Yay, war.
I just found out today that a kid from my old Boy Scout troop was shot while on patrol in Iraq. Josh Snyder graduated from my high school in 2002, he was just two weeks shy of his 21st birthday. I remember Josh very well, he was one of the “younger scouts” but was very mature for his age and was very much respected amongst us “older scouts”.
I also discovered that his best friend (whom I never knew), Norman Anderson, who graduated from my high school with him, enlisted with him, went to bootcamp with him, and roomed with him, was killed by suicide bomber in Iraq just a month earlier. Just two months before his death, Norman married his high school sweetheart. She’s 20 years old and a widow.
These two guys weren’t men, they were just boys like I was at that age. They should have been out dating and drinking and partying and fucking and enjoying themselves - not fighting in some stupid ass war against some other kids who should have been out dating and drinking and partying and fucking and doing whatever else they want to do. Both those guys enlisted in 2002, soon after 9/11, when the U.S. was arguably fighting for a worthy cause in Afghanistan - I wonder if they would have still signed-up if they would have know the situation in 2005?
Yay, war.
That’s the reality, Phil. A guy from my hometown - same age as me/us - was killed two years ago - he left behind a pregnant wife. Christ, I didn’t even muster a tear at my own grandfather’s funeral, but when I heard how he died and the circumstances I was pretty shaken up for at least the next 24 hours.
These young men were robbed of their lives. The rationale for the war in Iraq is so convoluted, I’m still not exactly sure what the letters their widows recieved said. Did they die for “spreading democracy to Iraqis,” “fighting terrorists,” “taking down the evil dictator Saddam Hussein,” or all of the above?
Comment by Giustino — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:52 am
‘The rationale for the war in Iraq is so convoluted’
What rationale? It IS reality unfortunately; these guys signed up, in the wake of a wave of patriotism and ‘defend us from the terrorists’ rhetoric. I feel very sorry for them, their families and for people who knew them that they were sucked into the machine.
Comment by CB — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:56 am
God … that’s so awful to hear…. You’re right, they were not men just yet, they were young guys in their way to be full adults … I too feel sorry for them and hope their families and beloved ones will soon find consolation and resignation…. War itself is wrong and senseless. I guess it works when there’s a real motive, such as defending a country from a real and proved thread and I believe the invasion to Irak was just a patethic excuse for start a war that still has no real motive behind its creation
Comment by Nora — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:10 am
Phil,
These were men in every sense of the word. While you may hold differing views concerning the rationale behind the Iraq war, claiming that they were “just boys” who should have been “fucking around” instead of doing what they strongly believed in, is demeaning.
The fact that the re-inlistment rate is at an all time high, tells me that these men and woman strongly believe in the cause they are fighting for, and see that they are indeed making a difference by their mere presence in Iraq.
The Army by the way, reported recently that they far exceeded their enlistment goals for this year, that has seen 2,500 of their fellow men and women killed during the past three years. So IMHO, there would have been every indication of them signing up regardless of how badly the war is being reported by the MSM…and its international cousins.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Even if you consider 20-somethings to be too young and immature for war, they really are the only ones capable of waging it effectively enough. At least physically, but also mentally to some extent. Now here could be a hidden message somewhere.
Comment by Topias — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Nora,
The threat behind Saddam’s Iraq was greater than what for the most part, the MSM has reported. Its not conspiracy, but a culture, that has created an enviorment where even “a sense of duty” is ridiculed as a thing of the past. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the MSM leans Left and hard Left cannot be overlooked.
When looking at the death of al-Zarqawi, the MSM couldn’t even bring themselves to report it as a good development. Instead there was the usual poo-pooing of it with more gloom and doom scenarios, instead of celebrating it as a definitive example that the terrorist are indeed losing their hold in Iraq.
For the first time in recorded history, killing the leader of your enemy is not a good thing…..pure buffoonery.
Saddam’s Iraq had ties to terrorism, as did their Baa’tist cousins in Syria. The Iraqi regime had developed ties with Osama Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi as well as with the Taliban. The fact that the suicide bombing in Jordan at the bequest of al-Zarqawi involved a high ranking Baatist officer and his wife (ironically killing three Palestinian intel officers at a wedding), proving that its no small leap for socialists to merge with religious fanatic jihadists.
Iraqi Documentation captured during the beginning of Operation Iraqi Fredom has uncovered a treasure trove of intel, that shows Iraq was up to its neck in terrorism, developing plans to spread it throughout Europe, setting aside finances to bribe member states in the UN, most notably the UNSC 3/5 member states China, Russia and France, as well as underlining its attempts to play a shell game with the UNSC.
Though WMD’s were never the main reason for the war, (UNSC resolution 14441 was) but not one of the anti-Iraq war ‘nay-sayers’ I have discussed with has ever explained the “insignificance” of the vast convoy of trucks that headed to Syria on the eve of the war. Nor what top Russian generals were doing right up until the outbreak of hositilities. A top Iraqi airforce general claims that chem WMD’s were also spirited to Syria in multiple flights.
Even the badly reported Duefler report spoke of finding WMD “start up plans”, that would have took very little time to get up and running. The very fact that a deadly dangerous tyrant that had started a number of wars, invaded countries, launched rockets at Israel while paying 25 000 dollars per suicide attack at the Jewish state that indeed killed Americans there, does not give hope for a brighter future with an Iraq regime unchanged.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Interesting to see how Phil makes his friends deaths mean nothing.
How you must loathe them. You love your own bizarre mushy anti-war ideas more than your friends.
What a sad man you are.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Anonymous, Phil did say that he only knew the first person, because he had a reputation as “old kid”. Phil knew his name, but I got the impression they werent friends. Surely he would have been informed earlier if that were the case?
The second person was just a friend of the boy/man he knew of. A tragic story.
It’s quite sad when a person can’t even read short post that is very well written without getting it wrong.
BTW, Phil, good post. Really helps to get the perspective after all those “Haha! Three americans killed in Iraq! Why did they even bother to go?”-stories. Made me, at least, remember its human people we are talking about, not some robots.
Comment by iJusten — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 11:23 am
This is very, very sad for these families and friends but when one joins de facto mercenary army of the United States, one might get him/herself killed. It is still voluntary decision. It is not like WWII GI Joes or Vietnam draftees out there, these men are paid to kill and that is one big difference. What makes this so much worse is that these men/women probably died for nothing, it is not like dying in Normandy beaches back in WII etc etc.
Iraqis have every right to defend themselves against foreign armies just like any other nation. It is that simple. There are always consequences when people elect bad leaders like Germans electing Hitler and Americans electing this Dim Son Dubya and his gang of greedy neocons. Little people pay the price every time.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Good Grief Tim73,
What a load of rubbish. In case you haven’t noticed, the Iraqis have formed a democratically representative government, the first of its kind in the Arab world. The Islamofacists fighting the Iraqi government and US Coalition forces have no political base to draw from. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis reject the Islamist fascists, as well as there foreign jihadist brethern.
If you really think that the US troops are dying for nothing, than you are appear to be most likely a friend of the jihadis….not a great ideological company to keep.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
tim73: for many Americans the army is the best way of climbing up the social ladder. It has an important societal function, it’s not just about national defense. Many people go to the army to get a good education after their stint in Iraq and the army itself is seen as part of that education.
Every death in the war is a very tragic one. Absolutely. Regardless of the families and friends are for the war or against it, it’s just as horrible. But Tim’s comment of it being sad and then basically saying they got what they deserved since they are mercenaries, was the height of hypocrisy.
“Iraqis have every right to defend themselves against foreign armies just like any other nation.”
The Saddam régime invaded two neighboring countries early on. After he’d done that, he and his régime could in no way expect not to be invaded themselves. Saddam had it coming. Even if Saddam had not been able to invade other countries for a time, he was being “kept in his box”, which sounds sanitary and nice but countless of Iraqi kids were dying because of the sanctions, Saddam himself wasn’t suffering of them.
So if your neighbor is a mass murderer, you think getting him to face justice is not that important. After all, police officers who come to arrest that murderer might get shot at. It wasn’t just that Saddam had started wars that had killed countless people and used WMD while doing that, people were still continually suffering and dying because of him in the early years of the 21st Century.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
KGS59 wrote: In case you haven’t noticed, the Iraqis have formed a democratically representative government, the first of its kind in the Arab world.
But the U.S. has no business telling the Iraqis how to run their country. Regardless of whether the Iraqis amongst themselves agree or not. What if, say, China started bombing the U.S. simply because U.S. does not govern herself like China does?
Seriously, we all know the true motives behind U.S. actions in Iraq. U.S. is the only country that has been continuously at war since WW2. And, looking back, not one of those conflicts has been for anything but selfish reasons on U.S’s side. Do you seriously believe that U.S. would spend hundreds of billions on this war unless the plan was to reap equal or preferably greater rewards off of Iraq later?
We know for a fact that by now the U.S. economy is for all practical purposes bankrupt. From this we can deduce that for U.S. to spend so much on this war at this particular time, the Bush cabal must by necessity view Iraq as U.S’s main leverage in getting back to solvency. Their plan may call for the attempt at the rape of Iran, too. But in any case Iraq is a start.
Comment by Liber Al — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
It remains to be seen what if anything will improve in Iraq and in the region in general to warrant this war and validate these numerous deaths by the both sides. Wars have this unavoidable problem that even the best laid plans tend to go wrong and where these things will eventually lead, nobydy can tell for sure. Wouldn’t it be sad to an extreme if there will be no democracy, peace, prosperity, justice or even Iraq when the dust settles down and the blood stops running. All those lifes wiped out for nothing would really put salt in the wounds.
