| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Scandal of the week
The NYT tells us what we knew already regarding the President’s attempt to take down Saddam Hussein. In this breathtaking example of overhype:
In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush’s public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair’s top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
“Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” David Manning, Mr. Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
Sigh. Why is this news? The history of Saddam Hussein’s intent to deceive not just the UN but the entire international community was well known, so it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why the President felt that war with Iraq was inevitable.
As usual, however, one has to read much farther into this document in order to get the context of the meeting. By January 31, Bush and Blair had already forced Saddam to allow Hans Blix back in the country for more weapons inspections, the purpose of which was to get the Iraqis to produce proof that they had destroyed their WMD stocks and equipment. That intermediate step came at the insistence of France, which wanted to delay consideration of the so-called “second resolution” wanted by Britain as political cover.
By the time Bush met Blair at the White House, Hans Blix had reported that the Iraqis would not cooperate with the inspections, only paying lip service to the inspectors. Now, thanks to captured notes of Iraqi meetings, we know that Saddam remained confident that his bribery of France and Russia (as well as their well-known economic interest in maintaining their contracts with the Saddam regime) would result in a stalemate at the Security Council over any resolution opening military force as a consequence of failure. That may be why France practically begged Blair at that moment not to pursue a “second resolution” (actually a 17th); they assured both the US and the UK that the previous sixteen resolutions gave plenty of cause for action, but that France would find it politically impossible to vote for explicit military action against Iraq.
By this time, had the US not had a plan for military action against Iraq, it would have been almost criminally neglectful. Why should it surprise anyone that two nations that faced war with Saddam Hussein would discuss the military strategy involved in that war?
[...]
In short, the Times presents us with a memo that shows the US and UK understanding that Saddam would not cooperate with the UN nor voluntarily disarm or step aside; history proved them correct on all those assertions. Given those as reality, the two nations prepared for war. If the Times finds this surprising, it demonstrates their cluelessness all the more.
Yep.
As usual, the NYT is all about sound and fury, signifying — well, here I go repeating myself.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
87 Responses to “Scandal of the week”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
No country in the history of the planet has ever been as concerned as the US is about civilian casualties, or done as much to limit them. No country with anywhere near the power of the US has been as benevolent and limited in the use of that power.
This is untrue. But more than simply untrue, the statements above are breathtakingly uninformed.
First, the very fact that the U.S. preemptively invaded Iraq — a country that did not attack or threaten to attack us and that did not have the power to attack us — demonstrates that the U.S. is not overly concerned about civilian casualties, much less is it more concerned about civilian casualties than any other country in the history of the planet. There were alternatives to war with Iraq, but Bush chose the most drastic and deadly option. That too proves lack of concern for civilian casualties.
Second, it is well-known and obvious that airstrikes cause very high numbers of civilian casualties. The choice to bomb Iraq was a choice to do as much destruction as possible with the least risk to U.S. troops (which failed anyway); and the fact that bombing by definition kills more civilians than ground fighting was not a concern.
Third, the U.S. didn’t just bomb. It carpet bombed; it saturation bombed; it used anti-personnnel weapons that are designed to kill people and to cause as much suffering as possible. That is why such weapons — like cluster bombs, for example — are widely and customarily understood to be a violation of international protocols on the conduct of war.
Shock and Awe alone killed at least hundreds of civilians.
Getting away from the current war, there are any number of examples in our history that demonstrate the falsity of your assertion that the U.S. takes extraordinary precautions not to harm civilians.
The most obvious example is WWII, the Pacific theater most prominently. The U.S. not only killed tens of thousands of civilians, but actually deliberately targeted civilians during the latter part of WWII.
The U.S. firebombed
Tokyo and numerous other japanese cities; and of course the U.S. is the only country on the planet ever to have used nuclear weapons on a live target. The atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 150,000 civilians in the first days, weeks, and months. But, unlike conventional weapons (with the exception of landmines), the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki continued to kill innocent people for years and years after the war had ended. In fact, to this day people are still dying from radiation-related causes. Children who were not even born yet when the bombs were dropped died or were born with serious deformities because of the bombing.
I have to go out now, but if you’d like I can give further examples of how wrong you are when you say that no country with anywhere near the power of the U.S. has been as generous and limited in the use of that power.
Don’t feel too bad, though. World War II made the U.S. a superpower; and the collapse of the Soviet Union made the U.S. an empire. Every empire in history has viewed itself as being generous and limited and wise in the use of its power; yet no empire in history has ever, in truth, used its power wisely or been generous and limited in the use of that power. That’s why empires always fall in the end. So in that, the American empire is no different from and no worse than any other empire in history.
>This is untrue.
Really. Name another country that has the power we have, that uses its power as carefully as we do, that accomplishes the things we have.
>a country that did not attack or
>threaten to attack us
Now that’s what I call “staggeringly uninformed.” Iraq was a State Sponsor of terror. Iraq destabilised the entire Middle East. Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire numoerous times, and Saddam declared that the war against us would never end more times that I can count. Only a fool waits for the hammer blow to descend.
>the U.S. is not overly concerned about
>civilian casualties
Being concerned over civilian casualties does not mean being paralysed, unable to act. I know you rabbit Liberals would sit still, terrified, watching the wolf approach, but it’s a good thing we’re not all rabbits.
