Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


new republican backed ads say our troops should be used as flypaper
February 10, 2006 10:06 AM   Subscribe

New Republican backed ads say our troops should be used as flypaper
and attempt to advance the iraq/al queda link. More on the Progress for America Voter Fund and their links to the swift boaters here. Are they airing these to counter the Bush administrations own admissions that the things are actually worse on most fronts in Iraq than before the war?
posted by specialk420 (35 comments total)

 
It's sad that the Iraqi utilities are not working as efficiently as they used to. I guess what they need is a murderous despot who could make the trains run on time again.
posted by esquire at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2006


well, let's hope next time Rumsfeld doesn't give that despot chemical weapons, what do you think?
posted by matteo at 10:28 AM on February 10, 2006


The head of Shin Bet thinks so, esquire.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2006


There was actually an interesting, mostly serious interview on the Colbert Report last night with the author of the Assassins Gate. The guy said that he thought Saddam got off pretty easy, and got rid of Iraq at an ideal time.

Personally, though, things seemed to be pretty stable, if not stably sucky to me.

I've always found the "flypaper strategy" theory to be incredibly morally reprehensible and I can't believe people seriously think it would convince anyone of anything, unless they had no regard for the lives of the troupes at all.
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2006


I'd love to play these idiots in Risk.
posted by Relay at 10:33 AM on February 10, 2006


I've always found the "flypaper strategy" theory to be incredibly morally reprehensible and I can't believe people seriously think it would convince anyone of anything, unless they had no regard for the lives of the troupes at all.

Let alone how it must make the Iraqi people feel every time they hear American leaders crow about bringing more violence to their homeland rather than ours.

Must make them feel special and all warm inside.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2006


That should be "bringing more violence to the Iraqi homeland, rather than ours."
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 10:46 AM on February 10, 2006


I'd love to play these idiots in Risk.

Yeah, you'd be on a sure path to victory, walk away from the board to take a leak, and they'd steal 15 of your armies in Indonesia, stick 15 of their own in Siam, and invade Australia when it's not their roll. When you called them on it, they'd kick the table and ruin the game, attacking your character all the while.

Fun.
posted by edverb at 10:49 AM on February 10, 2006


That should be "bringing more violence to the Iraqi homeland, rather than ours."

We should update GDP calculations to incorporate the terrorism we exported to Iraq.

In one fell swoop we wipe out the trade deficit and terrorism!

Everbody wins!*


*-Except Iraqis, troops, taxpayers, and people who don't work for Halliburton.
posted by eisbaer at 11:00 AM on February 10, 2006


The shining beacon of democracy also functions as a bug zapper.
posted by fleacircus at 12:14 PM on February 10, 2006


I saw one of these ads last night. My wife and I both saw each other's jaw drop at lines such as: "Make no mistake, the enemy we are fighting in Iraq is Al Qaeda."

It was pure propoganda. I was amazed.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 12:17 PM on February 10, 2006


I don't understand how folks can make the argument that we're "bringing ... violence to the Iraqi homeland, rather than ours" -- essentially, fuck the Iraqis, we're doing what's best for the United States here -- in the same breath as "we're freeing the poor Iraqi people from an evil dictator that oppressed and tortured them."

One or the other, one can make an argument for, but the two are contradictory. Can some Bush-supporter please explain this one to me?
posted by LordSludge at 12:18 PM on February 10, 2006


Since it was a "voter's group", they don't have to explain it. It wasn't an 'official' Republican statement.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 12:23 PM on February 10, 2006


Er... that should be "one can make an argument for one OR the other (although there are problems with either argument), but the two are contradictory."
posted by LordSludge at 12:23 PM on February 10, 2006


Flypaper! I get it.
ha.

I sat next to a group of four young marines last night on a plane - 3 young men and a young lady. I talked to them for a long time, about their training, about being 19 and 20 (almost old enough to drink. yay!) and about potentially fighting overseas (they were pretty fresh recruits, on their way home from Camp Lejeune.)

I briefly, briefly, considered chatting politics with them - I was reading the latest Newsweek about going to war with Iran and nucyular doom and stuff. But I decided against it.

Then they sang a song called, "Turn the hajji into pink mist."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:41 PM on February 10, 2006


matteo: But I thought that there were no weapons of mass destruction? Where did they go? Maybe the lazy and inefficient utilities workers lost them all.
posted by esquire at 1:19 PM on February 10, 2006


The most interesting thing I learned about the war in Iraq is that the troops call all the brown people "Johnny Jihad." I remember how in Vietnam the brown people were called "Charlie." A coworker who was ex-military referred to them as in "so we advanced past the burning truck, and then some shit-for-brains Johnny Jihad popped up with his AK and started spraying at us, we sent him off to his seventy-two virigins or whatever shit." Odd, the things you can hear while at work.
posted by nlindstrom at 1:28 PM on February 10, 2006


They were used against Iran and the rest were destroyed as per guidelines after the Gulf War esquire.
posted by longbaugh at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2006


"I guess what they need is a murderous despot who could make the trains run on time again."