Comment by Petteri — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
In the present situation in Iraq a key element to stabilizing democracy is the establishment of the rule of law.
There are regular challenges to the rule of law by various militia groups but one that springs to mind is the pro-Iranian Mehdi (or Mahdi) army, who gained some fame a couple of years ago.
One of the acts of war of that militia (led by Muqtada Sadr) was the razing of this Roma village called Qawliya on March 12, 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46446-2004Apr2?language=printer
The spokesman of the Mehdi Army explained what had happened to Washington Post journalists:
“Sadr’s office had sought to reform the village. It had offered to send a preacher to serve there, provide religious CDs and videos, hold Friday prayers in the town and send five of the residents to the seminary in Najaf ‘Since the fall of the regime, we tried to call on these people to improve,’ he said. ‘I wanted to give them an opportunity to decent life.’
‘They refused’, he added.”
The reasons why the Mehdi Army tried by extortion to get the Roma villagers to accept their religious way of life before razing the village, were alcohol and prostitution, something the religious militia didn’t want to tolerate in a territory they felt was theirs.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Helsinkian: You are forgetting one thing: US was the ally of Saddam Hussein, basically INSTALLED him there and Americans could not care less for example about gassing the Kurds during Iraq-Iran war. Here is a little reminder:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Talking about hypocrisy!
Americans and Brits have been continuously messing up things in Middle East. Every time Muslims did elect democratically someone, god forbid, somebody leftist leaning, they did everything to throw him away or kill him and put some right-wing dictator to power instead.
The Soviets were no better, probably even worse, but don’t talk about how innocent Americans are spreading freedom there. They got almost as much as blood in there hands as Nazis since WII, just not directly but via fascists middlemen and via countless low-intensity conflicts around the globe. For every dead American, these de facto mercenaries have killed at least 10, maybe even 100 Iraqis, almost all of them civilians.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
tim73: When Saddam committed the atrocities against Shiites and Kurds and many other things he did while being dictator, he wasn’t acting as a middleman of the United States, he was acting of his own free will. When he invaded Iran and Kuwait, the battle plans were drawn in Baghdad.
The link you provided was about the 1980s, a time when there was a warming-up of relations between Washington and Baghdad. Plenty of hypocrites in almost every country condoned what Saddam was doing at that time and profited by their relations to the Baghdad régime. The Reagan Administration was one of those governments seeking warmer ties with Saddam at a time when it not was morally justifiable but certainly not the only one or the worst one.
According to you America installed Saddam in power. No, they did not. Saddam was neither elected nor installed. He grabbed the power with his very own hands.
Yes, America has supported dictators in the past as part of a Cold war strategy and so have many other democratic and free nations as well. That is hypocritical. But saying the Soviets were “probably even worse” than the Americans is to me outright slanderous. You can compare the Soviets with the Nazis and say that one totalitarian system was “probably even worse” than the other, but you seriously can’t compare the Americans to totalitarian régimes. The Soviets and Nazis were openly promoting totalitarianism and spread the poison of such terror at every opportunity they got. Americans fought that evil throughout the 20th Century, sometimes the ends justifying the means in a way that turned out to be counterproductive. But if the Americans had not intervened in WWII and supported Western European democratic structures throughout the Cold War, the flame of liberty would have been extinguished from Europe.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Tim is saying in his argument that Americans habitually thwart democracies and install dictators.
But the Americans thwarted a dictator in Iraq and are trying to secure a democracy.
Americans won the Cold War. If America’s goal had been the spread of dictatorship and fascism worldwide, then why did the end of the Cold War turn out to be the most beneficial event for the spread of democracy in human history?
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
“Concerned about growing Soviet influence in Iran during the Cold War, the U.S. toppled the regime of Iran’s ELECTED prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who intended to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The U.S.-backed coup against Mossadeq in 1953 reinforced the power of the young Mohammed Reza, Shah of Iran.
The pro-Western Shah was viewed by many in Iran as increasingly autocratic and oppressive. He tried to institute many Western social reforms by decree, and his secret police, SAVAK, viciously silenced opposition voices. A 1979 Islamist revolution against the Shah’s regime swept a new kind of Islamic state into power, the Islamic Republic of Iran, governed by Islamic jurists and scholars. The popular hatred of the Shah also tarred his American supporters, and the revolution’s anti-American passion led to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, where 53 hostages were held for more than a year.
Saddam Hussein and the United States
The U.S. supported Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), when Iran’s new post-revolutionary Islamic regime appeared to be the region’s biggest threat.”
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/uspolicy/
So when one rudeless plan failed eventually, Americans just switched sides and Saddam was their new favorite playmate. Thanks to “freedom loving” US, almost 40 LONG years of right-wing dictatorship in Iran and 10 years of supported dictatorship in Iraq.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
typo:..30 long years.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Sorry to hear about his loss.
The sad fact is that people that age are injured and die for all sorts of reasons. He died while doing something he wanted to:
“His mother tells WJZ’s Sharon Lee he was a patriotic young man. “Josh was proud to serve. I remember talking with him. [He] had his uniform on and knew he was going over there to do some good.”"
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
Liber Al,
Great going. Not only do you ascribe the US with only greedy goals for its being in Iraq, you really think that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis (both Shiia and Sunni Kurds)enjoyed life under Saddam.
According to you, a tyranical regime was perferable to most Iraqis, and the US just “came in due to its greed and forced democracy down their throats”. What a grand scale misreading of events that lead up to the war.
Liber Al is appearntly ignorant of the fact that its Japan and the whole of Europe that was dependent of Iraqi oil, not the US. Libera Al is probably also unawares that ME oil only counts for only 25-30% of all US oil imports. A supposed imperialistic power (that’s what Liber Al really believes the US to be) does not hand over oil fields to a beaten power, then pay the beaten power for that very same oil.
For the US to just depose the Saddam regime and allow for the Baatist to continue in power would be the height of stupidity, and then we would be presented with Liber Al’s bloviations on how corrupt the US is to not try for democratic change once Saddam was gone ect.ect.
The US and Britian and its allies are the one who have rolled up their sleeves and put their own lives on the line, while others dither, with the odd hope that the status quo would continue. Talk about “the nerve” of some people. Liber Al would complain about any number of scenarios if the US was involved.
One one hand the US supplies the Arab world with funding, to keep a quiet peace with Israel
Liber Al: THE US SUPPORTS ARAB DICTATORSHIPS.
The US takes down two dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Liber Al: THE US IS IMPOSING ITS WILL ON THE THIRD WORLD. IRAQIS LOVED SADDAM*S DICTATORSHIP….BOO ON THE US AND ON THE NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ.
Sounds pretty stupid, naive, cynical and all rolled into one Leftist naysaying jihadist apologizing lump.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
While I believe there are factual errors in Eric Margolis’ column on who backed Saddam when he committed atrocities, and I certainly don’t agree with the tone of his writing, it’s an interesting read:
http://www.bigeye.com/fc122004.htm
“The Reagan Administration and Thatcher government were up to their ears in backing Iraq’s aggression intended to overthrow Iran’s Islamic government and seize its oil. Italy, Germany, France, South Africa, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Brazil, Chile and the USSR all aided Saddam’s war effort against Iran, which was even more of a victim of naked aggression than was Kuwait in 1991.”
While I don’t support Margolis’ conclusions, I think his list of countries who backed Saddam is in itself convincing. Unfortunately the column gives the impression that America and Britain were more important allies to Saddam than the Soviet Union or France or some of these other countries. No, both America and the Soviet Union supported Saddam to some extent for a major part of the Iran-Iraq war. And indeed, many more countries supported Saddam than just the eleven named by Margolis.
I think it was wrong of America and Britain to support Saddam but it was right of them to stop supporting him. Some of these other countries I’m not sure if they ever stopped supporting him as long as he was in power.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Tim73,
The US supported Iraq in a very limited way, which was only to secure it from being defeated by Iran, which would not be in the world’s bests interest.
Digging up these old and very debunked myths only serves to prove just a vacant the nay-sayers are in the fact dept.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
The US uses dictatorships in the Third World in much the same way they used the USSR in its war against the Nazi fascist powers. They are only of use while they help against an even larger threat, once the threat is gone, so to the support for these dictatorship/autocratic governments.
Marcos of the Phillipines felt the shove as well as Augusto Pinochet. Both by the way, were far less destructive than the monster that still reins in Cuba, and both paved the way for a return to democratic rule, by leaving thier fiefdoms. Castro, which has the full support from the deluded Left has yet to see the light.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Let me quote the wikipedia article on Jimmy Carter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
“On August 5, 1980, the Saudi rulers welcomed Saddam Hussein to Riyadh for his first state visit to Saudi Arabia, the first for any Iraqi president. Saudi Prince Fahd claimed that President Carter, apparently hoping to strengthen the U.S. hand in the Middle East and desperate to pressure Iran over the stalled hostage talks, gave clearance to Saddam’s invasion of Iran. On September 22, 1980, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and began a bloody trench war that would last almost a decade and kill one million people.”
So the Saudis supported Saddam and urged him to invade. Interestingly enough Margolis didn’t even mention Saudi Arabia in his column despite that country’s great role behind Saddam’s war effort. But the evidence of a clear link between Jimmy Carter and Saddam still isn’t there. Saddam was certainly not Jimmy Carter’s puppet.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
But the Americans thwarted a dictator in Iraq and are trying to secure a democracy.