>There were alternatives to war with Iraq
Went through them all, for twelve long years, while Saddam murdered perhaps a million innocents. Why don’t you give a damn about them? Severian’s right; little brown people far away don’t matter to the high and mighty self-righteous Liberal.
>the fact that bombing by definition
>kills more civilians than ground
>fighting was not a concern
Then “helping the concrete lobby” must be why our military replaced the explosive warheads in JDAMs with concrete. It wasn’t so as to hit their targets without doing collateral damage, nooo…
>the U.S. didn’t just bomb. It carpet
>bombed
You are a bald-faced liar, or you were watching old WWII footage thinking you had the tv on CNN.
>Shock and Awe alone killed at least
>hundreds of civilians.
Well, there’s never been a war in which hundreds died before, that’s for sure. I dont suppose you have a single harsh word for Saddam’s use of GPS jammers, which caused our precision missiles to go astray, or the Russians who were setting them up for him? No, I forgot (everybody all together): It’s all America’s fault.
>The most obvious example is WWII
As you’re so fond of reminding us: it was a different war. The US had different objectives, priorities and available technology. There were no precision bombs in 1945. Now, if you want to dig up FDR’s corpse and scream at him for not just surrendering to Japan, feel free.
>I can give further examples of how wrong
>you are when you say that no country
>with anywhere near the power of the U.S.
>has been as generous and limited in the
>use of that power
You haven’t given a single one yet. All you’ve done is whine and cry and complain that we’re not perfect. Well, boo-fricking-hoo. It’s nice that you can sit in your comfortable home denouncing the country that has bled to preserve that freedom for you, weeping and wailing because we’re now helping others achieve the same.
Waaaaah! The US fought wars effectively! We’re EVIL!
What a complete load of crap Kathy.
During WWII, when you are sooo critical of what the US was doing, just what do you think others were doing? I’ll give you a hint, our “attrocities” pale in comparison. We never marched people into gas chambers, we didn’t perform anything like the Rape of Manchuria. The US did precision daylight bombing, to limit civilian casualties, while the British, and everyone else, bombed at night and saturation bombed entire cities. We sucked it up and took massive casualities, 70% for daylight bombing raids before we got long range escort fighters, rather than saturation bomb civilians in Europe. In Japan, it was different, for a varity of reasons, from the need to break the will of a fanatical people to the decentralized nature of Japanese industry as compared to Eurpoe. You want to whine about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you have any concept of the number of casualities an invasion of Japan would have produced? Try, conservatively, 500,000 US killed and wounded, and 1-5 MILLION Japanese. But then, to a hand wringer like you, we should have just surrendered, we might have killed civilians if we fought. And before you get on your high horse about Japan, we deliberately removed Kyoto from the target list because of its historical, artistic, and religious significance. The US also didn’t kidnap Korean women and force them into sexual slavery, nor did we take prisoners and execute them just for fun. Didn’t commit genocide either.
But then, there you go again with your whining about civilians. Yeah, the US doesn’t limit civilian casualties, that’s why we spend millions on precision guided munitions. It’d be cheaper to lob tons of iron bombs in, and they can be delivered from extremely high altitude, which limits vunerability of our aircraft, but no, we go out of our way to limit civilian losses. You whine about “shock and awe” killing, maybe, hundreds of civilians. If we bombed as indiscriminately as you suggest, the toll would have been tens of thousands.
You are completely wrong on this. I work with the military, I see what they do to control damage, and I know the difference between massive bombardment and limited, precision strikes.
But then, to understand this you’d have to get your news and facts from some other source than a leftist organization or DU/MoveOn. What you don’t know about history and military tactics and strategy would fill volumes. Try reading some texts and history written by people who actually understand military history, not by a bunch of hand wringing nihilists who ignore the attrocities of the various dictators of the world.
Don’t even pretend to understand the nature of war or how decisions are made, all you are doing is making yourself look like a fool.
Reading what Kathy writes makes me aware of the fact that she has absolutely no knowledge of history and what the rest of the world does. Obviously the product of government schools run by liberal teachers. Now I know why history is not taught properly by leftist professors and teachers, people who actually are knowledgeable about history know better and don’t buy into this kind of defeatist guilt trip. If you, instead of teaching the real history of the world, teach multicultural pap and revisionist history that focuses on useless trivia instead of historical facts, you can more easily sell as “TRUTH” the kind of bogus, idiotic crap that she regurgitates.
It’s true, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
But then again, a waist is a terrible thing to mind!
“Then “helping the concrete lobby” must be why our military replaced the explosive warheads in JDAMs with concrete. It wasn’t so as to hit their targets without doing collateral damage, nooo…”
Yeah, CavilierX, these munitions were developed for what’s called “urban close air support.” We are so heinous and evil that we actually developed special concrete filled bombs and an entire doctrine and tactics for using precision bombinb in urban areas just to limit casualties, damn us!
You and I know what the traditional approach to urban combat is, you don’t go in and go house to house and use precision air strikes, you hang back, bombard the city with artillery and airpower for days or weeks, then go in and mop up the few survivors. Saves a lot of casualties for your own troops. But we don’t do that because we are evil imperialist warmongers. WTF, over?
Once again, her staggering ignorance of military history and tactics doesn’t stop her from acting like she knows it all, why, they were discussing this down at the coffee house just the other day. This folk singer and part time holistic healer was pontificating on the complexities of how to best perform urban combat in todays modern warfare environment, and he’s got to be an expert, he’s got his own guitar!
