the American public is buying this sack of (manure) disguised as fact is pitiful and depressing.

Here’s a real newsflash: Fallujah is a bad place. Sadr city is a bad place. Najaf is a bad place. In war, soldiers die. In war, the enemy tries to kill you and you do everything you can to kill him. These are facts. These are unshocking, are unsurprising, and are NOT news. Now, how about an honest effort at reporting the great things that are happening every day in Iraq? That would be a good article.

Could you please explain your rationale behind why bad things happening in war are not news items while good things are?

Should a person ask the price of a car before purchasing it, or should he only inquire further about the heated seats?

By the way, Naum, military service does not automatically give you the correct opinion on this war.

Joe I: Those bad things that happen in Iraq are certainly news - perhaps I wasn’t clear. What I was attempting to convey is that presenting the same stories over, and over, and over (as was offered in this supposed "good article of how things are going in Iraq") is not news. The same bad news, repeated again and again to the exclusion of all other information, at some point ceases to be "news." It’s just a continued beat-down. A good article of how things are going in Iraq would definitely, and honestly, include a picture of the great things that are happening. This would absolutely be news - as nobody back home hears it. It would be foolish indeed to purchase a car exclusively on the price, without inquiring as to the benefit that the purchase brings.

LT Joe: No, but military service in Iraq gives me a more informed - though certainly incomplete - opinion than some; and I don’t recall claiming a monopoly on Truth. Even so, what’s the point in offering an opinion if you don’t believe it’s correct? On this subject, I believe I’m correct - whether due to my military service or not - and I will defend it, and the work that I do, unashamedly. Objectively, though not automatically, I may indeed be correct; and I will not stand idle if I can speak. I assume by your title that you, or at least many of your Marines and comrades, have credible knowledge and an informed opinion of what’s happening in Iraq - especially in Fallujah. So rather than simply attack me for my opinion (I assume that you don’t agree), offer yours. Confront my opinion with your opinion. That’s what the marketplace of ideas is all about. It happens to be my opinion that most members of the press are doing an ignoble job (which is their vocation) of facilitating that marketplace.

I choose to highlight the costs of this war because the "benefits" are spawned from illegitimate actions of our government.

It is my opinion, as I have stated, that this war violates the oath that military personnnel took and is contrary to the true purpose of government. I will never pledge to overthrow tyrannies so that foreigners may be rid of them. I will not kill for another country.

I pledged to defend the Constitution and only the Constitution.

So, these "benefits" may be nice to have, but they are part a larger fallacy where it was decided that this war is more important than the United States of America.

So then, what does it mean to you to defend the Constitution? Surely there are concepts more abstract than defending the National Archives building. What war have we ever fought in defense of the Constitution and only the Constitution?

Furthermore, what is the true purpose of government? And if you would not kill for another country, to free them of tyranny, then am I right that any war - under your position - that causes soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to do so is an illegitimate war? If this is so, be very careful of the consequences and implications of what you claim. Many others have made this claim throughout history and have been proven wrong by history.

Joe, don’t forget that the war is not framed simply as no WMDs but good results from regime change now as a justification. President Bush has consistently framed the overthrow of Saddam in terms of American interests and security and how it was endangered not only from a country that everyone believed had WMDs but also is a part of the axis of evil that is a terrorist state and harbored terrorists. So, in that sense, the regime was a threat to the Constitution and self-government itself.

In addition, other wars in history such as World War II could be framed as unjust with your view. Germany did not threaten the American Constitution, even after it simply threw out a declaration of war against the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. The U.S. could have sat behind the ocean and argued that Germany did not threaten it. Clearly many believed that and a declaration of war against Germany without Germany’s declaration probably would have been defeated by Congress. But, the Nazis did in fact threaten American interests indirectly mostly by their assaults on freedom and self-government not to mention things like trade.

Hey Joe-
Your military service does not give you any more of a qualified voice when it comes to matters constitutional. You have trotted out this same argument on other postings on this website. Give it a rest. We understand that your interpretation of the constitution does not provide for the current military activity in Iraq.
Naum’s boots are on the ground in the area in question, so he gets a bigger voice, in my opinion. What any of this has to do with the Iraqi airline up and running again is beyond me.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5002