By now mostly everyone should be aware of the awful situation in Fullujah, Iraq. Four people were burned alive and then dragged around the town and then hung from a bridge. The Coalition of Freedom *cough* has completely lost control of the town and is now engaged in a large military operation to take it back.
It's sad and awful. But don't cry, because sunshine is right around the corner.
Just one day after the Fullujah uprising, Paul Bremer, The Administrator for the Coalition Provisional Authority or what I like to call "Puerto Rico of the Middle East," was busy with another kind of liberation problem, the future of Iraq's Olympic Team.
Meanwhile in Fullujah, citizens were still celebrating the four American bodies strung from the bridge. Reportedly there wasn't much rejoicing for the new Olympians as much as there was for killing Yankees.
But let's not bring down the entire country just because of one tiny uprising — back to Spectacle de Logo.
That's great but I still think there's more to Post-Sadam Iraq than dried fruit. Never mind all that rich history of Iraq (or the region thereof) as the center of the world back in Biblical times. And why would English be included in an Iraqi national symbol? The last time Iraq used English for anything was for milk factory propaganda for a western television audience. It's pathetic that our leadership feels the need to have their hand on everything Iraq.
So much for liberation.
PS — Tom points out the new Iraqi symbol has similarity to that of the Nazi Africa Corp of World War II. Nice!
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I guess it's official... Airbag is now no different than the other bitch and moan, anti-Bush sites out there.
It's better designed. ; ) Also, it might be of note that anti-idiocy is not necessarily anti-Bush, despite the efforts of the administration to make it so.
What are the odds, estimately, that the logo is designed in Iraq, by an Iraqi, or by a company from or with affiliations in Iraq?
I guess it's official... TD is now no different than the other bitch and moan, pro-Bush trolls out there.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for confirmation from TD that Richard Clarke is working for the Kerry campaign. Bush troll indeed.
I think Clarke cleared that one up himself in his 9-11 Commission public testimony. The guy Condi picked to succeed him however, resigned the day before we started bombing Baghdad, and is indeed working for Kerry.
Iraq's olympic team used to be the playpen where Saddam left either Uday or Qusai (I can't remember which) to satisfy his sadistic impulses without causing to much trouble for the old man. The athletes were subjected to routine torture and imprisonment.
So sure- the renewal of the team is a symbolic step, but it's one that's worth marking with a frigging photo op and a press release.
"And why would English be included in an Iraqi national symbol? The last time Iraq used English for anything was for milk factory propaganda for a western television audience."
Hey- the Russians also have a bilingual logo for their committee. They must be Halliburton stooges, too.
Would you look at that- the neocon cabal has already knocked down the next domino- Iran!
And as if our empire weren't big enough, now we've apparently annexed India as the 51st state.
I guess it's official... Airbag is now now using a personal blog for to express personal opinions.
Rock on, greg. Hey did I miss you at sxsw or did you end up not attending?!?!
Griff! As for SXSW, I didn't attend. That that reminds me, I owe you a big email.
As for English as a second language on logos —l it's a stupid idea. That's like suggesting the Olympics conduct business in English and French.
I know this has nothing to do with this post directly, and I'm not trying to trivialize the subject or take this post off topic -- but honestly, when I looked at those Olympic rings with their colours for the first time on this page, I immediately thought of the Google logo. Yikes.
Haw Haw! Griff, you are awesome.
So you don't consider 10 straight years of giving money to only Democrats as support?
I will admit I was wrong saying that Clarke is working on the Kerry campaign. I had heard from someone prior to the 60 Minutes broadcast that the person they were interviewing was part of the Kerry campaign, which proved to be untrue. Yet the basis to question Clarke's motives remains, whether you choose to look at the evidence or not.
beerzie boy wrote:
I guess it's official... TD is now no different than the other bitch and moan, pro-Bush trolls out there.
Any objective observer would acknowledge that far and away the majority of complaining has, and continues to come from the left. The good news, be it the economy, the liberation of Iraq, capture of Saddam, is met with little fanfare, unless of course there is some choice criticism by someone on the left, which in case it is reported.
It's typical politics that during an opponents administration you downplay the good, and play-up the bad. Simple enough to understand.
As a foreign born immigrant coming to America it's fairly easy to see which side of the political fence the media has chosen to base its camp.
Regarding Greg's site, I'm completely supportive of his using his site to express his opinions. It's just sad to see his opinions change so dramatically since the site's inception. Joining the bash Bush bandwagon seemed beneath him.
I guess the adage holds up: "If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're old and not conservative, you have no mind." Yet, it seems to be working in reverse in Greg's case.