You’re right, Severian. We’re not really talking to Kathy, just like we don’t actually talk to steve or any of the other Liberals we argue with. We’re talking to the certain knowledge ingrained in them by years of anti-American preaching in schools and the media. That’s why they have the same dead certainty that America is an evil, horrible place guilty of terrible atrocities (though I notice they never seem to leave). That certainty has been drummed into their heads all their lives. Figuring out how to blame America is the modern substitute for problem-solving, something like playing “six degrees of separation” between the US and any wrongdoing. Constructing a plausible causality chain is the way to earn approval from the teacher for one’s cleverness, and applause from one’s peers.
Name another country that has the power we have, that uses its power as carefully as we do, that accomplishes the things we have.
There is no other country today that has the power we have. But here was the comment to which I responded:
“No country in the history of the planet has ever been as concerned as the US is about civilian casualties, or done as much to limit them. No country with anywhere near the power of the US has been as benevolent and limited in the use of that power.”
And the answer is that the US is just as unconcerned about killing innocent people to maintain its power as any other empire in history has been.
Iraq was a State Sponsor of terror. Iraq destabilised the entire Middle East. Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire numoerous times, and Saddam declared that the war against us would never end more times that I can count. Only a fool waits for the hammer blow to descend.
Iraq was not a state sponsor of terror under Saddam Hussein. There were no meaningful connections or cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Now, of course, Iraq is not a state at all. Or, it’s a failed state. And it’s crawling with terrorists and sponsors of terrorists.
Iraq did not destabilize the entire Middle East. The entire Middle East was not destabilized before this war. Iraq was a state with a centralized government run by a brutal dictator. There was no destabilization. It was the U.S. invasion, war, and occupation that destabilized the entire Middle East and turned it into an incubator for terrorism.
Went through them all, for twelve long years, while Saddam murdered perhaps a million innocents. Why don’t you give a damn about them? Severian’s right; little brown people far away don’t matter to the high and mighty self-righteous Liberal.
Now we’re up to a million? How did we get from 500,000 to a million in just a week of comment posting?
There was no justifiable reason to invade Iraq. Iraq had not invaded and occupied the entire Middle East, as Hitler did Europe. Saddam Hussein tortured and killed his opponents, as dozens of other countries do, and that’s nothing to trivialize; but he was not engaged in a Final Solution to murder the entire Iraqi people. Having a grip on reality and the ability to make historical distinctions is not the same as condoning brutality.
It’s interesting that you say the “little brown people” don’t matter to liberals; because I have had the same thought in reverse about Iraq war supporters. While the Bush administration claims it cares so much about brown people in Iraq, brown and black people were allowed to die through criminal inaction in New Orleans and those who survived have been almost completely abandoned by the same government that is claiming to care so much about the suffering of brown people ten thousand miles away.
If the U.S. govt. cared so deeply for brown people in other parts of the world, it would have done something to stop the genocide in Rwanda; and it would be sending a force to Darfur in the Sudan to stop the genocide that’s going on there right now. And no, that would not mean killing civilians. Killing innocent people to save innocent people is an Orwellian concept that people have come to accept as something good.
You are a bald-faced liar [re carpet bombing in Iraq], or you were watching old WWII footage thinking you had the tv on CNN.
Human Rights Watch report on preventable civilian casualties in Iraq.
Carpet bombing with uranium weapons during Shock and Awe.
Well, there’s never been a war in which hundreds died before, that’s for sure.
It wasn’t “a war.” It was 48 hours or 72 hours, or however long Shock and Awe lasted. In the first weeks of the invasion, well over 1,000 civilians died. Do you care at all? Do Saddam’s atrocities mean that 1,000 civilians killed by our bombs don’t matter?
I dont suppose you have a single harsh word for Saddam’s use of GPS jammers, which caused our precision missiles to go astray, or the Russians who were setting them up for him?
Precision bombing is a myth anyway.
When you reduce criticism to accuse the critics of claiming “It’s all America’s fault,” you are implying, on your side, that none of it is America’s fault — that it’s all the enemy’s fault: whoever the “enemy” happens to be at the moment. I have no problem agreeing that “it’s not all America’s fault”; but a lot of it IS America’s fault. You want America to reap the benefits and glory of being the world’s most powerful country without accepting the responsibility that comes with that position. Our global footprint is very, very large: that means the actions we choose to take have a large effect too, for good or for bad. And the world DOES blame America when things America does go wrong — isn’t that only fair given that we have so much more power than anyone else?
It’s nice that you can sit in your comfortable home denouncing the country that has bled to preserve that freedom for you, weeping and wailing because we’re now helping others achieve the same.
There’s a lot you have to refuse to look at to be able to make such an absolute statement of national goodness with such apparent confidence. First, when you use the phrase, “the country that has bled to preserve that freedom for you,” you are ignoring the contradiction, throughout American history, between wars the U.S. has fought in the name of defending freedom, both at home and abroad, and denial of that freedom to specific groups of people here at home. The denial of civil rights and basic human rights to African-Americans at the same time that African-Americans, as well as Americans of European ancestry, were fighting to preserve freedom overseas and fight a racist, genocidal regime in Germany, is but one example.
Looking at the second part of your statement, the phrase “because we’re now helping others achieve the same” implies, incorrectly in my view, both that we have finished and completed our fight for freedom at home, AND that Iraq war actually IS helping others to achieve the same, as opposed to simply helping the U.S. serve its own perceived economic and geopolitical strategic interests in the Middle East.
During WWII, when you are sooo critical of what the US was doing, just what do you think others were doing? I’ll give you a hint, our “attrocities” pale in comparison. We never marched people into gas chambers, we didn’t perform anything like the Rape of Manchuria.
That is undeniably true. But it doesn’t mean that our atrocities were not atrocities. Our wrongs were still wrongs, even if they paled in comparison to Nazi Germany’s wrongs or the wrongs committed by Japan. We can’t just excuse ourselves from responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Allies in WWII because the atrocities committed by the Axis powers were worse. The same principle applies in Iraq, or anywhere else.
In Japan, it was different, for a varity of reasons, from the need to break the will of a fanatical people to the decentralized nature of Japanese industry as compared to Eurpoe. You want to whine about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you have any concept of the number of casualities an invasion of Japan would have produced? Try, conservatively, 500,000 US killed and wounded, and 1-5 MILLION Japanese.
Well, that’s certainly the main justification America has always given for dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and for firebombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. But the fact remains that the strategy for “breaking the will of a fanatical people” WAS the deliberate targeting and killing of massive numbers of innocent civilians. That is the very painful and difficult to accept moral reality. You may say it was necessary; but it’s still a fact that the U.S. chose to kill innocent women and children, as well as innocent men, to break the will of the Japanese people.
As for the “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to avoid a ground invasion that would have killed millions” argument — it’s certainly been the politically correct argument for the past 60 years; but more and more historians and military experts are starting to question that theory. I’m not going to go into all the arguments pro and con here, but it is unarguably a debatable theory at this point.
And the argument that incinerating 150,000 Japanese and poisoning the next generation with radiation “saved” millions of Japanese lives is just hypocritical and immoral. Let’s just say that I don’t think the survivors of the atom bombings or their still-living families would agree with you.
And before you get on your high horse about Japan, we deliberately removed Kyoto from the target list because of its historical, artistic, and religious significance.
You are half right. Yes, Kyoto was removed from the target list for the reasons you mentioned — but the credit for that goes to one man: Secretary of State Henry Stimson. Stimson opposed the whole idea of dropping the atom bomb on Japan at all; he argued against it and tried to stop it. He failed in that; but he WAS able to get Kyoto eliminated as a target over the vehement objections of Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project. Groves had a lot of power, but Truman (to his credit) backed Stimson on this.
So, thank God for Henry Stimson.
You are completely wrong on this. I work with the military, I see what they do to control damage, and I know the difference between massive bombardment and limited, precision strikes.
But then, to understand this you’d have to get your news and facts from some other source than a leftist organization or DU/MoveOn.
You make me laugh. I have no idea what DU stands for, and I haven’t read MoveOn’s site even once.
You tell me, your voice dripping with self-righteous smugness, that MY sources must be left-wing because they don’t support your beliefs; and that somehow YOUR sources are faultlessly accurate, because they DO support your beliefs — even though the main source of information on American warmaking that you mention is the organization that makes the wars: the U.S. military. Let me explain something to you: The U.S. military is not an unbiased source for information about the U.S. military. I’m not saying it’s a useless source by any means, but it’s also not a disinterested source. I mean, come on. Please.
One more thing:
Cavalier told me I was “sitting in my nice comfortable home” denouncing Americans who had fought and bled for my freedom and who were now helping Iraqis to get their freedom.
So here’s my question: Would you like to be in Iraq right now? Would you choose to be there? If you were an Iraqi and you had the choice, would you enjoy being in Iraq? If a loved one wanted to visit Iraq and see what it’s like right now, would you encourage them?
I’d much rather be in a democratic Iraq with a chance for a future than living in constant terror under Saddam, that’s for certain.
I’d much rather be in a democratic Iraq with a chance for a future than living in constant terror under Saddam, that’s for certain.
But that’s not the question I asked, Cavalier. I’m not asking whether you would rather be Iraqi before Saddam Hussein, or Iraqi right now. I’m asking you whether you would rather be in the United States right now or in Iraq. If Iraq is now a democracy, and the people are as free as you and me, and they can come and go as they please, and they’re breathing the air of freedom, would you choose to be in Iraq right now? Or would you rather be in the United States?
Are you really that obtuse, or are you picking nits just because you’ve had your butt handed to you in this “argument” Kathy, and you’re having a snit attack?
In a post war environment, Iraq, like any other country, will not be as stable and “safe” as a long established democratic republic like the US. Give them time, but then, you leftist hand wringers are all alike, it isn’t perfect immediately, so you whine and bitch and moan about how terrible it is. You have all the patience of a three year old. Are we there yet? I’m tired. Are we there yet? When are we going to get there? Are we there yet?
Geez, grow up and live in the real world instead of your juvenile fantasy utopia. You’ll be happier, nothing makes one more unhappy than unrealistic expectations.
There are also plenty of areas in Iraq that are almost as safe as NYC. Take the Kurdish north, or the areas outside the Sunni triangle, you know, the areas where Saddam’s trained terrorists, the Fedayeen, didn’t dare go and set up shop.
