<< NEW READERS REQUIRED ~ MAIN ~ "I BELIEVE IN DEATH" >>
THREE FACTS ASSERTED
Editorial in the New York Times:
To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
I don’t think we need bother with the other two.
UPDATE. Osama bin Laden in his 1998 fatwa calling for the killing of Americans:
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone.
All three are about Iraq. Via reader Heather.
UPDATE II: “You have to be worried when a guy with too much mascara and a snake wrapped around his neck has a keener grasp of basic new millennium geopolitics than so many leading lights of the Democratic Party.” And the New York Times.
Without looking at the actual editorial, I’d wager the next are:
It’s all about the oil.
Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.
For an idiot clown of incompetence incapable of doing anything right or understanding anything, Chimpy McBushitlerburton has been amazingly successful.
But then, 1,000 monkeys typing on 1,000 typewriters…
Posted by William Young on 2005 06 25 at 02:13 PM • permalinkA favorite charge of the left has been that Bush had planned this war before he took office.
So?
It is reasonable that the incoming administration would identify Saddam’s Iraq as a festering problem that would have to be dealt with. Unfinished business from the first Gulf war, agreements broken. And yes, WMD’s. Something would have to be done with the physco Hussien.
9/11 happened first. When we entered Afghanistan, I remember the general sentiment of many of us as being “Iraq next!” Saddam certainly was funding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers and other terrorists, and taking credit for it in the Muslim world. But we’d have had to go into Iraq anyway, eventually.
“It’s because he tried to kill his Daaaaaddddyyyyy!!!” Well… yeah! That too! An assassination attempt on an ex-president is an act of war. An act of war which Clinton didn’t have the balls to address. (Bill. Hillary might turn out to have balls after all. She’s still wrong, but she’ not the coward Bill is.)
Next: Syria? North Korea?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 02:18 PM • permalinkI made the mistake of looking, William, and I’m not sure what the other 2 are.
But I’m well known as stuuuuuuupid.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 06 25 at 02:24 PM • permalinkGreat! The NYT is cause-effect challenged.
The editorial page might as well be saying smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, and drunk-driving has no effects on other motorists.
I guess the NYT also maintains that Democrat losses at the ballot box have nothing to do with their policies and message.
More fresh meat for Karl Rove to devour.
-SteveMr. Bingley-
You’re right. They never do get around to saying what the other two “facts” are.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 02:35 PM • permalink... and fighting the Nazis had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Whatever.
Posted by lewisinnyc on 2005 06 25 at 04:14 PM • permalinkThe war in Iraq has EVERYTHING TO DO with 9/11.
Damn it, it’s one thing to read this ignorant crap on Tim Dunlop’s blog (where I’ve tried explaining what President Bush and the coalition are trying to do—answer: save our collective asses from more terrorist attacks). It’s an entirely different thing to read it as a NYT editorial. Aren’t they supposed to be written by intelligent and informed persons?
Come on liberals, this is not that hard an issue to understand. But the first step in understanding it is to pull your heads out of your asses—excuse me, arses—and read conservative blogs. Starting with this one.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 25 at 04:38 PM • permalinkRather than leaving it to your comments section to do the drudge work, Tim, perhaps you could spell it out for those idiots who are too ‘stuuupid’ to keep up. What did the invasion of Iraq have to do with 9/11?
People like them need more from such elevated members of the ‘conservative’ commentariat as you than glib one-liners vaguely pointing out the errors of their thinking. We all really appreciate your wisdom and humour, Tim, but sometimes the less intuitive amongst us are left a little in doubt as to what your more obtuse comments are really trying to say.
Although the high calibre of your readers is without doubt, sometimes their elucidation of your ‘hinted at’ deeper meanings leaves me in doubt as to whether ‘the group’ are all thinking along the same lines as you.
I think it’s time for you to give us some more thorough analysis. Some supplemental questions I’d like to hear someone of your prodigious intellect and logical powers address are:
Why was the invasion of Iraq the best next step in the war on terror after Afghanistan?
Why doesn’t it matter that most of the reasons given for going to war with Iraq have turned out to be unfounded?
How do you defend the Bush administration against those silly attacks that it had pre-determined the need to invade Iraq and simply ‘fixed’ the intelligence around that plan to convince Americans and the world that it was justified? (I’m not ignoring you, nofixedabode, but I’d like to hear Tim’s view)?
What is the moral argument for a government (while clearly acting in the best interests of its people and the world) not being entirely open about what its real intentions and motivations are?
I realise you’re a busy man, Tim, so I’ll stop there, but I think the time is right for someone to put these issues to bed and you are the man for the job.
Sincerely (but confusedly) yours
Loadedog—well, you can point out the sheer brilliance Bush showed in loading the intelligence in 1998 when the Congress voted to remove Saddam and Clinton signed off on it…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 25 at 04:48 PM • permalink“I don’t think we need bother with the other two.”
As Mr. Bingley and others note, apparently neither does the NYT, unless they’re saving them for future editorials. Don’t they have editors to help them with their editorials?
And note how loadedog subtly changes the Times’ position to, “Why was the invasion of Iraq the best next step in the war on terror after Afghanistan,” hence tacitly admitting that removing Saddam was related to terror and hence 9/11.
For starters:
Because it was well established that Saddam financed and harbored terrorists, and it has been official policy since the Clinton administration to change the regime in Baghdad.
Because every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD, including both the French and Russians, and because Saddam has used them, even on his own people.
Because until the rotten mess of tyranny in the Middle East is cleaned up, we will continue having to deal with terrorism on a worldwide scale, and sooner or later they will kill tens or hundreds of thousands, not just the few thousand murdered on 9/11.
