"Your dialogue is at an end, Dungeon Master". Well, MR used his DVR to get Dungeons & Dragons, the cartoon, and we got a chance to watch them.
Wiff, wiff ... what's that smell -- okay, so they weren't so good as leftovers, still ... interesting to see them again. The borrowed themes from that show are show obvious, I was waiting for the VH-1 or MTV bubbles to pop up with trivia points.
After that, we saw two interesting bits (three really).
We saw an interviewer talking with kids from Virginia Tech. Okay ... so "how did this affect you? Were you scared?"
Okay, turn off the camera, this guy's a putz. It wasn't until yesterday that I found out that only four victims' names were released -- hence, "only the sexy people now" appearance of the collection.
We saw then, two PBS shows, one on Iraq, the second on "Why are we there, supporting the position of legitimate democracy". Well, I prefer the what's going on there now, rather than:
"Here's my take", shove, shove, shove.
There was a guy who had an unswerving position of, "we are right being there" and he got the following, generalized responses:
"We shouldn't have gone", "We should go soon", "We tried, but it didn't turn out", "things aren't as you say". In essence, few to none agreed with him.
He mentioned Afghanistan, and how we must stay there to ensure its survival as an infant democracy. Dude, you were talking about Iraq, stay focused please. His segue was that Afghanistan is important and so is Iraq -- helping the democracy, regardless the cost and thanklessness of the job. He mentioned a few instances of the UN sitting on their arses and thumbs, yet the US made strides.
Well, at the end, there was a recap, essentially -- "the positions stated in this documentary may not reflect the views of this stations and/or its affiliates".
So, there you go ... that was a little better than the news as it gave you the plus side ... the why we were there, and the counterpoints. That's the kind of reporting I prefer.
You don't have to agree with anyone, but at least you are getting a better perspective rather than (my side, and a side of fries), you see you get both sides. Uh, no. Show it all or don't show anything.
Following that was an officer training Iraqi police trying to use nationalism to embolden them to work for Iraq, not factions -- sadly, I think with tribal people, there will always be tribal preference and failings. Even the Japanese and Chinese ended dynasties and family wars between factions long ago. Yet, there in the Middle East, tribes ... WTF, mate?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
D & D, TV, PBS plus DVR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes, that was Richard Perle's argument for Iraq on PBS. It was bookended by a scoffer...like I said, it was PBS. Perle listened to the opposition, even when they wanted to shout things that they thought would just incite the crowd so they wouldn't have to make an argument. One lady called him a "weapon of mass destruction." Talk about grandstanding. Most recognized that he was there for a civil exchange and talked to him. Many were intelligent, just not as well versed as he was, but he didn't seem to use it against them, either. He stated his case very clearly and got a round of handshakes before leaving. I think those people were also happy to have a camera to state their views to. I'm sure when they heard it was going to be on PBS, they were elated, I'm sure their favorite channel.
He didn't back down at the usually first level attack of the casualty count...he explained that you can't leave with the first casualty, you have to consider what you're fighting for. I think I've used the analogy that a liberal can't win at chess, because they refuse to sacrifice any pieces.
Anyway, it WAS good to see the other side respresented. I'd say I'm MORE conservative than Bill O'Reilly, LESS conservative than Glenn Beck. That's a wide gap, but I'm in there somewhere.
Oh, and the reason he talked about Afghanistan first was that it was part of the war on terror, as is Iraq. Abu Nadal, and all that, remember? He also wanted to show how things are better in Afghanistan, and how things could be better in Iraq. I've actually already seen shows that DO show improvement in Iraq (so have you).
The U.S. underestimated how much the factions hated each other, they thought they would unite as Muslims, or Iraqis, but that anger runs deep. Primarily, I think, because of the atrocities committed by the Sunnis against the Shia majority during Saddam's reign. And after Al-Qaeda bombed that mosque, well, that's all it took.
Now there is FULL accountability, Shia are being arrested as well as Sunnis and their infrastructure is collapsing. I haven't heard of any major fallout from Al-Sadr telling the Shia to back-out of the government. I think he's not as powerful as he thinks he is.
Post a Comment