But then, you only believe the MSM defeatist propaganda whores who report in depth, detailed news they painstakingly gathered from their suites in the Baghdad hotels. Yeah, that will give you the whole picture.
>But that’s not the question I asked,
>Cavalier.
It’s the question you should have asked. Because that’s the choice you would deny the Iraqis. You would prefer that they live under the brutal reign of a mass-murdering dictator like Saddam than the US get its lily-white hands dirty. Is Iraq perfect? Hell, no. Iraq has a long way to go before they have a secure country, but at least they’re on the way now. Why do people like you hate Iraqis so, that you would condemn them to cowering under Saddam without hope instead of giving them a chance to have a decent life someday?
It’s obvious, CavalierX, that liberals like Kathy view the Iraqi’s the same way people used to view blacks back when during the days of slavery. “They’re like little children, you can’t expect them to be capable of the same thing whites are capable of, they aren’t capable, so we shouldn’t expect too much of them.” Again, this is the “suble” racism of the left, the Democrats, and their fellow travelers. The racism of diminished expectations and dimished respect.
They don’t think “they” are really people you know…but they think the same thing, if not worse, about Republicans and conservatives, particularly if said Republicans/conservatives are minorities. “They” (meaning those poor ol’dumb (insert minority here) are just too stupid to know what’s best for them and vote/think/act accordingly.” Gag.
There’s that, and then there’s the “magic wand” they expect the government to wave and fix all problems in an instant. I frequently point out that it took Germany five years and Japan seven to build a functioning country after the previous government was toppled in a war, and that Kosovo is still an utter shambles after seven years. And none of those countries were plagued with terrorists supported by their neighbors! Liberals just blink, and immediately forget what I’ve just said. Why are we still there, it’s a quaaaagmire, it’s taking too long…
Cavalier, would you like to be an Iraqi living in Iraq right now, or would you rather be an American living in the United States right now?
Are you glad you’re living in the United States right now instead of Iraq? Or do you think it would make no difference to you either way, and you would be fine living in Iraq?
…liberals like Kathy view the Iraqi’s the same way people used to view blacks back when during the days of lavery. “They’re like little children, you can’t expect them to be capable of the same thing whites are capable of, they aren’t capable, so we shouldn’t expect too much of them.”
Severian, do you believe that only the United States could have freed Iraq? Do you believe that Iraqis were incapable of freeing themselves because they were too scared of Saddam Hussein? Do you think they need the big strong brave Americans to come in and fix their lives for them?
Do you think that Iraqis are capable of repairing power grids? Do you think they know how to build bridges and water treatment plants? Are they capable of setting up their own communications systems? Or do they need the smarter, more qualified Americans to do those things for them?
And none of those countries were plagued with terrorists supported by their neighbors!
And none of those countries were plagued with terrorists supported by their neighbors before the U.S. invaded Iraq in March, 2003.
There’s that, and then there’s the “magic wand” they expect the government to wave and fix all problems in an instant. … Why are we still there, it’s a quaaaagmire, it’s taking too long…
Soooo true, Cavalier. After all, it’s not like we Americans have to live in Iraq with a civil war raging around us. Hey, it takes time. It could take maybe another 10 years, who knows? Maybe even 20. No biggie. Cavalier and Severian and I can just stretch out on the sofa and read a book or watch the football game on tv, or grill some burgers on the deck outside. The war in Iraq won’t stop that. Who cares how long it takes? After all, those Iraqis are used to war and killing and hunger and disease. It would be terrible for Americans to have to deal with that; but for those childlike like Iraqis, it’s no big deal; it’s all they know anyway; they don’t suffer the way we would if we were them. So let’s sit back and relax with a cold one and watch them build their democracy.
Aren’t you GLAD you’re living in the United States, and not in Iraq right now, Cavalier and Severian?
Right CavalierX, they’re like little children. Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
But their impatience is selective. Communism still gets a pass, it’ll work sometime, someday, the fact it’s led to nothing but misery and mass murder for almost 100 years isn’t a reason to discredit it!
Kathy, you are reading and believing the most anti-American and biased sourses available. As for my knowedge of the military, I see the actual reports and measurements of mission data and miss distances. I don’t read what a military “propaganda” (in your view) minister says, I’ve designed the weapons, I know full well how accurate they are. Something all the “sources” you quote have no idea about. Not that the information is unavailable, it’s just that it’s not in line with their biases, so they just make up information on how terribl we are.
You are typical of the leftist, small minded, liberal. No matter what proof exists to the contrary, you keep on believing your weak, nihilist views. You are, basically, a victim/guilt junkie. You love the guilt associated with self condemnation of your own country, and then you attempt to lessen and assuage that guilt by claiming you are better than everyone else because YOU are against the evil old imperialist aims of the US. You’re a hypocrite of the first order, care nothing about anyone other than yourself, you care nothing for the Iraqis, you only claim to, in a completely inane and ineffectual way, so you can feel morally smug and superior. Kind of a smug icing on your guilt cake. Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back for being soooo much better than the rest of us warmongers.
What you do not know would fill an encyclopedia, but you will never learn because you refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t reinforce your prejudices.
And don’t even start up with that depleted uranium BS. What you don’t know about that is also legion.
Gadzooks, you behave as if ignorance is a virtue.