I could go on, but it’s not like this hasn’t been hashed and rehashed for the last three plus years.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2005 06 25 at 04:51 PM • permalinkA sober discussion? Whoever met a sober NYT editorialist?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 25 at 05:09 PM • permalinkRichard, please don’t make the mistake of thinking that anyone who questions the Bush administration would like to suck Clinton’s cock. In the polarised world of US politics, that may be a valid assumption and I pity those whose only alternatives are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, as they say.
From my (obviously brain addled) point of view, American foreign policy has been, shall we say, not exactly beneficial to world peace and stability for many a year, regardless of which Party or President was at the helm.
What does seem to be different about Bush et al, as opposed to Clinton and others, is that their arrogance and incompetence has exposed America to much valid criticism. If I truly believed in America’s right to ‘clean up’ the Middle East, as Mr Rheinstein so succinctly put it, I’d be sorely disappointed with Bush’s ham-fisted, poorly planned (I’ll stop short of disastrous) invasion of Iraq as a starting point.Interestingly, Pat Buchanan has a rather jaundiced view of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I was surprised, to say the least, to see his assessment of the state of play in Iraq. Supporters of Bush and the invasion might be feeling a little hemmed in, with loonies on the right now joining the left-wing moon-bat chorus questioning the neo-con agenda.
Oh well.
From my (obviously brain addled) point of view, American foreign policy has been, shall we say, not exactly beneficial to world peace and stability for many a year, regardless of which Party or President was at the helm.
Hmmm, successful containment of the USSR, ending with its largely peaceful demise, was not beneficial? That may be the majority view in France, but they know better in Poland.
There’s plenty of peace and stability in a graveyard. Struggle and change are generally preferred, though.
Soros and loadedog say: “American foreign policy has been, shall we say, not exactly beneficial to world peace and stability for many a year.”
I’m always amazed when folks tout “stability” as a foreign policy goal. When blackberry brambles took over my wife’s rose garden, rather than drop my Fosters and grab my hoe, I told her that in the interest of “peace and stability” I would remain in my hammock that afternoon.
When a rattlesnake crawls in loadedog’s kid’s playpen, I’m sure he’ll question his devotion to stability.
My last post for the day, sadly:
Loadedog… when you wandered in here you asked how we could justify Bush loading the evidence, when that evidence was accepted by bypartisan agreement two years before he ever reached office, here and around the world. Deal with it.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 25 at 05:59 PM • permalinkI agree Mitch. The people of Poland are, and should be, entirely grateful for American involvement.
Please don’t make the assumption that, if someone criticises US foreign policy generally, they have no ability to see whatever good has come of it.
There have been many winners out of the US’s involvement in the wider world, and I for one would be entirely against America adopting an isolationist policy. I believe America has a right (as do all countries) and, you might say, a responsibility to engage with the world.
I also agree that struggle and change are preferable to sitting on your hands. But having assumed the mantle of ‘world super-power’, I also believe that the US must at least attempt to fulfil that role with the highest standards of honesty and integrity and with the human rights of all the world’s citizens in mind.
As they say of corruption in Australia (and I’m sure in the US), there must not only be none of it, but also no perception of it (sorry, rather clumsily put). As to whether the US has the highest goals in the prosecution of the war on Iraq, I, as a private individual with no access to the corridors or power, could never realistically know. But the Bush administration has failed my test by too easily allowing the perception of corruption, self-interest, and the abandonment of the acknowledgement of the rights of all the world’s people to reign free.
When all the rest of you have finished doing my thinking for me, I’ll get back to you.
Mr McEnroe.
Just because Republican Party 1 and 2 agreed on the evidence doesn’t mean it was unanimously accepted in American or around the world. Also, the Democratic Party, like the Australian government and others around the world were responding to the evidence presented to them by the Bush Administration who had clearly muscled their security agencies into painting what could be passed off as a fairly presentable case.
Of course we now all know that at least the British were in on the sham from the start (and it wouldn’t surprise me if the Aussies were too).
I, for one, was not convinced, and everything I thought then (that it was basically a crock of s***) has been proven true.
Please understand. I don’t necessarily disagree that invading Iraq was an inevitable action. I don’t support tyrants. I abhor them. What I disagree with is going to war in a rush, with no planning for:
The safety and security of civilians
The safety and security of priceless cultural assets
The aftermath
Please understand. I don’t necessarily disagree that invading Iraq was an inevitable action. I don’t support tyrants. I abhor them.
BUT…
What I disagree with is going to war in a rush, with no planning for:
The safety and security of civilians
The safety and security of priceless cultural assets
The aftermath
In other words, the plan didn’t survive contact with the enemy so you declare it nonexistent. Sorry, but I am acquainted with people who were part of the postwar planning and there was a plan. There were problems that popped up after the invasion—like the Baath government evaporating like it was not supposed to. It happens from time to time.
Oh, and:
Supporters of Bush and the invasion might be feeling a little hemmed in, with loonies on the right now joining the left-wing moon-bat chorus questioning the neo-con agenda.
No, that would be your presumption of who exactly supports the Iraq campaign. Same thing happened when O’Reilly expressed disatisfaction with Iraq and moonbats like you jumped up and said “See, SEE?! O’REILLY SAYS ITS WRONG SO YOU MUST AGREE…” Except I don’t base my beliefs on what others say. Try another way of “convincing” people to jump on your “all is doomed, DOOOMED in Iraq” bandwagon. It’s not working.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 06 25 at 07:11 PM • permalinkMaybe it’s not a leftist power issue in the present case, more an ego issue.