Yah, and what about the democracy in Palestine. Did your US respected the election results?
US -and EU- are promoting their own definition of democracy, where the elected government must adhere totally to their well. Otherwise, besieged and suffocated
Comment by Abu Omar — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Abu Omar, you’re just flaming. You know very well that America was a key power behind bringing about the Palestinian elections. Americans certainly did not support Hamas in that election, yet Hamas won. The Americans are under no obligation to support a Hamas government as long as such a government does not renounce terrorism.
You just don’t like democracy at all.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
Nice to see a FOX News mouthpiece roaming around here.
What makes this so much worse is that these men/women have died for nothing
Edited for clarity.
Back on topic. Unfortunately, there are many people who enlist in the American armed forces because they cannot pay the rigoddamndiculous amount of money it takes to go to college. Then, there are those who join willing to serve their country because they are patriotic like that. Finally, there are those who join because they are gung-ho assholes. I knew one of the latter.
From 8th-12th grade i went to school with him. He died in 2003 exactly how i thought he would die, on the battlefield. I can still hear him roaming through the halls of my old high school yelling “hoo-rah!” at the top of his lungs. To quote a particular movie: “The dead know one thing: it’s better to be alive.” Being one of the alive and well, i can confirm that.
He’ll never know that he died for nothing.
Comment by gopha — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Hi Abu,
The Palis can elect a terrorist government of their choosing, and the rest of the world can choose to not recognize it. The Palis’ democratically elected parliament is great if you’re a straight male who conforms to a rigid 7th century interpretation of Islam.
Other than that, they are a bunch of bigoted homophobes. Their brand of Islamist Islam defines a child whoes father just died as an orphan, though the mother still lives. Shows just how much they think of the other 50% of their population.
PS, just a word of wisdom, holding an election does not prove a government is democratic. A democracy is defined by its democratically working institutions, and its adhering to the rule of law. A respect for the civil/human rights of all its citizens, not just for straight Islamist males.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
Congratulations Phil, you just got swiftboated on your own blog by the likes of KGS59 (#4, accusations of deamening your friends) and Anonymous (#6, accusations of loathing your friends).
This is so utterly appalling and disgraceful.
In addition, this fine men that KGS59 rightfully praises are instantly reduced to rubbish as soon as they express their opinion against the war, even though they all enlist for generally the same reason - patriotism, which doesn’t change on the front lines, stupid.
The political war-time dynamics during this administration is …. fascinating, to say the least. You have …
- a president who served in the national guard, clearly from family ties (I don’t blame him or his family for that, most people would so do if they could. However, I believe the credibility to lead a “support the troops” chant is severely lacking)
- a vice-president with 5 deferments, and who justified this by publicly claiming he had ‘other priorities’ (ditto)
- while having an american pubilc that, as a whole, are so “support the troops”, yet:
…. are not completly outraged that their brave young men are not abundantly protected with armour
…. are not completly outraged against tax-cuts during war-time (if we are so patriotic, can’t we pay the same amount of taxes for now while we protect their humvees?)
…. tolerates the secretary of defense’s claims that “As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want”
…. are so quick to follow smear campaigns against front-line war
veterans (Kerry, Murtha, etc), even to label them as cowards or unpatriotic
…. are so quick to attack the simple decency of fellow Americans for expressing their opinions, just like the the idiots KGS59 and Anonymous
Comment by George — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
KGS59 how do you know it would not be worlds best intrest. You americans have litle bit too much eagernes to know what is good for every nation in the world. You know people can think outside usa allso. you know what, other countries are getting fed up to the usa policy of being worlds police. And that your defend act is very nice. US must in all capably methods stop any nation to come as powerful as united states of america. That makes cold shivers go through me.
about that saddam supporting, bullshit. You support or you don’t there is no middle way. When US supported saddam it made clear that it don’t give a shit about people under saddam’s dictator ship.
What comes to death. it is sad, but it’s all your own falt. You started a war and I haven’t never heard of war there haven’t had causalties.
Comment by takaari — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Great Gopha,
I am all for the reduction of the professors’ wages so that academic studies can be more affordable for all the working class. As for whether or not the young man you claim died for nothing, that’s for history to decide.
As for how he acted in high school, I am sure that you can at löeast agree that people change, and that the military has a proud tradtion of turning young boys into men. Understanding the military through the interpretation of an Oliver Stone movie(or any movie for that matter) is nonsensical.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Interestingly enough George,
Your tirade devloves into nothing more than “GWBush is evil, let me count the ways.” Typical.
I beleive that IT IS demeaning to describe people with a sense of purpose and honor, would be better off “drinking, cruising chicks and fucking around” then trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
Takaari,
Let me get this straight, you believe that Iraq being run over by an Islamist Iran to be in the world’s best interest?! Just how in the owrld can you manage to pull that on out of your hat? You sound like the traditional European, that just wishes for things to chug along with out having to deal with the real world.
Just tell me, how has the European intitiative to get Iran to stop with its uranium enrichment been progressing lately?
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
tim73: your link to National Security Archives inluded this statement about the Iran-Iraq war:
“The Iran-Iraq war was a tragedy for Iraqis and Iranians, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and immense material damage. It was sustained by an arms bazaar made up of a broad spectrum of foreign governments and corporations: British, Spanish, Italian, German, Brazilian, Argentinean, Chilean, North Korean, Chinese, South African, Eastern European, Israeli, American, etc., who found both combatants eager consumers of weapons, ammunition and military technology.”
Many arms-dealers sold weapons to both combatants and countless governments condoned this. Most people who armed Saddam and Khomeini did not do it because they supported either of them and the best interest of most arms dealers was to keep the war going as long as possible to sell as many weapons as possible. But it was Saddam who started the Iran-Iraq war. A lot of people said they’d support him and sold weapons to him, sure, but many of these same people sold weapons to the other side as well. It’s an unfounded myth that all these governments that supported him really wanted him to win and snatch Iranian oil. The Saudis and Soviets may have had an interest in him actually winning, I don’t know, but basically the death of a million people brought profits to almost everyone. It certainly strengthened the grips of both Saddam and Khomeini on their peoples, in a sense both of them were winners and the Iraqi and Iranian peoples paid the price.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
KGS59,
Actually, I didn’t say anything even remotely similar to “GWBush is evil” at all. None of the points I made counted such a thing.
If you bothered to pay attention, my tirade was against the ease of fellow patriot bashing, and the hypocrasy of the “support the troops” culture in America today.
But it is a lot easier to just dismiss it as just ‘typical’, isn’t?! … then to really self-examine what you are really doing to support the troops. Now that is demeaning.
Comment by George — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
When Eric Margolis wrote in his column that those who supported Saddam should be put on trial, that wasn’t a bad idea at all. In fact a Dutch businessman named Frans van Anraat who supplied thousands of tons of chemicals to Saddam was convicted of such a crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_van_Anraat
It’s one thing that many of these people sold weapons to Saddam, another thing is that people like van Anraat willingly helped him to acquire WMD.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
George’s post about patriotism and the right to dissent even at a time of war, reminds me of then Vice President Harry S. Truman’s response to Joeseph Kennedy during the relection campaign of F.Roosevelt.
Kennedy came complaining to Truman and demanded to know how could Truman throw his support behind the man who killed his eldest son in a war of Roosevelt’s choosing.
Truman responded that if Kennedy didn’t shut his mouth and leave, he would throw his ass out the window.
During a time of war, yes, the right to a dissenting opinion is permissable and protected by the US constitution. Such dissent can be seen in some of the top and still respected senators from the Democratic party. But many others have crossed the line from dissent, straight into collusion with the enemy.
The enemy reads the words of US politicians, and in one of Zaeqawis communiques, just this point was raised. I believe that a defeatest attitude by politicians during a time of war for political gain, is a gross display of stupidity and foolishness on a grand scale. Especially when the troops on the ground are telling a complete different story.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
If you really think that the US troops are dying for nothing, than you are appear to be most likely a friend of the jihadis….not a great ideological company to keep.
What kind of irrational thinking is it that got us into the War in Iraq? Some sort of kindergarten algebra that ‘if we give Iraqis democracy … then terrorism will weaken.’
But terrorists lived in democracies. They organized cells in Hamburg and Madrid and took flight lessons in the US. The 7/7 bombers grew up in a parliamentary democracy in the UK. But in the end they chose - as you put it - ‘Islamofascism.’
So one of the premises of Bush’s war on terror is false. Terrorism can thrive as well in a democracy as it can in a theocracy. See Tim McVeigh. See the IRA. See the ETA.
And as an American congnizant of the limits of our resources, you could say that Iraq is a blunder, a mistake. We parked our whole army in Mesopotamia. The only big sticks we have left are speeches, sanctions, and the atomic bomb.
That robs me of my security. And as a citizen and investor in this project called America, I would like my money to be well spent and my security protected.
It’s no wonder that President W. ran every business prior to the US into the ground. He’s a bad businessman and a terrible leader.
Comment by giustino — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
The enemy reads the words of US politicians, and in one of Zaeqawis communiques, just this point was raised. I believe that a defeatest attitude by politicians during a time of war for political gain, is a gross display of stupidity and foolishness on a grand scale. Especially when the troops on the ground are telling a complete different story.