>Communism still gets a pass
Well, that’s the biggest, most magical wand of them all. Once the government — meaning, of course, the grand bureaucracy of it, not annoying elected individuals — controls absolutely everything, then absolutely everything will work perfectly, all the time. And if you happen to notice that it doesn’t, then you “disappear.” For the good of the State, you know.
“Well, that’s the biggest, most magical wand of them all. Once the government — meaning, of course, the grand bureaucracy of it, not annoying elected individuals — controls absolutely everything, then absolutely everything will work perfectly, all the time.”
Which is just futher proof of the fact that liberals and leftists are immature and haven’t “grown up” and accepted responsibility for their own life. They want a perpetual, “perfect” daddy, the government, to come in and take all the hurt away and make it all better. No sense of self confidence, no sense of responsibility, no sense of self reliance. They are all children who have refused to grow up and become responsible, functioning adults. They want to excuse the most criminal of behavior by saying the perpetrators are victims, and don’t want to see anyone punished for their crimes, that would just make them feel bad. Unless the “crininal” in question is a member of our imperfect, non-socialist/communist government, or a conservative. YOu know, we people who insist on busrting their bubble and commit the ultimate crime of trying to make them live in the real world. The horror, the horror.
I know I said I wouldn’t post to this thread again, but I couldn’t let this go by. Kathy did say something that made alot of sense.
brown and black people were allowed to die through criminal inaction in New Orleans and those who survived have been almost completely abandoned
She is right. It is time to charge Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco for their criminal inaction. It is time to investigate these two bb brains for their negligence and inaction. It amazes me how bad it was in NO, when the main force of the hurricane hit east of there and wiped cities in Mississippi off the map, but MS didn’t have half the problems. Why you ask??? Cause the Republican Gov. Baurbor called for manditory evacuations on SATURDAY over 48 hours before the hurricane hit. Unlike his Dem counterpart in LA. She didn’t call for evacuations until Sunday less than 24 hours before the Hurricane hit. It is time to get these criminals out of office. – Lorica
Ohhh yes, and just because Saddamn didn’t have much to do with AQ doesnt mean he had nothing to do with terrorism. Even PBS finally got it right. Take alook at the 5th question.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Surprise, Surprise. Ties to terrorist. Also let’s not forget that Ol’ Saddamn paid the families of sucide bombers 25,000.00 for Hamas. And that’s not because he was such a humanitarian. Those suicide bombers were attacking Israel and by paying these people he encouraged this action, and thus was a “destablizing” effect on the middle east. Looks like it ain’t all our fault after all guys. – Lorica
Lorica,
Kathy said “brown and black people were allowed to die through criminal inaction in New Orleans and those who survived have been almost completely abandoned”
Notice the inherent racism again? Poor ol’helpless brown and black people were allowed to die…it’s our job to take care of them because liberals all know they are too weak and stupid to take care of themselves. There were plenty of problems, most directly attributable to the local and staate DEMOCRATIC morons in charge, but again, notice the slight on the “brown and black” people. They need us white liberal betters to take care of them, the po’children.
Gag again.
Kathy, you are reading and believing the most anti-American and biased sourses available.
Anything that doesn’t slavishly support Bush administration policies is “anti-American” to people like you, Severian. And any news source that doesn’t consider itself to be cheerleaders for the conservative cause is left-wing by your lights.
As it happens, I get my information from a wide variety of sources, both print and online. I read newspapers, online publications, dozens of blogs (including conservative ones, obviously), and books. In fact, I probably get most of my general knowledge about current events and politics from books. I would be willing to bet that I do more reading, from a wider variety of sources, and from more diverse points of view, than you do, or than most of the people who have commented here do. I would lay odds on that. The only source I never look at is television news.
As for my knowedge of the military, I see the actual reports and measurements of mission data and miss distances. I don’t read what a military “propaganda” (in your view) minister says, I’ve designed the weapons, I know full well how accurate they are.
Okay, then I have some questions.
How does the military define “accurate” in the context of civilian casualties? In other words, when the military determines that a weapon is “accurate,” how many noncombatant casualties does it estimate are acceptable to still have the weapon called “accurate”?
What kind of weapons do you design? Do you design cluster bombs or fuel-air explosives? Do you design DU weapons?
Does accuracy correlate with no or very few civilian casualties? What other factors affect how many civilians will be killed in bombing operations? Target selection must be part of it, right? And programming in the correct target coordinates must be part of it too, right? I’m assuming that the most accurate weapon in the world won’t be accurate if the target coordinates are wrong; or if the target itself is wrong.
Here is arguably the most important question I need to have answered: How many civilian casualties have been caused by U.S. weaponry? What is the U.S. military’s estimate of the number of civilian casualties in Iraq; how did they reach that figure; what was their methodology; and where can I read about it?
Ohhh yes, and just because Saddamn didn’t have much to do with AQ doesnt mean he had nothing to do with terrorism. Even PBS finally got it right. Take alook at the 5th question.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Surprise, Surprise. Ties to terrorist. Also let’s not forget that Ol’ Saddamn paid the families of sucide bombers 25,000.00 for Hamas. And that’s not because he was such a humanitarian. Those suicide bombers were attacking Israel and by paying these people he encouraged this action, and thus was a “destablizing” effect on the middle east. Looks like it ain’t all our fault after all guys.