In any case, all the arguments made are years old. They were already defeated. They are wrong in their claims as to the premisses. The war was not “rushed,” it was delayed. The reasons for the war consisted of a lot more than the evidence of WMD all suited up and ready to rumble. (Past threads at Tim’s earlier location http://timblair.spleenville.com are full of discussions of those reasons in the comments threads. One can also read the actual Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion.) The last time that any leftist even admitted that, it was in order to say that there were “too many reasons given” and that the pro-invasionists should “narrow the reasons down.” That was the collapse of the anti-war argument right there. What we’re hearing now is a tape recording of the past. Or a collection of anti-war handbills, shut away in a drawer, chanting to be let out, as if they had not failed at their agitprop the first time around. Be the handbill, whispers the leftist spirit. Next, you’re a used, faded handbill.
In both the USA and Australia, we have had elections; Bush and the GOP and Howard and the liberals were both decisively re-elected with increased majorities in their respective legislative branches. Their own elections matter more in the USA and in Australia than the vituperations of news organizations heavily staffed with admirers of Noam Chomsky, and more than opinions of the world press, the UN, NGOs, Mugabe’s dependable allies the French and Communist Chinese governments, etc.
I remember when the left was predicting much huger disaster in Iraq, just as they had in Afghanistan. There was considerable planning; considerable destruction was thereby avoided. Things would have gone even better if we had been able also to come down through Turkey. It didn’t work out. Shit happens. Now the left is trying to treat the things that HAVE happened as if they were like the humanitarian disasters which never materialized. Now that’s what I call “sticking to the script.”
Well thanks Gerry for recognising (at least) that any differing view doesn’t have to be entirely ‘left’. I didn’t realise, however, that there was a limit to how much you could comment, nor that this shop was closed to other than those singing the same tune.
I’m after intelligent debate (I await the chorus of snide remarks about my lack of smarts) and I guess if you don’t allow it here, I WILL have to go somewhere else. How many share Gerry’s view?
thought that after 3 years we could move past our disagreements about the invasion and agree about the importance of helping build Iraqi democracy. But unfortunately it seems that we are doomed to re-argue the case forever.
To me, all this junk about the Downing Street Memos and how they relate to the intelligence, WMD, UN inspections etc. is irrelevant.
9/11 had everything to do with Iraq! Root causes people!! The evidence is as clear as day. Osama said it himself repeatedly. Go read his Fatwas. Here is the first one from 1996.
It’s long, convoluted and full of stilted religious allusions with a weird mix of triumphalism and whining. null
There is a lot of sickening incitement to violence and the bellyaching about Kashmir, Chechnya (it should be noted that while some of these are legitimate grievances - Al Qaeda’s take on the problem is pure propaganda), East Timor (lefties were pretty uncomfortable with that one), the Philippeans, Spain (Andalus - yes, they are insane).Amidst all that, you can discern Osama’s 3 biggest grievances.
1) By far his biggest complaint is the presence of crusader armies in Saudi Arabia (the land of the 2 holy sites). Why were they there? Saddam.
2) Infidel-Crusader support for Zionst occupiers and defilers of Palestine. Not related to Saddam but Saddam certainly wasn’t helping in this area - he was an obstacle (one of many) to finding a peaceful solution for the Palestinians.
3) Crusader sanctions starving Iraqi babies and impoverishing the people of Iraq. Saddam. This is one of the tragedies of the Oil-for-Food corruption. Thanks Kofi! There is a long list of shameful apologists among Western Leftists who spent a decade pushing Baathist propaganda that this was not Saddam’s fault but ours. Special dishonorable mention to CBS and 60 Minutes who ran a story and distorted a quote from Madeline Albright to make it look as if the U.S. Government was complicit in the Humanitarian Disaster. In the Muslim world, this Big Lie was trumpeted for 10 years in their state-controlled media and from the Friday Sermons at all Wahhabi mosques. More than anything else, this is “why they hate us.”What is it with amnesia-affected anti-warons like loadedpuppy? Do they go into some sort of life-preserving sealed coffin for six months out of the year, and have to be brought up to speed on everything during their brief times out, or is it just all the drug abuse? I love it when they smugly assert that we have to convince them, because—what, are you going to turn off the sun if we don’t? I don’t have to convince you of anything, loady: you go right on ahead believing your fantasies. It’s no skin off my nose if you prefer to be stupid.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 25 at 08:57 PM • permalinkOh guinsPen, I wouldn’t ban loady for the world. I’ve been needing a laugh.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 25 at 08:57 PM • permalinkForNow
The Iraq invasion and liberation process and the whole anti-terrorist war and the democratization policy, will have everything to do with 9/11/01 on the day that a Democrat becomes US President.
I suspect you’re right on that.
I’m comforted by the belief that should a Democrat regain the White House, they will handle national security responsibly (knowing that all eyes are upon) and all the second guessing and air conditioning horror stories we hear today will have been revealed as just a cynical lip-service, designed to get Soros and his ilk to cough up the dough.
Losing the White House to a Democrat would almost be worth it just to see the stunned look on a disillusioned lefty’s face when Hillary announces our intentions for Syria.
Almost.
Ha ha.
More “brave” “supporters” of “our” troops in Iraq.
You guys sure talk a big talk.
From the safety of your homes.
Hee hee.
Hoo hoo.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1450/499/1600/award3.jpg
Posted by NewAmericanPatriot on 2005 06 25 at 09:29 PM • permalinkWhere are those pesky trained terriors when you need them,I gotta ask?
Some programme recently where the fact that the second in command al quaeda attended an Islamic conference in Iraq and spent some time with Saddam before Sept 11.
Also that some of Bin Ladens large family visited Iraq and had sessions with Saddam.
SBS I think.You know, Saddam was right.