In election 2006, most Iraq War veterans running for office have chosen to run as DEMOCRATS. Why is that? How could Tammy Duckworth lose both her legs in the war, and then come home to ‘collude with the enemy’?
Why is it that Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and Vietnam Vet Jim Webb is running as a DEMOCRAT against 2008 fav. Sen. George Allen of Virginia?
Why do all these vets come home and run as DEMOCRATS, KGS59? Could it be that your ‘colluding with the enemy’ crap is false.
I think so.
Comment by giustino — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
George,
You resorted to the old canard about W’s service record bla bla bla….all I can add to that is ….Dan Rather.
As for the many failures during the course of the war, that is the nature of war, it can never be predicted. As for the troops being under supplied in armor, so to the invading US army that resulted in thousands being wasted on the beaches of Normandy. Yet I do not recall the elective branch of the US Government KVETCHING to Roosevelt that HE is to blame for every miltiary failure ect ect.
All the doom saying and negative press the US effort in Iraq has garnished is so surreal that its farcical.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
It’s funny how some so called “libertarians” immediately turn into big government worshippers when said government spends billions and billions of tax payer money on their little military adventures. (Failed military adventure in this case.) Props to anti-war Phil for at least in this regard being consistent with his libertarians views.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
KGS59:
“Yet I do not recall the elective branch of the US Government KVETCHING to Roosevelt that HE is to blame for every miltiary failure ect ect.”
Maybe it’s because they saw a point to both the conflict itself and the broader military strategy.
Comment by Kimmo W — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
KGS59,
The whole Dan Rather thing was about how much time he actually spent at the National Guard, not the fact that he was stationed there instead of Vietnam. Clearly, a person who avoids combat duty is not as credible for supporting the troops as someone who fought on the front lines. Again, I don’t fault GWB for taking advantage of his situation, almost anyone would.
Secondly, the fact is that troops are not fully equipped and that America has the means to do so. I am not specifying who deserves the blame, but my question is: Where is the outrage from all our patriots? The political climate during WWII is completely irrelevant to this.
And by the way, I admit that comment #6 was far more abusive. I am curious, what is your opinion of it? Does it cross the line, or does it not bother you?
Comment by George — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
giustino: Jim Webb is running as a Democrat in Virginia because he wants to run on an anti-Iraq war platform. George Allen is obviously a strong supporter of the war. Webb, who has supported probably every American military involvement except this one and who was no Democrat before this election, is going to be a very strong Democratic candidate due to his charisma and a way with the word. I don’t really think he would’ve run as an anti-war candidate because of the war itself, it’s probably because he was so fed up with the continuous insults toward Democratic veterans by non-veteran Republican spin doctors and politicians. Webb is against this war, but the Democratic Party is by no means an anti-war party, most Democratic Senators supported the Iraq War at the very beginning.
George: I certainly think anonymous #6 crossed the line. It was both an inaccurate statement and an insult to Phil. It must’ve been why it was signed “anonymous”.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
“He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that has never known peace.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm
This is a very eloquent putdown of the US war effort in Iraq by Jim Webb.
He says Saddam was not a direct threat to the United States and he doesn’t believe peace in the Middle East is possible.
I think that removing Saddam led to one of the worst tyrants of our age losing his power. Of course one of the very reasons he was allowed to commit genocide in the first place had been that he wasn’t seen as a direct threat to the United States or to any other of the major powers that looked by. This is how the supporters of a realist foreign policy always thought he was a guarantor of stability in the Middle East, no matter how outrageous crimes he committed. Letting people like Saddam do whatever they want is not a good recipe for world peace or stability, neither from a European nor an American perspective. The belief that Middle East can’t see peace or is not rife for democracy is pretty cynical as long as not just any dictators but war criminals of the worst sort like Saddam are justified to do their thing in the first place. It is no accident that James Webb had a position in the Reagan Administration, the very same administration that was pretty reluctant to do anything about Saddam’s gas attacks.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Kimmo,
Bush jr. is desperately hated by the Left, and anything W did or didn’t do, would be subject to relentless barrages by the “just say no” Left wingers in the Democratic party. I just cannot take them seriously anymore as a major party, when their political instincts and sense of duty is outweighed by the hatered for just one man.
As I said before, there is justification for complaints and criticism over the handling of the war, but that in itself does not warrant the unhinged lunatic rantings from the likes of Murtha and other bloviators in the Left wing. It most certainly goes beyond the pale some the charges laid at the Bush admin. by senior Democrat politicians.
Trying to bring down the present admin. with phony charges and disengenuous accusations about lying to congress and misleading the American public ect.ect. and all during a time of war, is obscene and self defeating. I would be just as angry if it was a Dem in the Oval office under the same circumstances.
Lets not forget the canards of W doing the bidding of Israel through the cabal of the neo-cons, all of this nonsense begins to add up into a picture of anti-Semtism with a hint of subversion.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Maybe it’s because they saw a point to both the conflict itself and the broader military strategy.
Kimmo is exactly right. Clearly, the reason why this has been dragged out for so long and with minimal results (security, electricity, water, umemployment, exporting oil, etc) is because the coalition has been too small.
To fix that, you need either:
- Another 300,000 American troops (impossible without a political suicide draft)
- Many more countries with sizable armies joining the coalition (either involves political suicide by leaders making the decision on their own, or America publicly admits it needs help in order for the public of other countries to accept joining the war)
Both involve political suicide which make them impossible, and, unfortunately, America has put herself in this position.
Whatever progress has been made politically, it is useless without a functioning society.
The “as Iraqis stand up” strategy is smart, but not for the short-term, which could be many, many years.
Some call this a defeatist attitude, and some call it a stop to a terrible military strategy and an occupation with no end in sight that continues to tear American families apart.
Either do it right, or get the fuck out. And that is essentially what Murtha and co. are saying.
Comment by George — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Webb is wrong on all counts. Saddam was many things over a many number of years, but not being a direct threat to the US, is not one of them.
Its been documented that the guy was playing the UN Security Council for suckers, even creating an account for bribery of the remaining 3/5 of the permanent council. He was in bed with terrorism and terrorism flourished in his model of a Ba’atist Iraq. His 25 000 dollar stipends to suicide terrorists in Israel is well documented as well.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
This website has a 1993 LA Times article on the Iraq policies of the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations:
http://www.casi.org.uk/2000/msg00776.html
“A number of classified State Department cables suggest also describe proposals in 1982 and 1983 by William Eagleton, the senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, to funnel arms to Iraq through allies in the Middle East. ‘We can selectively lift restrictions on third-party transfers of U.S.-license military equipment to Iraq,’ he said in an October, 1983, cable.
Although initially rejected, other documents and interviews with former U.S. officials indicate that the policy was pursued on a covert basis with Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait and that arms were transferred to Iraq.
‘There was a conscious effort to encourage to ship U.S. arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact,’ said Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the National Security Council in the Reagan Administration. ‘It was a policy of nods and winks.’
While the American rationale was that Hussein was a buffer against Iran, classified records show U.S. support for his regime continued unabated after the official cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War was signed in August, 1988, and after Iraq’s chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish villages on July 19, 1988.
In fact, in August, 1988, Deputy Secretary of State Whitehead recommended in a secret policy memo that ‘there should be no radical policy changes now regarding Iraq.’
The pro-Iraq strategy was embraced by Bush when he became President. His Administration continued to encourage the transfer of U.S.-supplied arms to Iraq from Arab allies, according to interviews and classified documents.”
The Bush in the above quote of course refers to George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. So even if there was no war going on against Iran and Saddam had already committed his war crimes in that war, before Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait the Bush 41 Administration had allowed more arms to be shipped to Saddam through covert means, if there is any credibility to this 1993 LA Times report.
Yes, it was the invasion of Kuwait that led to the change of the US attitude toward Saddam. The end of the Cold War also coincided with that change. As I’ve many times pointed out, very many governments shared a pro-Saddam attitude before 1990.
Kuwait certainly showed what kind of a nutcase Saddam is and how dangerous and delusional he is. I think the fact that Saddam had earlier been supported by the US still weighed on the shoulders of those who let him stay in office in the name of realism and stability. This is the kind of pre-1990 thinking that may be one factor for how Jim Webb interprets the situation in the Middle East today.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
Sorry about the wrong link, this should be the 1993 LA Times article:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
I will say one thing that I agree with, George is most correct in saying that a draft would have been a political suicide attempt. The Left would never settle for it, and would have made it the battle cry against the war, so there you have it.
We do not have enough troops because the Left wing in the Democratic party would have harpooned it from the very beginning. GWBush was just reacting to the reality of the situation, that we would have to make do with less.
The Dems need a purging of their party not unlike the Republicans jettisoning of the John Birch society a few decades ago.
Murtha makes incredible loopy statements like: “the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.”
What utter nonsense, from all the intel gathered at during the past 6 mos., al-Qaida is on the ropes, no matter HOW MANY SUICIDE BOMBERS they can attempt to send, they are locked out from Iraqi poltics, they have no base whatsoever. That spells doom for the jihadists.
How many times have we seen a recuiting station bombed, but what we don’t hear, is about the even bigger numbers of Iraqis volunteering the very next day to defend their homeland from the Islamists.
Murtha sad to say, is out of touch with reality.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
I’m sorry the website said the article was 1993 but it was in fact 1992, which was a presidential election year. It would’ve been more credible if it had been published after the election. Still I got the picture they were using Reagan Administration sources for the part that had to do with those times.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
KGS59
“Bush jr. is desperately hated by the Left, and anything W did or didn’t do, would be subject to relentless barrages by the “just say no†Left wingers in the Democratic party.”
You don’t need a personal pathological hatred to see that the guy is a total screwup - in Iraq, and elsewhere. You don’t even have to be a leftist or a Democrat!
All it takes is an ability to see the obvious - something that seems to be getting easier for Americans of all backgrounds and political persuasions, as the quagmire of Iraq deepens.
As the emotional impact of 9/11 - that political godsend for the bushies - gradually fades, Bush and the die-hard rats who do not desert his ship will find it increasingly difficult to invoke the tragedy for any lunacy that he puts forward.
Comment by Kimmo W — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Here’s the Webb campaign website on some of the supporters of his (Murtha and some generals):
http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=24
I don’t think this is necessarily an anti-war campaign as much as it is a critique of the original decision to go to war. General Zinni, for example, says “Jim spoke out in advance against the war in Iraq with an honest critique of a flawed strategy. I know that in the U.S. Senate, he will be an outspoken advocate of giving our military the tools to do the job and uphold the peace.”
Doing the job doesn’t really sound like cutting and running. I know campaign websites often give a dodgy impression on where the candidate stands but Webb can very well run on a platform saying if we’re to be in Iraq, let’s do the job properly. I don’t know. We’ll see.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
KGS59,
Are you really that simple?!?!!?
A draft is not political suicide because of the left, it is political suicide because very few people are willing to risk their life by going to war! Otherwise our volunteer army would be the size as China’s!!
Wake up! I can promise you that a draft would be voted down overwhelmingy by the GOP as well. And do you think that if the left called for a draft, the right would not use it as a political advantage? You are so determined to see everything as left or right, that you ignore the merits of the debate.
And here is some reality for you. I am afraid Iraq is not as peachy as you think …
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1090904.ece
Or is the US Ambassador in Iraq now a leftist anti-patriot and also out of touch with reality?
This would be laughable if it were not so painful for so many people.
Comment by George — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
George,
Are you really that much of a “door knob” ?1??!!??
Have you been out to lunch over the past 4 years to have missed the Left’s propaganda machine churning out one lie after another in hope of derailing this president? They would have had a field day with a Republican draft.
The Left has succeeded on many campuses in denying the role of ROTC to hold meetings or even pass out material. A media dominated by either Liberals or far Left wing individuals, would have been relentless on the administration. That is fact, and why we could never hope to fill the ranks with any draftee.
As for a confifential report being “leaked” to the press, I don’t put any stocl in it until the Ambassador himself publically admits to its authenticity. Again, you understand what you want to understand…ect ect.
I never said criticism is unpatriotic, but unrealistic defeatism…is.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
I am all for the reduction of the professors’ wages so that academic studies can be more affordable for all the working class.
I am also for the reduction of wages, starting with the administrations who run the colleges. I don’t understand why the President of the University of Texas at Austin gets paid more than the President of the United States.
As for whether or not the young man you claim died for nothing, that’s for history to decide.
Claim? Not really. History happens every minute and every second. History has had 3+ years to decide.
As for how he acted in high school, I am sure that you can at löeast agree that people change
Not really. It’s gullibility to even think so.
and that the military has a proud tradtion of turning young boys into men.
Don’t forget the women. I agree and disagree. I will leave it at that.
Understanding the military through the interpretation of an Oliver Stone movie(or any movie for that matter) is nonsensical.
Stanley Kubrick. I didn’t use that particular quote as an interpretation of the military. It was to make a point about life and death given the situation. You’re forgiven for not understanding that well enough, considering you’re being shot at from all sides (and with good reason).
Comment by gopha — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
OBTW,
The draft wasn’t political suicide during both world wars either, but only after Vietnam. Thanks John Kerry, your lying epeisodes before congress will never be forgotten, and your ilk are trying it once more with supposed Haditha massacre.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
KGS59 wrote that al-Qaida is on the ropes and U.S. is in control. I do not think so myself. In the past there wasn´t even any proven connection between Iraq and al-Quaida. Now there are new activists in Iraq who claim themselfs to be a part of al-Quaida. Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground and the “war against terrorism” is not working very well. Believe me, those al-Quaida terrorists are just as difficult to find and kill than Viet Cong in Vietnam.
Comment by Mikko — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Gopha,
History happening every minute? really? That is truly an interesting quip seeing that there is still hundreds of thousands of untranslated captured documents from Operation Iraqi Freedom, waiting to see the light of day.
Your arrogant claim that people don’t change, runs smack into reality that has proven time and time again that people change their points of view over the course of their life time. Only a naive person would claim otherwise.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
“Have you been out to lunch over the past 4 years to have missed the Left’s propaganda machine churning out one lie after another in hope of derailing this president? They would have had a field day with a Republican draft.”
1. Give me one example of Dim Son Dubya (in your world, the Great Leader Bush II) managing/directing/DOING SOMETHING, ANYTHING successfully in his whole life? Except quit drinking.
2. Check out the perception of US around the world? Is it better or worse than during Clinton administration?
3. Do you see shrinking US Government, so much advertised by the Republicans?
4. Tax cuts only to the rich are helping the US economy in what way?
5. Just type “failure” or “worst president” or “miserable” in Google and try your luck. Or is Google just plain leftist propaganda tool?
Just like one old joke, try finding one fool at the negotiating table and if you cannot find one, YOU are the one.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
Captured documents show that Saddam had set aside funds for training terrorists in camps, as well as providing Zarqawi refuge back in 2002. Abu Nidel, who murdered Leon Klinghoffer on the Italian cruise liner also found refuge in Saddam’s Iraq.
Ties with the Taliban, Ties with the Sudanese Islamist run gov’t, and feelers put out for Osama Bin Laden, with high official contacts being made for some type of cooperation.
Suicide bombing stipends ($25 000 )for Palestinian Islamakazis also rounds out Saddam’s terrorist portfolio, as well as tapes depicting a rather different scenario:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645
The dust has not settled on the debate…yet.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
This is the kind of pre-1990 thinking that may be one factor for how Jim Webb interprets the situation in the Middle East today.
The dilemma presented for rightwing thinkers when confronting the Iraq situation is that the US reaction to 9/11 is a global one, and so actions within Iraq must be seen not interms of classic rightwing “good vs. evil” “right vs. wrong” box thinking.
Instead the strategy requires one to a) accurately assess the capabilities of American political and military power b) identify the greatest threats and c) use that power in the most conservative ways to create positive change.
Chicken hawk, armchair warrior rightwing thinkers in America, weaned on Reaganite promises of military might and FOX News, think America in terms of unlimited resources. Real veterans, like John Murtha, Jim Webb, and others, KNOW that American power is limited and it must be applied in the most meaningful ways possible to protect the security of the United States.
Because our army is parked in Iraq, we have fewer options when it comes to other more genuine threats. We will choose diplomacy over and over again vis a vis Iran because we have no other choice. And North Korea’s next missile test? It will go forward with only diplomatic protest. Russia? They’ll get more heavy handed in bullying East Europe and the Caucuses.
Because the Iraq War makes us WEAKER, instead of stronger. We are asserting ourself as a super power with at least one hand tied behind our back.
And chicken hawks don’t see that because they are only able to function in a black and white world of gay marriage BAD, leader bush GOOD. That’s why they will lose at the polls this November, and come 2008 they very well may lose again.
Comment by giustino — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
Phil
You have been in the French “White Flag” area to long.
It is sad to see young folks die. But who the heck in this world is doing anything, except the USA? Not the EU, they just sit on their buts, drink coffee, and be world critics.
By the way the US Military has lost more folks, in one year, to auto crashes, than we have lost in the entire gulf war. But I don’t see one ounce of compasion for those losses.
Comment by winter — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
KGS59, in your mind this is a war between good and evil. It is all black and white, right? Why do those bad jihadists hate us western good people so much? Why?
We did not do anything wrong.
http://student.math.hr/~bruckler/war.txt
Comment by Mikko — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
PS. The Middle East’s track record in terms of peace and stability isn’t too hot, for those who like to study the history books.
Just ask the French, British, Italians - whomever. They know all too well. In fact, just go rent Sirocco from 1951, starring Humphrey Bogart. It’s all there - the French occupying Syria under League of Nations mandate, a viscious insurgency, terrorist bombings of night clubs.
Enjoy it, and tell me if it reminds you of some other conflict.
Comment by giustino — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Phil:
They should have been out dating and drinking and partying and fucking and enjoying themselves
Excuse me but who are you to stay what they should have been doing? You can’t accept the fact that many rather go and fight than waste their time drinking and partying?
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
This is the reality of war unfortunatly, it’s always the brave young men/women with futures ahead of them who pay the price. It hurts a lot more in wars like Iraq when more and more people each day feel the war is unjust.
As for the people who think Europe is doing nothing, rather than trying to find someone to blame for their troubles they should look closer to home.
Comment by maca — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
How you know they didn’t die doing what they saw was 100% worth dying for?
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
“How you know they didn’t die doing what they saw was 100% worth dying for?”
and how you?
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
History happening every minute? really? That is truly an interesting quip seeing that there is still hundreds of thousands of untranslated captured documents from Operation Iraqi Freedom, waiting to see the light of day.
yawn..
Your arrogant claim that people don’t change, runs smack into reality that has proven time and time again that people change their points of view over the course of their life time. Only a naive person would claim otherwise.
Arrogant? Not really. Experience. I wouldn’t have said what i said about him if it weren’t true. But hey, nice trying to rewrite my own personal experiences with the people that *’I'* (not you) know/knew.
If i were you, i wouldn’t go running to radio stations trying to be the next “great” conservative talk show host. You try to hard at not being convincing enough.
Comment by gopha — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
to hard
+o
Comment by gopha — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
Winter: “By the way the US Military has lost more folks, in one year, to auto crashes, than we have lost in the entire gulf war. But I don’t see one ounce of compasion for those losses.”
So the rest of the friggin world is wrong? :
“A Pew opinion poll released last week found that citizens across the globe are losing confidence in the US leader, with his approval ratings plummeting, for example, to 15% in France, 7% in Spain and a 3% in Turkey. Support for the administration’s militaristic policies has also dramatically waned, with majorities in only 2 of the 14 countries surveyed favoring the so-called war on terror, and similar majorities citing the US military presence in Iraq as a greater threat to world peace than Iran….
And they wouldn’t be heartened by Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) April 2006 assessment of National Counterterrorism Center data, which found an increase of over 5,000% in the number of global terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of terrorist-related deaths in the three years following the US invasion of Iraq. Yet the administration says the war on terror is making us safer. ”
Read my lips, FIVE FUCKING THOUSAND and TWO THOUSAND PERCENT MORE! So you better start rewriting the wikipedia and start with this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
Hey Mikko,
Due to your moral relativism, I can understand why you wouldn’t define tyranical dictatorships as well as their bloody executioners who saw off heads for the glory of their God…. as being evil.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
So Tim73’s ideas for making the world safe are….?
The IslamOfascists could care less whether the West opts for the “safe road” of appeasement, choosing rather to co-exist with the jihadis. They will bring the fight to our doorsteps regardless if we try and make nice.
Breaking the back of the terrorists is a must, anything else short of that will not suffice.
Comment by KGS59 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
“So Tim73’s ideas for making the world safe are….?”
Well, here are a few simple rules to make world peace:
1. Mind your FUCKING own business.
2. Stop messing things up in the Middle East, you Americans have been there SINCE WWII! (See #17 or use Google). Remember, you guys kinda ignored Iranians (those little people) wishes back in 1953…
3. Go ahead, build the fucking immigration wall around US, I and a lot of others will gladly help TO KEEP YOU INSIDE in your little ignoraduckmuses pond. You are the Pariahs of the World now.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/uutinen.asp?id=1191270
Probably they got wrong picture but this was expected.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
In Finland during the civil war, people were taken into shady
forests, forced to dig their own graves and shot.
Yet you, descentants of these “killers”, claim to be all goody goody.
You aint. None of us is. When shit hits the fan, when someone pisses you off like Saddam did piss of G W Bush sr and jr. People do things.
Not neccessarily intelligent things, but things.
At least US is not lashing out like Russia probably would have.
(think mushroom cloud in Kabul)
Good things can come out of Iraq war. Like someone could argue, good things came out of Finnish / US civil war / WW2.
I know it does not make any sense, but sometimes you have to show that you have limits on how much abuse you can take. You have to fight. If you do not, your abusers are only going to fuck with you more. We all saw that at schoolyard.
Saddam did try to assasinate George bush sr. He was also building a cannon that would be able to shoot ballistic projectiles. His people most certainly were funding terror.
US is setting limits. Us is showing that it wont take shit.
Had saddam bowed down, his people would have been spared from war.
He did not.
When it comes to Finland.. We can only take it up the a**.. Years of appeasement have made us lose a touch with reality. We think everything in the world can be solved with negotiations and taking it up the butt. Sadly, this is not true. Just like that big bully in the schoolyard would not listen to anything but force.
When you are a superpower.
You have to talk the language people listen.
When you are a country hidden under mosquito poop, you have to take it up the butt and build undeground weapon arsenals just in case.
Not even dreaming about pissing off the big bear next door.
In the world of Tim73 the likes of Kim Jong Il would rule.
Comment by STP — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
“US is setting limits. Us is showing that it wont take shit.
Had saddam bowed down, his people would have been spared from war.
He did not.”
Read your history again, boy. Saddam was supported by USofA in the 80’s. Saddam actually asked TWICE very directly from USofA via diplomatic channels about Kuwait operation back in the late 80’s. The answer was “we do not care” or “go ahead”.
Saddam was very very careful with the US and with other Western power but it was the US that suddenly realized that “OH, Saddam is now controlling 25 percent or more of world oil, not good” back in 1990. Iraq was very indebted to Kuwait because of Iraq-Iran war and that is why Saddam decided to invade that little “insect” south of border.
Just like in the case of Iranians, Americans do not learn from history, they act project by project basis. No long term perspective, nothing but short term speculation, expecting great results without bothering to even learn the basics of other cultures.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
Tim, you should stop reading the socialist propaganda daily magazines!
Saddam had a full half a year around 1990 to pull out and he did not.
He was too full of himself to do it. He also paid the price, twice.
Americans do not learn from history? You sir, are full shit.
A question? Why so critical about Americans, why not be critical about North Korea / China / Iran? Why? Why?
Becasue lets face it. You hate US. You hate us because US acted after being struck by fundamental muslims. You would have expected them to be beyond hate.
Well, you are not beyond hate. Why would US? Why would anyone.
It is a human thing to get pissed off.
You want world to be led by fundamentalist muslims / commies. I prefer Americans. We are different. We would not get along. That is why I sit here in Atlanta and you sit where ever hell you do.
Have yourself a bad day.
Comment by STP — Tue, Jun 20th, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
KGS59:
PS, just a word of wisdom, holding an election does not prove a government is democratic. A democracy is defined by its democratically working institutions, and its adhering to the rule of law.
Exactly, and this is why the much-touted Iraqi photo-op “democracy” does not pass the acid test. They dropped pieces of paper in boxes under Saddam as well.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 12:54 am
“Years of appeasement have made us lose a touch with reality”
Looks like someone has already lost touch with reality.
When you have to resort to insults or fall into whataboutery, like you have done with Tim, then you have already lost the argument. And going down the “you hate the US” route is really quite sad, a sure sign that you are unable to tackle the arguments.
But continue, it’s really quite amusing.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 1:42 am
Freeriden
You forgot those millions of purple fingers. All going to the polls with the threat of death. Hard to explain, but we would love to see you try.
Question is. Would you do the same for democracy? I do not think so. The French White Flag EU can only watch the world go by.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 1:49 am
Tim73
“So the rest of the friggin world is wrong? :”
Yes.
What a bunch of whimps you all are. The EU could not even fight your own little war against Yugoslavia. Had to call in the bad, evil, wrong direction, miss directed USA? Again?
Failure is the EU’s middle name. Or rather inaction. As failure is the result of your inaction.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 1:56 am
Tim73’s few simple rules to make world peace:
“1. Mind your FUCKING own business.”
Yes the EU does put its head in the ground. Simple Fact. If the USA goes home, the world stops dead (Commerce). Hope you have a farm to grow food.
“2. Stop messing things up in the Middle East, you Americans have been there SINCE WWII! (See #17 or use Google). Remember, you guys kinda ignored Iranians (those little people) wishes back in 1953…”
And the EU has an answer to the Middle East? Other than surrender? Another EU mess we are just cleaning up, the Middle East. Thanks EU.
“3. Go ahead, build the fucking immigration wall around US, I and a lot of others will gladly help TO KEEP YOU INSIDE in your little ignoraduckmuses pond. You are the Pariahs of the World now.”
Until you have another EU war (Like Yugoslavia) for the Evil USA to fight for you. By the way we will not come next time. So have fun.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:07 am
Winter
“If the USA goes home, the world stops dead (Commerce). Hope you have a farm to grow food.”
*snigger* been reading “idiot’s guide to economics”?
Simple fact. We are all in this together whether we like it or not. No country can manage on it’s own these days, even the mighty US.
“Another EU mess we are just cleaning up, the Middle East.”
Perhaps you might expand … how exactly are the US “cleaning up” the Middle East? Come to think of it, how did the EU “create” the mess in the Middle East? And no revisionism please.
You may also like to remember the fact that the US relies on support from a number of EU & other European states, without them you simply couldn’t manage.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:20 am
“You want world to be led by fundamentalist muslims / commies. I prefer Americans. We are different. We would not get along. That is why I sit here in Atlanta and you sit where ever hell you do.
Have yourself a bad day.”
Good Morning to Atlanta. I do not want led by 1. Americans. 2. Fundamentalist muslims or 3. Commies. I would like to be lead be US, Finnish People, you ignorant little twit (no take out that globe and pinpoint us).
“You hate us because US acted after being struck by fundamental muslims. You would have expected them to be beyond hate.”
Oh, careful there boy. How about KILLING ONE MILLION PEOPLE in Cambodia because of bombing campaigns, NEXT TO VIETNAM. Domino theory my ass.
You are my little cousin. It has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or capitalism. You are from Atlanta, next to florida, in the middle. So your friends are all Protestants and that should mean something.
Hello, WE ARE THE THE ORIGINAL PROTESTANTS you dimwits. We do NOT carry guns here and respect human rights UNLIKE you dim sons there. We do not attack other cultures to teach them, DO WE? DO WE? SO what are gonna do about that?