Lorica, my understanding is that Sabah Khodada’s claims in this PBS interview were discredited because there was no evidence to back up what he said. I looked for a second independent source that might confirm Khodada’s claim, but couldn’t find one. Can you provide one?
As for Saddam Hussein paying the families of suicide bombers for Hamas: Is that why Bush had to invade Iraq? Because Saddam was giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Or is it a straw you’re grasping at to justify the war now that all the stated reasons for it have turned out to be false?
Because here’s the thing: If Saddam was overthrown because he was paying families of Hamas suicide bombers, then it didn’t make any difference, because Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Hamas is in power there now. So you can hardly use Saddam’s payments as a reason for the invasion now.
Poor ol’helpless brown and black people were allowed to die…it’s our job to take care of them because liberals all know they are too weak and stupid to take care of themselves.
I wish you had as much respect for the strength and intelligence of the Iraqi people as you do for the brown and black people trapped by the floodwaters in New Orleans.
I wish you had as much respect for the strength and intelligence of the Iraqi people as you do for the brown and black people trapped by the floodwaters in New Orleans.
Kathy please don’t make that sound like a race issue for New Orleans, because it has been proven that it was not race based probelms. Brown and black, well thier were just as many white in that equation, plus foriegn tourists.
I am sick of the media and everyone else throwing around race like it has no meaning. Race used to mean much more than it does now. Unfortunately, so many people jump up and down and scream racism for even the slightest thing, like McKinney, or Al Sharpton, or New Orleans Mayor Nagin.
When you you try and use racism as a bat to batter your opponents or to deflect criticism away from yourself (McKinney), then you cheapen what Racism really is, and when it really does happen not many people will care because so many have screamed it over and over for no good reason.
I will tell you this, America is the Least Racist Country in world from what I hear, which is pretty good considering America’s background and History with Slavery. It also shows in how America came together for the victims of Katrina, opening their homes, their hearts and their pocketbooks. Giving time, money, tears, and even the shirts off their backs to help out.
Now, I do recognize their are elements of racism, that is true in every society, but as a whole, I really do believe we are the least racist.
Aside from that, I also am sick to death of hearing about New Orleans. They were victims of flooding that happened after Katrina came through, Katrina missed New Orleans, but hit other cities and states, wiping them out as if a nuclear bomb went off. That bombs name was Katrina and had phenominal destruction that cut wide and hard into many places.
Where is the words on them?
Where is the spotlight on relief and help to them? Where is the stories about the struggles of the real victims of Katrina and not the victims of flooding?
I am not making light of New Orleans, but I do wish to point out there was much more to Katrina and the story than New Orleans.
NO Kathy, I PROVIDED YOU 10 links above backing up my claims and the Bush administration, but you want to stay in your little hate Bush/hate America world and suck your thumb and be insulting to others. Did you read a single one of my links?? You are so wide read, but yet you hang on the same DU/Move.Org diatribe as if it is air giving you life. All I was saying was that Sadamn did have links to other terrorist organizations outside of AQ. You do know there are other terrorist organizations outside of AQ don’t you Kathy??? Your tunnel vision is blinding you. I have defended my thoughts and posts in a variety of manners, only to have you come back with such a childish comment as:
As for Saddam Hussein paying the families of suicide bombers for Hamas: Is that why Bush had to invade Iraq? Because Saddam was giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Or is it a straw you’re grasping at to justify the war now that all the stated reasons for it have turned out to be false?
I am not even remotely grasping at straws, and I certainly wouldn’t be grasping at straws from the arguments that you have presented. All the stated reasons are false??? Damn that is alot of bodies to be false Kathy!!!! All the stated reasons are not false, except in the DU/Moveon.org world. 500,000 bodies are now false. Some concerned libs you people are. Everything you have presented has been easily knocked down by presented facts. I am done with this discussion. I refuse to debate with children. I felt that earlier, and now I am paying for it with childish comments like the one posted above. Good luck to you in this life Kathy. I hope and pray that you gain some deeper understanding of the events that this world is presently going thru.
Gentleman I suggest you just give Kathy the last word on this dicussion as we have done a wonderful job here defending our thoughts and beliefs. I for one will continue to believe this and support our warriors for the great job they are doing. – Lorica
Lorica, Kathy will never accept that Saddam supporting terrorists in Palestine by giving 25 grand to suicide bombers families as something bad, because after all, all they did was kill Jooooos. The anti-Semitic, racist, bigoted Left sees nothing wrong with that.
Kathy has demonstrated numerous times in this thread her racist tendencies, just as all liberals eventually do. You’re better off to ignore her, it’s best not to associate with nihilistic, racist, anti-American leftists.
- Communism will never take hold in America no matter how much the left howls and rants. It’s forever doomed in the seeds of its own destruction, which means the moonbats are faced with a continuing future of vengeful, bitter, cynical vetching for all time.
- “All lies all the time”, should be the moto of the “new” Democrats. They’ve become the “Heavens gate” cult for the 21st century, but then it shows at the ballot box.
Each time the public record exposes yet another one of their “Big Lies”, they retreat to some other screed, avoiding the truth like a gsggle of frenetic, babbling lemmings, all plunging over the cliff together.
- Embracing a world view of government Nanny statism, avoidance of any and all forms of personal responsibility, believing only in a sort of perverted amoral, anti-religious “Theism”. A hedonistic existance, with no hope or faith in the future, bleak and leading to inevitable dispare.