Dorito’s are tasty.Posted by papertiger on 2005 06 25 at 09:57 PM • permalinkOh.. and I do have my own blog, but it gets a bit lonely over there sometimes.
Gee….. wonder why?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 09:58 PM • permalinkMore “brave” “supporters” of “our” troops in Iraq.
Bah, I can do more scare quotes than that.
“More” “Brave” “Supporters” of “Our” “Troops” in “Iraq”.
- from “New” “American” “Patriot”
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 25 at 10:19 PM • permalink“#45” “NewAmericanPatriot”“-”
“It’s”“past”“your”“bedtime”“little”“person”“.”
“(”“And”“you”“have”“no”“clue”“as”“to”“the”“service”“status”“or”“service”“records”
“of”“the”“posters”“here”“.”“)”Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 10:39 PM • permalinkManjiro
It’s possible, is it not, to disagree with the way the war was sold and waged, yet agree with you that helping rebuild Iraq is a priority? The ordinary citizens of Iraq have been at the root of all our concerns (I hope) and we all share the desire for them to live in peace and prosperity, free of the tyranny of Saddam and of any other despot. I’m not one of those suggesting the US should pull out any time soon.
All members of the coalition have a responsibility to stay the course and hopefully leave Iraq in a position to develop whatever system of government they choose. I think the hope of a stable peaceful society developing any time soon is rather vain given the divided nature of their society, and because it has been made the focus of much of the international discord between west and east.
But I can’t agree that we should just get over our disagreements about the invasion. I don’t see many on the right getting over their loathing of Clinton. We’re still prosecuting people for war crimes committed 60 years ago. A man was convicted the other day of a murder committed in the Missisippi Burning era.
Crimes/misdemeanours/errors of judgement (particularly of the order of waging war and resulting in tens of thousands of casualties) do not diminish in seriousness because of the passage of decades, let alone a few short years. It’s not ancient history. We’re talking about a serving president. Clinton was pursued for years for a sexual indiscretion. Do you compare a couple of blow jobs with waging war?
I’m curious about your 3 points. I’ll just address number one, cause I’m getting tired (been up since 4 AM and I’ve got other stuff to do). You suggest that Bin Laden’s ire was raised by the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, I presume during the first Gulf War. I’m guessing, but I think your logic is that it was Saddam’s fault that the US invaded Iraq, and had to use Saudi bases to do so.
Up to there I’m not prepared to argue the point. I’ll concede for the sake of expediency that Saddam brought the Gulf War on himself and is thus partially responsible, and I think you’d have to admit, rather indirectly so, for focussing Bin Laden’s anger on the US. Accordingly, to continue your line of reasoning, he assumes partial responsibility for 9/11.
He shares that responsibility with many agents, many events (as you yourself report), and if we are to draw such long bows, doesn’t the US also have some responsibility for having supported Saddam up till 1990, having armed him, having stood by as he used chemical weapons on the Iranian people. Aren’t the US and Britain partially responsible for ‘creating’ a country called Iraq in the first place, as they divvied up the Middle East as the spoils of the Second World War.
Having invaded Iraq once, and coincidentally enraged Bin Laden, do you believe the US has done anything other than create more Bin Laden’s, more hatred and resentment, and dread the thought, the greater possibility of further atrocities at home? As we now know, Saddam, while a vicious dictator of the sort the world has seen far too many of, was safely contained within his borders, had no WMD’s, had no direct role in planning 9/11, gave no support to Bin Laden, was in fact hated by Bin Laden, was, in some ways, a secular barrier to the Islamification of the Middle East, and was possibly quite vulnerable to the sort of covert tactics so often used by the US to unseat unsavoury leaders in many countries around the world.
I’m not a practising Christian, but sometimes I ask myself ‘What would Jesus have done?’ Violence begets violence. I bring up my son, thankfully safe from rattlesnakes here in Canberra, to take the gentle path wherever possible. Turning the other cheek requires far more courage and character than replying, as my father used to say when I playfully threatened to hit him on the arm, twice and twice as hard. The US has killed the snake because the tiger bit it.
My partner just said ‘you don’t even kill the snake because it bit you. In Australia, most people who get bitten by snakes were stupidly trying to mess with or kill it for being in the wrong place at the wrong time’. The analogy is imperfect, I know, but in all I read here, I see naught but the seeds of America (a country that I love and admire) bringing about its own destruction.
Actually, I don’t think that most of the Dems currently angling for the Presidency would do a good job of leading the anti-terrorist war, the democratization policy, etc.
And maybe the 9/11/01 connection would not become validly immediately upon the Dem President’s taking the oath of office. But it would happen soon enough.
For decades now, the best politically interested Democrat minds have not been going into defense and security issues. If, say, a Dem hawk like Joe Lieberman had won the Presidency in 2004, he’d still be stuck with the foreign policy “establishment” which we saw during the Clinton years. And most of the major Dem pols have made foreign and defense policy too often an opportunity for domestic political tactics based on the 24/7 news cycle.
Clinton was pursued for years for a sexual indiscretion.
He was pursued for lying under oath in a sexual harrasment suit brought by a former employee of his.
When asked of his relationship with Monica Lewinski (that woman) so as to demonstrate a pattern, he lied in order to avoid losing the suit.
He was under oath and he lied, in a case that was indeed small potatos, wich almost makes it all worse.
That said, I for one am over Bill.
All the Michael Moore wannabes are always spouting the “America created/supported/armed Saddam” propaganda conveniently forget he was A SOVIET CLIENT SINCE 1959!
If the US “armed” the bastard, why the f*ck did we sell him Soviet equipment?
The exact same “chemical weapons” technology that he acquired from Germany, is now considered by critics (cynics, in reality) as “dual use” and NOT proof of WMD.