Mussolini never did make the trains run on time.
posted by stenseng at 1:42 PM on February 10, 2006


unless they had no regard for the lives of the troupes at all

The clowns are mostly in washington and not in Iraq so the troupes are perfectly safe.
posted by srboisvert at 1:48 PM on February 10, 2006


Metafilter: Turns the hajji into pink mist.
posted by rdone at 1:55 PM on February 10, 2006


They were used against Iran and the rest were destroyed as per guidelines after the Gulf War esquire.

...or, my favorite, they were secretly moved from "known locations" in the country to unknown terrorist camps elsewhere. (what, and this is GOOD???)
posted by LordSludge at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2006


I think that we reasonable everyday folk who just want to live our lives have lost the world to the insane lizard-brained retro-chimps. Really, I do.

When TV ads backed by the party in power are running that flatly contradict widely-known information, and they'll likely be accepted and swallowed as whole truth by more than half the population of this country, it doesn't bode well at all.

We reasonable people are being too reasonable. We're up against insane fanatics, and we're being far too reasonable with them.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:19 PM on February 10, 2006


The flypaper strategy isn't mentioned in the video. Where are you seeing it advocated? The part at the end about "where do you want to fight them? We want to fight them in Iraq." ?
posted by techgnollogic at 4:50 PM on February 10, 2006


insane lizard-brained retro-chimps


posted by beth at 4:52 PM on February 10, 2006


beth, you rock. :)
posted by zoogleplex at 4:53 PM on February 10, 2006


The flypaper strategy isn't mentioned in the video. Where are you seeing it advocated? The part at the end about "where do you want to fight them? We want to fight them in Iraq." ?

Yes, that's the code. Good call. I'm sure Iraqis love that the US is fighting terrorists there who weren't there in the first place.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:13 PM on February 10, 2006


I'd love to play these idiots in Risk.

Yeah, you'd be on a sure path to victory, walk away from the board to take a leak, and they'd steal 15 of your armies in Indonesia, stick 15 of their own in Siam, and invade Australia when it's not their roll. When you called them on it, they'd kick the table and ruin the game, attacking your character all the while.


Not to mention the dice that land on the edge of the game board and require re-rolling, and the arguments over whether all the dice must be re-rolled, or only the ones that failed to meet expectations, and the second rolls that happen before you've done double-checking the values, and the armies that are right on the border between two territories, so conveniently, or accidentally brushed into the sea and require replacement ...
posted by dhartung at 9:49 PM on February 10, 2006


Where do you want to fight them, then?
posted by techgnollogic at 4:08 AM on February 11, 2006


In a hot tub in your basement.
posted by romanb at 5:07 AM on February 11, 2006


Where do you want to fight them, then?

Man's Brain Replaced With Parrots'
His Wife Asks "WHY?"
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:15 AM on February 11, 2006


Where do you want to fight them, then?

techgnollogic - would you be interested in buying a bridge?
posted by specialk420 at 9:10 AM on February 11, 2006


Remember that Afghanistan is also included in the flypaper equation.

The basic idea is that you have a relatively tiny number of hard-corps jihadis spread out in every corner of the planet.

They don't have to stay there, though, keeping their villainy away from the civilized world. They proved from the very start that they can project terror and violence to *anywhere* in the world. They did so in an organized, methodical manner, with support structure, financing, training, and everything else they need to strike out at us.

How much destruction could you cause with a few billion dollars and a thousand suicidal killers?

When they stay in every far-flung place on the planet, in a decentralized manner, they are impossible to police up. In fact, the very concept of treating what they are doing as a police matter is ludicrous. It is a war.

So your alternative is to convince them to concentrate so you can kill them. And the best way to do this is to have them concentrate on our soldiers, rather than our civilians.

Right now, the jihadis are fleeing Iraq, because the Sunnis no longer will tolerate their presence, and are trying to migrate into Afghanistan, perhaps the only other place in the region where they hope they can evade destruction and still carry out their plans.

They are incorrect in this assumption, as few Afghans are willing to tolerate them any more than the Iraqi Sunnis.

So what has been accomplished with the flypaper technique? It has not only taken the WoT away from us, but from two dozen other nations. It has bled off the few who are both radical, willing and able to travel to cause death and destruction.

And, in the meantimes, throughout the world, we have dismantled the infrastructure of these killers, taken away most of their financing, and exterminated many of their "spiritual leaders", which even they admit has been a devastating blow to their movements.

In exchange for this, we are spreading democracy throughout the region, by persuasion, not coercion; we have established a major military presence in the most unstable part of the world--the Middle East, northern and eastern Africa, and Central Asia; we have broken an international nuclear proliferation ring; and we stand against Iran trying to create international chaos and blackmail with oil, nuclear weapons and missiles.

For its part, Iraq in 10-15 years will mimic or better the recovery of post-war Japan, and will soon have a truly representative and capable government, something they have sorely lacked for many years.
posted by kablam at 4:44 PM on February 11, 2006


What a load of baloney.

Our national policy is completely removed from reality. It deals with a simulacrum of the real world, one fortified by endless think-tank pieces full of the Marxist-like sense of historical inevitiability, sweeping manifest destiny, the manly courage to forge through against a tide of opposition, against devious reason: all the sophistic tropes of an ideology gone pathological.

Remember what conservatism used to be?
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:51 PM on February 11, 2006


kablam, you truly are a sucker.
posted by stenseng at 10:16 PM on February 11, 2006


« Older Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush admi...  |  WOXY.com has begun charging a ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments