Friday, February 16, 2007

Eureka Reporter Opposes Iraq Surge?

Why does this surprise me?

I'm not one of those that believes the editorial opinions of newspapers are always a trickle down from their corporate headquarters. So, I don't think opinions I see in the Eureka Reporter are always in lock step with the opinions of Rob Arkley.

I suppose, more than anything else, I'm surprised because I didn't expect the Eureka Reporter to address the issue of the troop surge in Iraq.


Still, having said all that, it begs the question of how the Arkleys feel about Iraq? They seem to be pretty solid, if not rabid, Bush supporters. I would expect they might be fully behind Bush on this. I'll have to ask the Arkleys next time I get the chance.

42 Comments:

At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob is a huge Bush fan and gets behind Bush whenever he can.

 
At 9:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also hear he is a firm supporter of the surge.

 
At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ER is a day late and a dollar short. When the whole thing blows up and Bush&Co are in prison, they can point out that they didn't back the policies.

 
At 9:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And when you are bowing to mecca at noon and your CD's are buried in the sand along with your musical instruments, wife is in a burkha and isn't allowed to work, your son has been forcibly inscripted into the army, and your daughter is dead because she looked sideways at one of your friends, will you then realize who your real enemy is?

 
At 9:30 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

9:22,yep the leaders who put those repressive regimes into power in the first place.I'm all for digging up Reagan's dead body just so he can be hung and tortured some more just like his buddy Saddam.

 
At 9:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow 9:30! You are one dense hippie! Have you ever lived in a place that was under the rule of Sharia law? If not I urge you to do so for one year. THEN and ONLY THEN will you have any clue as to the reality of fundamentalist islam.

 
At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:51 Have you ever lived in a place that was under the rule of Cherie law? Well stick around bright yuppie cause that day is almost upon us.

 
At 10:15 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Ain't gonna happen. Not unless the U.S. Government and its citizenry impose it upon us. Muslims don't have the military power, whether it be through conventional forces or terrost actions, to force it upon us.

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hence, all religions should be banned.

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"Muslims don't have the military power, whether it be through conventional forces or terrost [sic] actions, to force it upon us."

YET!!

 
At 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After we share democracy with them we'll have nothing to fear. Oh the irony of this thread.

 
At 1:59 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

Yes, 1:49PM. It suddenly became ironic when you introduced your straw man "democracy" in it.

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger Rose said...

YET.

 
At 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The main irony is that we are currently in many muslim countries militarily, yet we're discussing them invading us! HA

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get me!

 
At 7:31 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

3:09PM "...we are currently in many muslim countries militarily,"

Many= Iraq+Afghanistan and?? What about the mosque 2 miles from my home that preaches "death to the infidel"?

 
At 8:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why call it a surge? That's the marketing team's idea. It's an "escalation" of the conflict.

More Americans being sent to needless, pointless death.

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger Carol said...

Well bust my buttons but my eyes almost popped out of my head when I read today's editorial in the ER. All I can say is, "Right-on!"

 
At 9:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you like the idea of wearing a burkha?

 
At 10:03 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

"ER is a day late and a dollar short."
It's unfortunate that they haven't met with your high expectations. I, for one, am happy to have the ER join the opposition to this "surge."

And where does the commenter with the Cyrillic-lettered name live, Pakistan?

 
At 10:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But when are we going to bomb Iran?

Face it boys and girls the day is going to come. I guess the Carson park runger won't like that!

 
At 6:31 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"...And where does the commenter with the Cyrillic[sic]lettered name live, Pakistan?"
"Cyrillic"? LOL. For rangers with public skool indoctrination certificates we will Romanize it: Leonidas. Try northwest Georgia, USA.

 
At 7:59 AM, Blogger Greg said...

How do you pronounce ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ?

 
At 8:13 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

lee Ó nee dahs: accent on the o.

 
At 10:36 AM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

Cyrillic was spelled correctly, so Leonidas' attempt to point out a flaw was, itself, incorrect.

It was a logical guess on my part, not being literate in Greek, since Cyrillic is derived from Greek.

Perhaps Leonidas would benefit from a "public skool" education, where he might learn to properly use sic.

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

The [sic] was used properly to note the error of using Cyrillic to refer to Polytonic Greek.
"[sic] Latin thus; so: used within brackets to show that a quoted passage containing an error is precisely reproduced"

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Rose said...

LOL

 
At 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're from Georgia?!?! No wonder you're putting forth arguments like you're living in the past. I was just reading about how Sherman marched from the Mississippi capturing terrorists and torching their houses clear to Atlanta. That must have been something.

 
At 10:33 PM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

So Leonidas' use of sic was simply pedantic and redundant.

I prefer the Latinized Leonidas, Latin having survived so much more successfully than Greek.

 
At 2:36 AM, Blogger hucktunes said...