Interesting reading:
World’s largest WMD trial begins
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 25 at 11:17 PM • permalinkClinton was pursued for years for a sexual indiscretion.
Clinton was pursued for years first for alleged illegal financial transactions and then for lying under oath. His lie deprived a citizen of due process. For this, he was impeached and disbarred. Additionally, Clinton’s colleagues went to jail and/or fled the country in order to keep Clinton’s financial misdeeds from being fully explored.
I don’t see many on the right getting over their loathing of Clinton. We’re still prosecuting people for war crimes committed 60 years ago.
Huh?!?
I’m not a practising Christian, but sometimes I ask myself ‘What would Jesus have done?’
Again: Huh?!?
My partner just said ‘you don’t even kill the snake because it bit you. In Australia, most people who get bitten by snakes were stupidly trying to mess with or kill it for being in the wrong place at the wrong time’.
In the USA, we quite often kill snakes for “being in the wrong place at the wrong time.” We don’t consider it necessary to wait for the bite. In most cases killing is the preferred cure, though relocation is sometimes (rarely) attempted. We also kill rabid dogs, rabid raccoons, bats, rats and the like. Depending on the immediacy of the threat, we also may kill bears, lions, alligators, monkeys, apes, insects, arachnids and other assorted creatures.
I like our ways better.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 11:32 PM • permalinkloadedog, I don’t count for much around here, but I for one welcome your continued posting precisely because you appear to be one of the rarest of endangered species: a confused liberal who nonetheless maintains some nominal coherency and maturity in your rhetoric.
Having said that, I have long since forgotten all the points you raised above, some of which were, as I say, nominally reasonable, others of which were fairly assinine.
If you wish to, feel free to ask one highly focused question, and I will do my best to answer.
In lieu of that, I will answer the question which seems to be at the root of this, I will remind you of one of the reasons why Iraq was crucial to the WoT, one of the reasons which rarely is expressed, strangely, but which really is one of the most important reasons.
Remember, please, that before 9/11 the U.S. had been attacked over and over again, without real response. Yes, all the way back to Reagan, the U.S. was guilty of “backing down” in the face of difficulty, of being something of a “paper tiger”. Al Q had declared war on us a long time ago; we simply hadn’t cared to respond.
Did you see _Blackhawk Down_? The man who taught the Somalis to target the rear rotor of our helicopters was named O.B.L, and the way we cut and ran from that difficulty was a crucial justification that O.B.L. had for pursuing 9/11. His lieutenants were worried about it, you see—they thought it was a wee bit too much, but Osama told them not to worry—the U.S. would respond in a tepid way at best. The U.S. might be drawn to enter Afghan, he told them, but there he and his warriors would have decades of glorious jihad to enjoy, at our expense. (Osama was and perhaps still is greatly enamored of the guerilla warfare he discovered while fighting the Sovs in Af. He imagined spending the rest of his days killing a couple U.S. soldiers a day in Afghan, just like he twisted the Sovs.)
So—set your wayback machine for pre-war. What was the situation? The U.S. was spending incredible amounts of money and time patrolling the no-fly zone, being shot at every single day. Our ships were tied up there, giving force to the idea that we might attack, or could, which is the only thing that allowed inspectors to do even a mock-joke of a reasonable job there.
Meanwhile, pressure had been mounting in Europe, mainly, to forget all about the silly sanctions— soon enough, the U.S. would have been diplomatically forced to “back down”, in some sense, even though Saddam was clearly playing infinite games with the ceasefire agreement. Europe was simply not interested in enforcing the terms of that surrender, not anymore than they are interested in a currently occurring genocide for which the U.S. can’t in any way be blamed.
So—above and beyond all the other facts about how the entire world believed he had WMD’s, (more on that if you wish), above and beyond the necessity to establish democracy in the M.E, (ahem!), above and beyond the problem of Saddams buddying with various terrorists, the situation was one wherein the U.S. had the option of backing down, ergo begging Al Q to attack us again, or to enforce the terms of the ceasefire.
It really wasn’t a choice. There ya go. Now what I’m wondering is… Do you get it? Think before you answer—your credibility here, (such as it is), is at stake.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 06 26 at 12:27 AM • permalinkThanks Steppenwolf. Really thanks. No sarcasm, no smart-ass snideness. This really does deserve a considered response, and I have to go out now and buy some potting mix and stuff so, if you’ll accept my apology for the delay, I’m going to think about this deeply (while meandering around the garden shop) and come back to you before this (Australian) day is out.
Yours respecfully
loadedog
Loady, don’t sign your frickin’ posts, your sig is your name in the name field.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 12:47 AM • permalinkI remember an e-mail conversation where he dismissed any relationship between 11/9 and Iraq.
no-one believes this anymore.Not even Rummy.
It is important to note it was only the USA ,Oz & the UK with a few more exceptions that said Iraq posed a threat to World peace.
how they could do this with some of the oldest and slowest planes in that area, with tanks so old that some of them couldn’t be serviced. with an army though large had never really performed well in battle and with no battle hardened Generals to speak of was never really spoken of.to use WMDS you need a decent defence force. Iraq didn’t have one.
notice too WMDs was never defined. t was used in a generic way.
given that the best missiles Hussein had dropped out of the sky halfway to Israel which was confirmed by Blix was also never really explained.The reason put forward that WMDs might get into terrorists hands read AQ was also never really explained.
AQ never used sophisticated weapons.
for good reason.
They cost a lot, you need infrastructure and well educated people to use them. Contrary to popular fiction AQ never had a lot of cash which explains the CIA’s concerns about WMDs in Iraq was invaded.This explains the present triumphalism of Eagleburger, Scowcroft and the Cato institute, who unlike timbo and others, accurately forecast what would happen after the war.
