Blogcritics: Comments on Reality Check

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 2 May 2004 23:52:11 EDT

Geez. I was only asking a reasonable question. Like I said, I encourage you to post here. I don't want to see you (or any BlogCritic) leave. But thanks for the clarification. :-]

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 2 May 2004 23:32:49 EDT

Dear RJ... Reality check for you.... Last time I looked, you weren't part of the staff here. So far as I know, only Eric and Phillip are members. I don't need your approval or disapproval. You have about as much influence on me as ox flatulence might have on a macaw. In case that example is hard for you to understand, let me clarify: I could give a rat's ass what you think or what your motives are. Now, something else perhaps you should study in school ( and this has nothing to do with if I am a liberal, a commie, a pinko, or a slut/whore but the fact that I was taught the wonders of a good thesaurus and the use of idioms). The definition of scarce is to be absent, rare. I don't post on this site even half as much as I used to. You'll just have to deal with the bits of me that you see. Or you can just do us both a favor and not even read it when you see my name. For the most part, I use that guidance with you and it seems to work swimmingly. Have a pleasant evening. I know I will.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 2 May 2004 23:11:27 EDT

Yeah, I agree, good post. Tek, just curious: I thought you wouldn't be posting here anymore? I'm not trying to drive you off or anything; you are of course encouraged to contribute. Perhaps you had a change-of-heart? Or did I misread the "I've decided to make myself scarce 'round here" comment you made recently?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 2 May 2004 14:25:56 EDT

Excellent post, Tek: thoughtful, realistic, balanced, showing original thought. Thanks!

Comment by sheri

Sun, 2 May 2004 12:26:52 EDT

Being from a military family, I've heard just as bad if not worse. Acceptable? No.Surprising? No.

Comment by Dan

Sun, 2 May 2004 12:24:45 EDT

It's good to hear someone from the anti-war side reason this way. It makes me willing to be more receptive to Ms. Teks views in the future.

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 2 May 2004 12:04:44 EDT

The Pictures: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/ The "60 Minutes II" story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/60II/main614063.shtml Feedback on the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/60II/main614799.shtml

Comment by Nick Jones

Sun, 2 May 2004 12:03:56 EDT

Doesn't mean it's not unacceptable, sheri.

Comment by sheri

Sun, 2 May 2004 11:57:19 EDT

Good or bad, they are all trained to be good, mean green killing machines.Send them to this hell in Iraq, and am I suprised it brings out the worst in some? No. Reality check.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 2 May 2004 11:26:15 EDT

I agree with your assessment, maybe not the part where this is being painted as misrepresentative, for the reason of achieving an objective, but I agree it's not typical of what Americans want and that it shows clear problems in the commanding of troops.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 2 May 2004 11:03:52 EDT

No doubt its the tip of the iceberg. This doesn't mean that these actions are typical of Americans, British, Italians, etc. Bad people get in put in uniform. If you are not watching what is going on, they are bound to start doing bad thing. This shows a real fuck up in the chain of command and that perhaps this was not thought out as much as it should have been. It has no bearing however if the US should be in Iraq or not. Mind you, I am AGAINST being in Iraq. I still don't think its right however to paint something in a way that is misrepresentive of what it is just to get your way. That is a fallacy and a lie.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 2 May 2004 10:43:42 EDT

Hi Ms. Tek, according to Amesty International, this is only the tip of the iceberg and they have uncovered widespread torture and abuse being committed by the coalition troops.