Latin was a brutish language of an unimaginative people. Their best words were borrowed from the Greeks. It only survives because it was revived in the 18th century as a scholarly, bonehead curiosity. I wouldn't put any trust in the Arkleys because of the publication by The Western Web, The Eureka Deporter. They would like us to believe that they are much like us, but they want to own the town for their own profit.

 
At 10:10 AM, Blogger Carson Park Ranger said...

You couldn't be wronger about Latin. The language never needed revival. It thrives, in some form, all across southern Europe, South and Central America, and, increasingly, in North America.

Hucktunes may be referring to the attempt by 18th century grammarians to impose Latin grammar upon English. This is where we got the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition. A rule which we never adhere to.

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger hucktunes said...

The romance languages, Italian, French and Spanish, are indeed beautiful and vibrant. In the 18th century it became fashionable for folks in Europe to go so far as to change their place names to one that included a Latin base. A valley in Germany called Newmann's Vale became Neander Vale. The Newmann family actually changed their name to Neander, or so it seems. When old bones where discovered there they were dubbed the bones of the Neanderthal man. Ironic that a new man was discovered in Newmann's Valley.

 
At 1:39 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

3:44PM. Glad you finally got through that 6th grade history primer. Now you can move on to Edgar Rice Burroughs for African history.

 
At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Getting back to the point and responding to Fred's comment about that only lack of military power restrains Muslims from imposing Sharia law in the US. To summarize, you're absolutely wrong.

I think the lesson in Iraq (and former USSR, Soviet Afghanistan, Chinese Tibet, former Yugoslavia, and Phillipines) is that military power is insufficient to impose a social scheme upon an unwilling populace. And that truth is the fundamental reason why people are against the surge/escalation. Its also the basis of calls for ending the whole occupation.

My guess why the ER came out against the surge is that they anticipate a larger repudiation of conservative Republicanism(Arkley's chosen philosophy) and are trying to position the paper to retain some relevance after the conflict escalates and more lives are sacrificed. Arkley is hedging his position (as any duplicitous opportunist does). He is politically supporting the surge, and if it fails he'll take credit for the ER's position. If the conflict abates (for whatever reason but not because of the surge IMHO, the ER position will be forgotten in the celebration.

Fred shows little respect or belief for the determination of Americans to maintain religious freedom. I suspect that's because Fred doesn't personally want that freedom and would welcome establishment here of a Libertarian/Neocon theocracy.

 
At 3:07 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"Fred shows little respect or belief for the determination of Americans to maintain religious freedom. I suspect that's because Fred doesn't personally want that freedom and would welcome establishment here of a Libertarian/Neocon theocracy.".

Interesting that you make my point for me, expand a bit upon it, then say I don't agree with it. Hmmm..?

What I said, albeit perhaps not clear enough, is that the only thing that could bring this country under sharia (or muslim) law, is the U.S. Government and/ or its citizens. No other country has the power to invade this country and enslave us- militarily anyway.

 
At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, you just don't get the point. You keep expressing the idea that an invading army can enslave a population (but we're secure because we have the most powerful military). So, Fred what if there was another country that could have the ability to invade us? Would you advocate more expenditure on armaments and consider a preemptive strike?

Look up the definition of militarism. That's the philosophy you espouse. The result of your belief is it justifies arms races and continual preparation for military conflict.

In order to feel secure every militarist nation must have a military that is more powerful than any other. I don't think most Americans believe that, but the militarists among us use scare tactics to weaken people's confidence.

The lessons of history and recent current events is that military force can't control a population sufficiently to "enslave" or direct it. Even a powerful invading military. Military invasion doesn't ensure civil control.

Turn it around and notice that even though the US has the military power to invade Iraq, that isn't allowing the US an ability to "enslave" or dictate Iraqi aspirations.

And that's why the Iraq military surge will fail and result in unnecessary casualties to US service members.

 
At 5:27 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"You keep expressing the idea that an invading army can enslave a population".

I don't know where you got that impression. You're either reading wrong, or I'm writing wrong.

Are you under the impression I support, or supported, the invasion of Iraq?

I'm one of the 20% that never did.

 
At 7:20 AM, Blogger Carol said...

Wow, Fred! You are part of the 20% that never did support the Iraq invasion! Hey brother, high-five from me! We were in the same minority - the 20%-ers.

 
At 7:37 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I thought I'd been clear on that the few times I'd addressed the issue here in the past. Maybe not?

 
At 6:27 PM, Blogger samoasoftball said...

The ER must be monitoring when Rob is out of town. Or when his computer is down maybe? Good for them though being against the surge.

 
At 8:04 AM, Blogger Carol said...

I must of missed it, Fred. But I have only been blogging since October 2006.

 
At 10:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being able to say "I told you so," has never helped me sleep better at night. God help us.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home