It explains the McNamara ‘promotion’ of Wolfie who was consistent in getting almost everything wrong about the war and its aftermath.If Bush had wanted to merely get rid of Hussein without the consequences he was warned of he should have thought berlin wall.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 12:59 AM • permalinkdoesn’t the US also have some responsibility for . . . having armed [Saddam Hussein]
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute tracks international arms shipments. According to their figures, U.S. sourced arms constituted what percentage of the value of Iraqi arms imports from 1970-2004?
A) 47.01%
B) 41.70%
C) 17.40%
D) 14.07%
E) 4.17%
F) 1.47%
G) 0.74%
H) 0.47%The answer? H. Less than one half of one percent.
In contrast, the Soviet Union and satellites Poland and Czechoslovakia provided 69.98% of Iraq’s imported arms during the same time period; France provided 12.43%; China was responsible for 11.05%; Brazil sold 1.65%; Egypt sent 1.18%; and even the Danes managed to transfer more weapons than the U.S. with 0.52%. But the U.S. was well ahead of Britain’s 0.18% and Australia’s 0.00%
You complained earlier that people aren’t explaining things, just making quips. Well, there’s a reason—we’re tired of repeating our arguments to everybody who missed them the first fifteen thousand times. I personally have been pointing out the SIPRI data on arms transfers for some ten years now (it’s been basically the same the whole time, since the embargo from 1990-2003 pushed the trade underground)). I’ve written letters to newspapers, I’ve mentioned it on internet fora of a dozen types on hundreds of different hosts, I’ve seen it mentioned by others in blog after blog during the run-up to the Iraq War . . . and still people talk about the U.S. arming Iraq.
At some point, you want stop trying to educate ignorance and just make quips. Because it doesn’t seem like either actually does any good, but the latter at least is entertaining.
By the way, the Arabic posessions of the Ottoman Empire were divvied up after the First World War, not the Second, and by Britain and France, not the United States.
Oh, and yes, the U.S. did give Iraq some support during the Iran-Iraq War. It gave Iraq discount coupons for food.
When you see the references to millions of dollars in aid, the form of that aid was these coupons, called agricultural export credits. The U.S. government bought food from U.S. farmers as part of U.S. domestic price supports. It then sold this food on the world market for the market price. Agricultural export credits were granted to some countries in the U.S. foreign aid budget; such credits gave a discount over world market price to the buyer.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 06 26 at 01:25 AM • permalinkIf Bush had wanted to merely get rid of Hussein without the consequences he was warned of he should have thought berlin wall.
Homer, you really shouldn’t comment while drunk. Or whatever the hell is wrong with you.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 01:28 AM • permalinkOh, god, you know a comments thread has jumped the shark when Homer Paxton arrives.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 26 at 01:50 AM • permalinkLoadedog,
I notice that you (and most of your mates) who are always criticizing what others did never mention how they would resolve these type of problems.
For example:
1.What would you have done after 9/11?
2.OK, so when you did nothing and that did not fix the problem and the attacks increased, what would you do then? Still nothing?
3.What would you do about North Korea/Iran if you had “evidence” which suggested they were going to sell WMDs to terrorists?
4.When you did nothing and thousands were killed, what would you tell the survivors?
5.When you were finally forced into action, how would you capture the terrorists without any civilians being hurt or killed?Posted by FreddyFrog on 2005 06 26 at 01:50 AM • permalinkold Frddy son it is damned easy.
Bush should have used all the resources he used in Iraq in Afghanistan.no more warlords who merely switched sides, no letting go of Usama, completely destrying AQ in the meantime
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 01:57 AM • permalinkSo Homer, what are you saying, that the US should have killed anybody/everybody who they did not know?
The plan was to try and HELP the Afghanistan people to take back control for themselves, not take over the country.
No one seems to know it Usama was even in Afghanistan when the US was near enough to get to him.Posted by FreddyFrog on 2005 06 26 at 02:26 AM • permalinkHomer,
Osama and his AQ goons had bugged out of Afghanistan before the Iraq invasion run-up. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 26 at 02:31 AM • permalinkThe war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
The decision to attack Iraq was based on (false) assumptions that Hussein was somehow related to or implicated in the 911 attacks and/or proliferating mass-casualty WMDs. Bush repudiated Hussein’s 911 connection before the war. And the UN sanctions against Iraq for violating constraints on its WMD program were in place well before 911. Yet in the lead up to the war, Bush continued to insinuate that Hussein and mass-casualty jihadists were connected. Here is the CS Monitor in March 2003
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime.
So the New York Times is technically, and substantially, correct on the policy facts. Of course 911 changed the political atmosphere in the US, which made war in the ME a more acceptable option to the populus. But this is not something that the pro-war party are particularly keen to highlight.Wow! The trifecta of stupidity and wordy wankiness have arrived. Ladies and Gents I present to you - Homer ‘Iron Mark’ Paxton, Loaded ‘Folk music isnt just for stankey old bearded leftist blowhard disability pensioners’ Dog and Jack ‘Where are my underpants?’ Strocchi.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 06 26 at 02:51 AM • permalinkI remember an e-mail conversation where he dismissed any relationship between 11/9 and Iraq.
Hey Homer, people who want to make sense generally don’t use a pronoun like “he” when there was no prior sentence and thus no subject or object that it can possibly refer to[/I], ya idjit.
to use WMDS you need a decent defence force. Iraq didn’t have one.
That has to be the most stunningly ignorant statement I’ve read all month.
AQ never used sophisticated weapons. for good reason.