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Maca, it pisses me off when Tim keeps on blabbing his propaganda. He claism that Saddam was a ragdoll of US. As if he had had a US blessing for attack for kuwait and later on US would have changed its mind. What complete bullshit. I am not afraid to say how it is. Tim is full of shit.
If he stops spewing shit out of his mouth. I will say that yes, “tim is spent” “there is no more shit in Tim”, but as long as there is more shit coming out of him. I will keep on saying. Tim is full of shit.
Or maybe he is half full of shit? Who knows.
All I know is that he is no better than Baghdad Bob.
Comment by STP — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Shocking…. Shocking… Evil Evil USA
”
Officials said the suspected senior al Qaeda in Iraq member captured in yesterday’s raid is known to be involved in facilitating foreign terrorists throughout central Iraq, and is suspected of having ties to previous attacks on coalition and Iraqi forces. Troops found an AK-47 with several magazines of ammunition and destroyed them all on site.
Several women and children were present at the raid sites, officials said. None was harmed, and all were returned to their homes once the troops ensured the area was secure, they added.”
Darn the Evil USA. Returning women and children to their homes no less. Pure Evil.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:25 am
“Shocking…. Shocking… Evil Evil USA”
Funnily enough the only people I ever heard saying such things were Americans when faced with criticism of their involvement in the Iraq War or of their Government’s foreign policy. You really need to learn to take criticism on the chin and to deal with the arguments presented rather than responding in what is really quite a childish fashion.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:29 am
maca
maby you missed the part where the EU does nothing. And I mean nothing as the world goes down the tubes.
Thats right, nothing. (I do give the UK a pass, as they are not really in Europe, and are engaged)
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:32 am
p.s. “Darn the Evil USA. Returning women and children to their homes no less. Pure Evil.”
One could simply respond with photos of Abu Guraib or articles concerning some of the innocents killed by US troops in Iraq however one could very easily go around in circles posting such things without having an adult discussion on the topic at hand.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:33 am
maca
“criticism on the chin ” from the EU? Frapin no way I will ever worry about some French White Flag surrender types.
Please do some good for the world, then I will think better of you all.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:35 am
“maby you missed the part where the EU does nothing. And I mean nothing as the world goes down the tubes.
Thats right, nothing. (I do give the UK a pass, as they are not really in Europe, and are engaged) ”
I see your grasp of geography is as poor as your grasp of international politics. Perhaps you could answer the questions posed to you? If you are able?
Also, it seems your definition of doing nothing is ‘not going to war’. War isn’t the only solution you know, indeed it should be the last solution if it actually is a solution at all. And judging by events in Iraq it isn’t a solution. Care to explain to us all how the war in Iraq will stop the world going down the tubes? You never stopped to think for a split second that perhaps the war in fact contributes to the mess?
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:36 am
“Please do some good for the world, then I will think better of you all.”
Hilarious. Keep ‘em coming, you only make yourself look even more foolish.
Perhaps you missed the earlier point about the European states assissting the US? Do you seriously think the US could manage the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan WITHOUT the support of European nations?? Not on your nelly.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:41 am
“f he stops spewing shit out of his mouth. I will say that yes, “tim is spent†“there is no more shit in Timâ€Â, but as long as there is more shit coming out of him. I will keep on saying. Tim is full of shit.
Or maybe he is half full of shit? Who knows. All I know is that he is no better than Baghdad Bob.”
That is the state of mind of many Americans soldiers out there, replace just that “Tim” with raghead or sandnigger. THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES AND I HOPE you use that to bring back democrazy to America.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:48 am
Winter, for your information (because you obviously don’t have a clue), here are some of the countries currently assisting the US with (specifically) the Iraq War:
Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania, UK, Italy,
The Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Czech Republic; and a number of other nations assist/have assisted in other ways.
You need to do your research sunshine.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 3:05 am
Anyway and all the way, protestants do NOT teach something about invading muslims unlike this Dim Son Dubya. Jesus teaching were about love, peace and understanding, last time I read them. Nothing about like these red state gun owner idiots are teaching.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 3:10 am
Maca
You mean we have support? No frapin way, as we are the evil ones. The wold hates the USA.
But then again the polish troups are well respected by US Army forces. Seems that when fighting startes up, they are out the door, Armed and ready for the fight. Same for the Austrlians who are running out the door guns in hand to help.
So big question is, Where are the rest of the Europeans we helped so many times in the past?
Flapin their lips again?
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 3:21 am
I do agree with this one
Tim73 == Baghdad Bob
The tanks are rolling behind Bob and he is saying the USA has lost.
9 million purple fingers and Tim73 is saying all is lost
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 3:25 am
winter
“No frapin way, as we are the evil ones. The wold hates the USA.”
Back to the childish comments again. What a come back, especially after you’ve been shown up for your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
What age are you 15? Get an education first then come back to talk to the adults.
“So big question is …”
Is THAT the big question?? Surely the big question is why the US invaded Iraq in the first place? If it wasn’t for the lies about WMD’s being ready to launch in 45 minutes or the bull about trying to “free” the Iraqi people perhaps you might have had more support. The lies did you or the UK no favours and turned many people off the war, not only around the world but in the US also. People don’t like being lied to.
As I said before, look closer to home if you want someone to blame.
Comment by maca — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 9:45 am
winter:
You forgot those millions of purple fingers.
That would be the photo-op I was referring to. The Bush administration is all about photo oppoertunities.
All going to the polls with the threat of death.
According to whom? Remember, we can’t trust news reports from Iraq, because the MSM journalists are all afraid to get out of the green zone.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 9:49 am
Maca,
Your accounting of the reasons why the US resumed hostilites in Iraq are seriously lacking in depth. Every western intel agency was pretty much on the same page concerning Saddam’s WMD capabilities.
Again, no one has ever given 100% certainty that the convoy leading out of Iraq just prior to the resuming of hostilities did not contain WMD’s ect. But all of this is just a side issue, for the main reason of US involvement in Iraq is about UNSC resolution 1441, which saw Iraq not being in complaince with the UN Security Council.
Not leaving Iraq in the hands of the Ba’atists was the only logical and morally correct decision to make. The spinning of the reasons why the US led Coaltion went to war by the political air headed Left and its ideological cousins in the main stream media, has resulted in the whole issue being so misunderstood.
If you don’t like being lied to, I suggest you stop believing in the muck found in the Left wing journals.
Comment by KGS59 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Im a “European”, and I dont really care how many US soldiers will die in their missions to deliver freedom, democracy and unite foreign countries as a one star more into US flag.
I just hope, that some day somebody in United States will understand what kind of terrible mistake this vendetta against terrorism has been. Not against the terrorism itself, but for the whole image that US gives to rest of the world.
United States is a threat, a threat to world peace. That is what the rest of the world is thinking, but what does that mean to US citizen?
It doesnt mean anything. Because they, people of United States are the ones who are right.
Of course “Europeans” are wrong, because they are just doing nothing. If “Europeans” think US is a threat to world peace, why should it mean anything?
Get it? YOU are pretty much alone.
Welcome back to real world.
What comes to “Europeans” doing nothing, thats out of the context. Maybe some Europeans have learnt for their mistakes, that killing is not the solution to every problem. Like “we”, “Europeans”, found the America. That is the greatest mistake “Europeans” have ever made. And “we” killed bunch of people too. Shouldnt you be mad for us?
Other mistake is to speak us as Europeans. Europe doesnt form a single collective mind for their politics, as US does. Europe consists several countries, and these countries have a right for their own opinnions. Heck, some of them even joined your freedom operations…
But back on topic for a while. A young american boy died, so what. How many Iraqis have died? Did their parents and friends cry for a terrible loss? Did they think, that they were fighting for a reason?
Iraqis are people too, they have every same right to defend their beliefs as US has. Except if they are transferred into Guantanamo, where human right doesnt carry much value.
Its all about how you put it.
Comment by XD — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Wrong XD,
Some Europeans ARE doing something. Britain and many other EU states decided long ago that stopping tyranny didn’t end with the demise of the Nazis or the USSR. Their ideological cousin, Islamist fascism, (just as religious as the poltical believers in national socialism and Marxist communism) is just as dangerous to the free world.
As for US soldiers dying for a just cause, they could care less what you or others think about their sacrifice, its personal to them, and it was their choice to make, as much as it is your choice to sit behind your PC and wish for a return of things the way they were before 9/11 occured.
Get it through all of your heads that Iraq has an overwhelming majority that has voted for poltics over violence, for peaceful democracy over relentless terrorism. As for Gitmo detainees, they are being treated fairly as their situation demands. They are enemy combatants that owe no allegiance to any particular state, and therefor are held differently than a regular POW captured from an enemy state.
Even if they had POW status, they would still be held indefinately until the war was over. Like you said:
“Its all about how you put it.”
Comment by KGS59 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
“United States is a threat, a threat to world peace. That is what the rest of the world is thinking, but what does that mean to US citizen?”
Speak for yourself XD, I am part of the “rest of the World” and I don’t agree. You make the so called “European opinion” on war sound like a great wisdom by setting up a straw man. “Americans” do not think that war is an answer to every single problem but rather that it was an answer to this specific one; it is just that the “Europeans” have miserably failed to argue any reasonable way Saddam could have been removed from power without any bloodshed.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
““Europeans†have miserably failed to argue any reasonable way”
not only do the EU have no clear agenda (Well except to surrender), they do NOTHING.