- Something like that can ruin your whole mellenium.
- Bang
Did you read a single one of my links??
Yes, I read the first one, about the Polish troops finding the rusted sarin gas shells that dated back at least 15 years to the first Persian Gulf War or even earlier.
I decided that, if that was your idea of “proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time of this current invasion, it was a waste of my time to read the rest of the links.
All I was saying was that Sadamn did have links to other terrorist organizations outside of AQ.
No, you said he had links to Hamas through his donations of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. You did not mention any other terrorist organizations. Saddam is gone, and Hamas is now running the Palestinian government.
You do know there are other terrorist organizations outside of AQ don’t you Kathy???
Obviously, I do. I’ve been saying throughout this “discussion” that the U.S. invasion caused an explosion in terrorist activity. There are a lot more terrorist organizations and groups now than there were before March 2003, definitely.
- You have it “half right”. The war in Afghanistan, then in Iraq drew the murdering thugs of the Celiphate movement out of their spidey holes and into our crosshairs in their neck of the woods rather than ours, precisely not what Usama had in mind.
- Americas presense in Iraq has no bearing on the number of Jihadists. al Qaeda recruits new mentally deficient people to blow themselves up in the name of the cause every day, and would whether we were there or not. The only difference is where the WOT is being fought. Maybe you’d rather fight the Jihadists in the streets of America. You’re ideas are idiotic.
- Bang
Whew. Took me an hour to read this fun that you guys had.
I know one thing. 40,000 Americans are killed in auto accidents every year. I now know that even though Bush came into office that this is Bush’s fault. His lack of planning and arrogance has brought this country misery. And who would want to get behind the wheel and drive in this country? I don’t want to. We are oppressed. We went from 60,000 deaths per year only to be replaced with 40,000 deaths per year and it’s ALL the Bush administrations faults. Not the Syrian/Iranian Terrorist (I mean drunk driver and or driver on the cell phone). This administration declared preemptive war on the driver in this country. There was no need for that. We now have the right to revolt and take up arms and say the meanest falsest allegations because of our oppression.
Gather round folks we will take back this country to the days when we had more deaths per year. The Bush Administration decisions has shown that Bush doesn’t “care” about us. He doesn’t “care” about anything but oil for our vehicles.
RIGHT ON Baklava! The only reason Bushitler doesn’t allow cars to be made illegal is so his big oil cronies can continue to rake in the loot selling us gasoline and oil for them! The 40,000 Americans a year killed by cars are not as important to him as his big oil profits! I bet Halliburton makes cars secretly, they say it’s the Big 3, but do we really know. Some say that the Big 3 are really owned by Halliburton, and we all know Cheney and Bushitler are owned by Halliburton!
Outlaw cars now! No Blood for Oil!
I’m now a registered Democrat and I call for helmets for everyone. Anyone who opposes me is a greedy capitalist.
Americas presense in Iraq has no bearing on the number of Jihadists. al Qaeda recruits new mentally deficient people to blow themselves up in the name of the cause every day, and would whether we were there or not.
If that’s true, it’s only more proof that Bush lied to us. Because he told us before the invasion that the war was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. He didn’t tell us that Al Qaeda was going to have more recruits than they knew what to do with after the invasion. He didn’t tell us that dozens of other terrorist organizations would spring up after the invasion that didn’t exist before it.
The only difference is where the WOT is being fought. Maybe you’d rather fight the Jihadists in the streets of America. You’re ideas are idiotic.
But Bush did not tell us the purpose of the Iraq invasion was to fight terror in Iraq instead of at home. He told us the purpose of the Iraq invasion was to STOP terrorism.
Another thing: Didn’t you guys say a few times already that Iraqis were not living in terror? That they could go freely about their business with no or little fear? But here you seem to be implying that fighting insurgents on the streets of American cities would be a BAD thing. If it’s bad, then how can you say life in Iraq is good for Iraqis now?If fighting jihadists here would be a bad thing, a terrible thing, a highly undesirable thing to be avoided at all costs; then isn’t fighting them in Iraq bad, terrible, and highly undesirable for Iraqis, too? Why do you want to subject Iraqis to something you would not want to experience yourself?
I also have to say I’m surprised that you would support using American men and women as flypaper. That’s rather insulting to professional men and women trained to defeat dangerous enemies, not serve as human shields so the bullets don’t reach us at home.
If that’s the way you think of it…
What do you think of your local police? Oh that’s right. You live in a “good” neighborhood? No need to worry about it.
Defeatism is as defeatism does. Don’t get in that car today !
What do you think of your local police? Oh that’s right. You live in a “good” neighborhood? No need to worry about it.
You’re making an analogy between local police and U.S. troops in Iraq? I’m sorry, I don’t understand the parallelism there. Big Bang Hunter said that U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting terrorism there so it doesn’t come here. How does that analogize to local police? Local police protect the residents of a city or town or neighborhood from criminal activity in that same city or town or neighborhood. We don’t put police departments in Philadelphia so New Yorkers don’t have to fight crime in New York City.
Your argument doesn’t make sense. What’s the point you’re trying to make?
Defeatism is as defeatism does. Don’t get in that car today!
Again, what the hell does this have to do with fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them in America?