Umm, that “good reason” was that so far, they haven’t managed to get their hands on any. Geez Homer, I usually try to keep the ad hominems to a relative minimum, but you’re making it extremely difficult not to call you an ignorant slut (as somebody did the last time you reared your head) when you post such asinine and self-contradicting crap.
Contrary to popular fiction AQ never had a lot of cash which explains the CIA’s concerns about WMDs in Iraq was invaded.
Your evidence for this assertion is? Pre-9/11 evidence only, please, since you stated they “never had” much cash, not just after the U.S. started going after terrorist funds more aggressively.
If Bush had wanted to merely get rid of Hussein without the consequences he was warned of he should have thought berlin wall.
What, take out Hussein and then build an 8 feet high wall between the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shia territories? Pray tell, what on Earth can you possibly have meant by that nonsensical comment?
Seriously, Homer, do you compose your posts like they make ransom letters in cheap crime novels…3 words from this website, 2 from that, 4 more from another, until you have what looks like a typical Homer Paxton post? The proverbial 1000 monkeys are able to stumble across more coherent posts than you do.
on 11/9 AQ made an unprecedented attack onthe US.
If bush was fair dinkum he would have pursued those forces until the ends of the earth.
He had the chance in Afghanistan to do something with most of the world’s agreement instead he dogged it.
most of the warlords in power under the Taliban are still there.
What message does that send?
They could have don something at tora Bora but again din’t. What message does that send?Then after doing that he again plays into AQ’s hand by invading Iraq.
Who is winning in Iraq. only AQ.the best friend AQ ever had is bush and the people who supported this insane policy.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 02:59 AM • permalinkPW,
Before you comment perhaps you should attempt to read what the CIA has said to various senate committees.
It may assist your understanding of AQ.I’m afraid the berlin wall line has gone over everybody heads.
Think about why the berlin wall came down. It wasn’t because of an invading army and then think of the counties surrounding Iraq.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 03:04 AM • permalinkIs it just me, or do Homer’s posts always read like satire?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 26 at 03:11 AM • permalinkHomer, Jack, Loaddeddog: What we learned on September 11, 2001, is that you can’t safely contain murderous tyrants like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. Both regimes were actively promoting and exporting terrorism, as well as brutally oppressing their own people. They couldn’t invade their neighbouring countries, so much is true, but that didn’t stop them seeking and finding other ways to murder people. And as Zeppenwolf pointed out, they were prepared to do this because they didn’t fear the consequences, because they didn’t believe there would be any consequences.
September 11 didn’t change the rules, rather it was an unmissable sign that the rules had already changed. George Bush changed American foreign policy by roughly 180 degrees in recognition of the fact that the world had changed.
Warmongering Lunatic
I’m sure anything I cite will be regarded as an unreliable source, but anyway, here’s a few links that support my claims re US support of Saddam Hussein. Bear in mind I made no claim about the level of support, the amount of cash, the types or origins of weapons
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
I realise they started this whole thread, but here’s the NYT
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20911FA38590C7B8DDDA10894DA404482
The Teicher affidavit discusses US support for Iraq under Reagan at
length.http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm
If you’re not satisfied, I will find more.
Steppenwolf. I haven’t forgotten you. And Freddy, I’ll include some responses to your questions as well. It may take me a while.
And my apologies Andrea. I didn’t know the etiquette.
Heh, the NYT always brings out the moonbats. NewAmericanPatrIdiot (“The ChickenHawk Argument”), Homer Paxton (“Blogs with Scotch”), and Jack Strocchi (“History Revisionist Extraordinare”).
Loadedog, you’re not a moonbat, but you lean socialist, are an awfully good tap dancer, and are a borderline goalpost mover.
Still, it’s clear that your arguments are based on the premise that American is at fault for everything, and thus must atone in a fashion to please all oppressed people of the world, rather than try to give them the freedoms we enjoy.
Granted, US foreign policy has not always been kind and gentle; one would be a fool to say otherwise. Still, if you use an objective accounting system to compare US foreign policy with other nations, I expect that we’ll rack up a better score than, say, the former Soviet Union, France, China, and other world powers. For example, WarMongering Lunatic (post #69) offers one aspect of that. Another would be our annual foreign aid, exclusive of the money we waste through the United Nations.
But I really don’t expect to accept these points. As I said, it’s clear that you are Anti-American (probably anti-West as well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 03:38 AM • permalinkPixy, its all about the HYPOCRASYH!!!!!!111
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 26 at 03:57 AM • permalinkApologies for speaking out of turn here.
I came to this place because I am a disgruntles moderate. I was more left, but I have since grown up, and left wing sites tended to close ranks and insult those who dared to disagree with them.
I was hoping this would be different.
i enjoy reading Tims rantings and ravings. They are entertaining and even educational at times. However, to simple dismiss someone (I’m tlaking loadedog here) as a crackpot lefty for presenting an argument, which to me at least, is quite a moderate one is a little dissapointing.
I’m not seeking to start a major fight. Nor am I trying to change anything. It is just an observation.
And before anyone jumps on the “Lefty! Lefty!” chant let me just say that there is only one party I cannot stand in Australian politics and that is the greens. The others I merely dislike at times.
Think about why the berlin wall came down. It wasn’t because of an invading army and then think of the counties surrounding Iraq.
Umm, it came down because Reagan “arms-raced the Russians to death” (as one of my professors memorably said) and Gorbachev, unable and unwilling to support the USSR’s puppet/client states anymore, ever so gently leaned on them to reform or be left behind by history (it turned out to be the latter option in short order since 80 year old socialists didn’t make the greatest reformers). Now, unfortunately for you, that still makes no fuckin’ sense in the context of Iraq, so perhaps now that I’ve answered your post you’d like to explain your own thought processes behind bringing up the Berlin Wall?
Umm no it didn’t.