Yep the “Do Nothing” crowd is unhappy with the USA. Well so what, who cares. We plan on kicking some BUT, maby Iran or North Korea next, (HINT: Don’t piss of a US president by taking shots at his DAD, an ACT OF WAR no less) and the EU can just sit there and cry in their coffee.
Well you didn’t actually expect Europeans to do something, did you?
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
XD
You are waiving the French white Flag of surrender again. Do you keep a supply of white flags handy to use each time an attack occur’s?
By the way I am an American, and have zero, nada one, plan to ever save your ass again. Fight your own wars and have fun.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
“SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed… Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.”
Do I really need to say what this has to do with the Iraq war?
106 Posts and NONE of you have any idea whats going on in the world…
Comment by Hege — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
winter: “By the way I am an American, and have zero, nada one, plan to ever save your ass again.”
The US President decides saving whose ass is in the US national interest. There’s this organization called NATO which practically means that whenever a member state is attacked (apart from the US, only Canada is not a European country of these), the US marines show up. I understand that you wouldn’t enlist if a European country would be attacked but that’s another matter.
NATO has increased in size lately. Partly because of this many of these new NATO member states (and some that might want to join but aren’t there yet) actually signed up for the US coalition in Iraq. That was by no means required by the NATO treaty but they wanted to prove their trustworthiness as allies by supporting America.
So plenty of European countries have joined the coalition and supported the Bush Administration. Above all Tony Blair, who leads one of America’s oldest allies, has been very important in this respect.
Plenty of Americans, on the other hand, have been critical of the conduct of the war by the Bush Administration. Many of these are of a military background and have had many complaints about the Pentagon. Whatever opinions there are of the Bush Administration, and there sure are plenty of them for and against, the talk about lack of planning not for the early phase of the war but the aftermath has remained a topic in many quarters. War sure is unpredictable and there have to be many plans for all sorts of eventualities.
I’ve often thought about the problem of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld in communicating about what the specific goals are. Tony Blair has generally been much better at explaining why this war is being fought. Bush’s “mission accomplished” stunt also made it look like the whole war would be over at the point when the first phase of the war was finished. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations have played a part on why there is such a lively discussion about the course of the war on both sides of the Atlantic. A war leader in today’s world also needs to be a communicator and having a Secretary of State who can communicate doesn’t help so much; it does when diplomatic solutions are chosen but not so much when it comes to the War in Iraq. Bush is not such a bad political campaigner but dealing with the press has never been his strong point. After all, the press matters a lot.
Comment by Helsinkian — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
To Anonymous… I think there were some negotiations or atleast something, anything going on to save the situation, but suddenly the US forces didnt care to wait enough. I mean, was the threat of weapons of mass destruction so imminent? Afterall, non of them have been found so far… Maybe with time, things could have gone other way.
And to Winter, lets make that a deal. Now if you could take those US outposts out of the europe, I’d be more than happy. Though im not sure, how well your country pays to those nations for keeping the bases. Anyhow, I bet it doesnt cost anywhere near than fighting a war as your ally.
And what comes to saving our ass, Im pretty sure Germany will not try that kind of stunt again, what they did some time ago.
And why would we surrender? to whom? Atleast were not fighting wars under our name around the globe.
Thanks for keeping us safe!
Comment by XD — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Here’s something quite revealing about the mindset that prevails among the “benevolent US liberators”.
http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2184&theType=NR
The actual video is here:
http://www.cair.com/video/marine-hadji-girl.wmv
Comment by Kimmo W — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
Winter’s “French white flag of surrender” is getting a bit old. He seems to apply it to anyone who is unwilling to jump through hoops held up by the USA.
Comment by Kimmo W — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Dear readers of the blog (and any other frequented by Americans)
Here is a lexicon of Bush supporting partisan terms that you may have come across in the past 100+ posts.
1. ‘MSM’ - this stands for ‘mainstream media’ and is used by Bush supporters to describe all media outlets (other than the traditional TV news network FOX as well as widely ready traditional newspapers like the Wall Street Journal) that don’t put rightwing pundits on the frontpage or editorial page or in the 7 pm to 10 pm slot. Such outlets (the Washinton Post, LA Times, CNN, the New York Times) are decried as ‘liberal’ and all bad news is seen as the ‘MSM’ in collusion with the ‘terrists’.
2. ‘Islamofascists’ - this is a term used by Bush supporters to describe any Islamic group engaged in armed conflict - ie. Chechnyans, Palestinians, Iraqis, Al-Qaeda, Ba’athists, etc. They are all the same.
3. Clinton - Any errors that have occured during the second Bush Administration are his fault (or the MSMs, take your pick)
4. Hitler’s Invasion of France in 1940 - the most important event in recorded history - used as a prism through which to interpret all current world events.
5. Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush supporters favorite term up until May 2003, when it became their least favorite term.
6. Loopy - an adjective used by Bush supporters to describe anyone that disagrees with Don Rumsfeld. Usually applied to US veterans and retired generals that disagree with the war strategy.
7. Defeatist - anyone that questions Bush’s war strategy or wants to set deadlines for US troops to remain in Iraq.
8. Naysayer - individuals that say ‘no’ to or disagree with any part of Bush foreign policy.
9. Blinded by Hatred - American citizens that question any of Bush policies are just ‘blinded by hatred’ of the president, ie. they cannot see Bush’s light/understand his true brilliance.
10. Fuhrer/Great Leader/King/Dictator - terms used by naysaying, defeatist, loopy liberal Americans that are blinded by their hatred of George W. Bush, pay too much attention to the MSM, and are in collusion with the Islamofascists and would have surrendered to Hitler, like France, in 1940, for the current president of the United States.
Comment by giustino — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Kimmo…HAH.
Another example of someone finding anything, just anything to counter an argument, and not know the details to what they are poting.
CAIR:
–”Civil rights group partially funded by *Saudi Wahhabi establishment*
–Co-founder Nihad Awad declared in 1996, “I am in support of the Hamas movement.”
–Board member Siraj Wahhaj served as character witness for 1993 World Trade City bombing conspirator Omar Abdel Rahman
The case about the song, was of an American soldier who penned a tune that depicted a soldier being lured in a trap by the pretty daughter of Jihadist parents, who was shot at by her parents in an ambush.
Both daughters died as the result of the parents AK47 bullet spray.
Either Kimo was IGNORANT of this, or he is guilty of slander.
Comment by KGS59 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Giustino,
I just have time to flay a portion of your flimsy argument.
1.) MSM. Its proven that the US media leans Left:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
2.) I advise you to read Paul Berman’s book Terror and Liberalism. Berman has strong Left credentials, but understands the enemy just as clearly as Christopher Hitchens
“Radical Leftists and Radical Islamists are joined by the nihilistic side of their utopian ideologies.” Not that I expect you to understand that.
Comment by KGS59 — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
How does posting a couple of URLs qualify as slander?
Details of the story line of this disgusting ballad (”As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then I laughed maniacally”)in no way mitigate the racisst overtones and the blatant indifference toward human life exhibited by the singing jarhead and his audience, who can be heard “laughing maniacally” in the background.
Comment by Kimmo W — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
“a cannon that would be able to shoot ballistic projectiles.”
Noooo! Not the BALLISTIC projectiles!?
Comment by m — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
One possible explanation for a “liberal bias” in the “mainstream media” could be that American schools of journalism are unfairly biased in their admissions policies, as they tend to discriminate against illiterates.
Comment by Kimmo W — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Salam Pax confirms some of the things reported in the US ambassador memo:
http://justzipit.blogspot.com/
Comment by m — Wed, Jun 21st, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
I just have time to flay a portion of your flimsy argument.
The recent you cannot ‘flay’ my ‘flimsy’ argument in post #112 is because it is NOT AN ARGUMENT. It is a group of simple observations on the lexicon of Bush-supporters in the US.
Foreigners that read this blog may not be used to reading the same rightwing buzz words until they get sick like those of us in the US are. So I decided to help them out by translating some of the more frequently used terms - MSM, Islamofascist, defeatist, loopy - that they might not normally encounter in a conversation with a normal American that does not consume a daily diet of Limbaugh, Coulter, and O’Reilly.
Hell, I have never used the word ‘loopy’ in my life, ever. Not once. Neither have I ever used ‘flip flop’ as a verb. But rightwingers love those words. They use ‘flip flop’ as a verb all the time. And loopy is a favorite adjective.
That’s how you can tell they’ve been brainwashed. When you come into your office and a coworker looks at you with a blank look on their face and says something like: “you loopy liberal defeatists, your boy Kerry is a flip flopper. I saw him on FOX news the other day flip flopping about the War on terror…Since 9/11…”
Well, then it’s obvious. They have become Bushbots. Rightwing androids.
Anyway, even if I did make a reasoned argument, you couldn’t flay it because it doesn’t follow the same tired rightwing strongman verses leftwing strawman argument that has been played over and over again for the past three years. It usually goes something like this:
BUSHBOT: The Iraq War is a crucial part of the war on terror…Saddam was a blood thirsty dictator…killed his own people..supported terrrr…
JANEFONDA: But the US armed Saddam in the 1980s….the UN…the rest of the world thinks…There was no WMD in Iraq…
BUSHBOT: You defeatist, naysayer…MSM…emboldening the terrrists…love Zarqawi, don’t you?
JANEFONDA: Thousands of dead Iraqis…starving children…Kyoto treaty…Bush, your fuhrer…Reagan…My Pet Goat…global warming…
BUSHBOT: Since 9/11…Clinton’s fault…Oil for Food…MSMR