TD, I share both your initials and your call to not look at things simplistically. In that vein, I'd like to refute the idea that bashing Bush equates with being on one side of a political fence. It's a terribly simplistic analysis to even accept the notion of a clear 'fence' in American politics, despite what El Rushmo would like you to believe. Most Americans are conservative politically, progressive socially. It's quite obvious that neither mainstream party has struck the right mix in their offering to capture an overwhelming majority.
Re: Bush — I think it's clear that much of the emnity generated towards him is less about policy and more about method. He's arrogant, dismissive, and duplicitous. And he is far from 'conservative' — as many critics on the conservative end of the spectrum have pointed out. Rather he is as radically ideological (just 180 degrees in a different political direction) as the activist left that true conservatism condemns.
Bush deserves to be bashed, not because he subscribes to a specific set of ideological values, but because he's a poor steward for America. He must go. We deserve better.
I normally don't take shots at this kind of thing, but does anyone else see a little red flag in the fact that both our president and vice-president have drunk-driving records?
TD, you said, "It's just sad to see his opinions change so dramatically since the site's inception. Joining the bash Bush bandwagon seemed beneath him."
This statement would suggest that I have been pro Bush since, as you say, "since the site's inception", yet as this sites sole author I am puzzled as to when I have ever been one hundred percent behind this administration, or even the last one? If Airbag had been in existence in the 90's you would have read a lot about Clinton as well.
Even when Kerry is elected this fall, he'll be as much of a target as any standing President. I don't believe in supporting the puppets of ideology for the sake of the ideology. I may have some conservative leaning but I'll be damned if I support someone just because they think as I do.
TD: You don't have to be on a bandwagon to understand that Iraq is now in the hands of a puppet regime.
Jared, isn't it more disturbing that the Veep (rhymes with creep) makes his pronouncements from the Davrvocet-covered heights of Mount Limbaugh?
Frankly, the world needs a few more Americans who analyze the Bush administration with a critical eye, if only to act as a counterbalance to the wild hysteria and fearmongering that passes for criticism in the rest of the world. In Europe and Canada, it's hard to find fair criticism that doesn't reduce to knee-jerk American-bashing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize. Tom Dolan's comments are astute: Bush is worth criticizing, not because he's conservative, but because what he stands for is, by and large, in next to nobody's interests -- unless you happen to own an oil company.
And as Greg pointed out, it's not like Clinton was above criticism... every executive leader should be held to close scrutiny; there is too much evidence to indicate that temptation from the power of the office is impossible to ignore.
Bush-brand politics seems to combine the worst of regressive social policies with reckless economic disorder. Lower taxes! Spend gajillions! Work tirelessly to promote a fundamentalist Christian agenda!
TD: Of course criticism seems to come mainly from "the left"--the Bush administration is the most threatening to the people who have the least in common with it. Of course, that assumes that American politics can really be divided into right and left, and I would argue that's a fallacy. Bush is one of the least fiscally conservative leaders in generations, but he obviously isn't "left-wing".
There is no problem with criticism if it's based on substance.
It's true that much of the conservative world is disappointed with Bush for many of his decisions. What I have a problem with is people joining one side or the other and then labeling *everything* their opponents do as idiotic, silly or wrong. This phenomenon is rampant on the left. Far more conservatives cite problems with their leaders, than liberals do with theirs. For their part, they overlook, make excuses or attack the opponent.
Greg wrote:
I may have some conservative leaning but I'll be damned if I support someone just because they think as I do.
That is very sad. That's the whole purpose of this system of government. Why wouldn't you support the people who think like you?
Beerzie, sometimes I think you have to be on meds in order to run this country...
war is pretty sick.
we need to send in many many troops, many stratigic air strikes, but with the pussy war tactics that the falujja's are using makes that impossible. they hide behind women, children, not caring a moment for their lives. they know that the americans will not fire, it will be their head if they do.
my thoughts, beacuse of this, is if they want their city, give it too them. if they want their country, give it to them. if we were to pull out every last force in iraq right now, the fighting will go wayyy down.
the big problem, still, is that the insurgents don't want the democratic government that the americans want them to have. they will kill every last iraqi police officer, every iraqi man, every iraqi women, and every iraqi child that embrace a democratic socioty.
so it all boils down to we want to leave, we should leave, but leaving now would be folly. they say we are getting closer to eliminating the major threat in iraq, but they also said that a year ago today, as baghdad fell. the june 30th government handover is getting close, somehow i doubt we're ready for it.
Gotta chime in...
While I think that Bush is pretty bad, he's still (and would still be) the lesser of two evils.
"Nixon in 2004, because ANYthing's better than Kerry!"
Marc, one of those conservative / liberal folks ... Jefferson, all the way.
off topic - so where is the big email!?!? the suspense is killing me!