1000’s of east Germans were fleeing to Hungary.
The East Germans realised theirb time was up.Why are N Korea and Cuba still around then.
It was gorby who was the main character not Ronny!
no gorby No buttinPosted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 04:09 AM • permalinkGruntled, you’re right, but the problem (as others have already mentioned) is that we, as non-moonbats, face a constant barrage of moonbattery of every imaginable shape and size. Sometimes we’re too quick to return fire on something that turns out not to be a moonbat. This is regrettable, I guess.
But given the amount that has been written on the subject, given its ready availability to anyone with an internet connection, anyone like Loadeddog who has the inclination and the ability to learn could have learned long since.
Loadeddog, go visit USS Clueless and read everything there. If you have any questions after that, we’ll answer them as best we can.
However, to simple dismiss someone (I’m tlaking loadedog here) as a crackpot lefty for presenting an argument, which to me at least, is quite a moderate one is a little dissapointing.
He’s getting dismissed because he brings up the same collection of diversions, red herrings, and opinions-disguised-as-facts that others like him have brought up approximately 300 times before just on this blog, and which consequently have been shot down 300 times.
If you’d like to know why we’re tired of it, just look at that “fact” from the NYT editorial:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
Since they’re obviously not insane enough to mean the entire War on Terror, they obviously mean the Iraq War. Now look at the verb: has. The Iraq War itself has been over for nearly 15 months, fer chrissakes. That’s the reason nobody takes loadedog, the NYT et al. seriously - they’re still arguing against a war that isn’t even going on anymore, presumably because that’s easier than arguing against the reconstruction effort. It’s a drawn-out case of playing “gotcha”, not an attempt at serious discussion.
Supporters of the sentiments in the NYT editorial are fond of talking about ‘root causes’ but 9/11 and the War in Iraq are connected by a root cause - the oppression, corruption, economic stagnation and inequalities that exist in many Middle Eastern countries.
9/11 carried the religious and political pathologies breeding there to the United States itself and signalled that the problem was best addressed not with feeble ‘policing’ but by a determined attempt to address the despair that lies behind nihilist violence.
Clinton’s commitment to paralysing ‘multilateralism’ delayed this process too long.
The fate of Iraq is our fate. Those who feel they are punishing the US by hanging the Iraqis out to dry are being block-headed and perverse.
1000’s of east Germans were fleeing to Hungary. The East Germans realised theirb time was up. ... It was gorby who was the main character not Ronny! no gorby No buttin
Holy cow, you are an ignorant slut. Do you even realize why those 1000s of East Germans were able to flee all of a sudden? And they weren’t “fleeing to Hungary”, you idiot, travel between East Germany and Hungary wasn’t restricted. They were fleeing because the Hungarian government was the first toppled domino (sound familiar?) following Reagan’s economic strangling of the Eastern Bloc, and they had opened their border to Austria which was the actual target of those East Germans (and then onward to West Germany for most, naturally).
Homer, don’t argue about the history of East Germany with me. Really, don’t. You obviously don’t have clue one (as usual), and being born in East Germany, I’m losing my patience with you even more quickly than I usually do on this subject.
Has everybody forgotten that the Iranian revolution involved the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran? The staff were kept hostage for a year. Carter wimped out. This was an incredible Act of War (attention all those dicks who go on and on about international law!)and would have been sufficient cause bellicose for the USA to invade or otherwise blow away Iran then and there.
To harp on now about the supposed support for Iran’s neighbour Iraq in its endeavours to beat the crap out of Iran is to be eminently ignorable.
As for the rest of this current tripefest: the Middle East plays a particular game, and it is called (variously) Biggest Bastard Wins, Cleverest Liar Wins, Last Man Standing Wins. It is in the genes. They have been survivors for centuries by absorbing the rules (note: there are none!)and playing on.
You Wanna Play?
If not, just piss off and leave it to those who do.loadedog You said:“But the Bush administration has failed my test by too easily allowing the perception of corruption, self-interest, and the abandonment of the acknowledgement of the rights of all the world’s people to reign free”
When Margo says the Zionists control the media and her fan club believe her, is it then the Jews fault for easlily allowing this perception of trying to control the world? Is it Bush’s fault that all types of loonies with their own political/religious agendas come out with all kinds for conspiracy theories that create perceptions?
Perceptions are not facts but when they are repeated enough times, people like yourself believe them to be facts even though there is no evidence to back them up. There is however plenty of evidence to the contrary which so many people refuse to believe because they back up Bush’s claims.“He’s getting dismissed because he brings up the same collection of diversions, red herrings, and opinions-disguised-as-facts that others like him have brought up approximately 300 times before just on this blog, and which consequently have been shot down 300 times.”—PW(93)
yes!!!
loadedog continues the all to familiar patern incuding adding more and more calims untill replys become untenable.
Gruntled, the rest of the folks have it right. Loadedog is what I call a “moderate leftie”, one that doesn’t troll in stating their opinions, and generally operate from a set of given premises, refusing to budge from them, regardless of the counterarguments and facts.
In other words, they operate from a different reality, aren’t insulting about it, but are irritating because they don’t listen to what we say in return, or present the same old arguments over and over again (e.g.,“plastic turkey”).
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 06:03 AM • permalinkInurbanus said: Supporters of the sentiments in the NYT editorial are fond of talking about ‘root causes’ but 9/11 and the War in Iraq are connected by a root cause - the oppression, corruption, economic stagnation and inequalities that exist in many Middle Eastern countries.
To expand on this point, research shows that virtually all terrorists come from countries that are not democracies (sorry Loadedog, I’m too tired to dig up the study but I’m sure one was done by Havard). They also found that poverty does not determine whether someone will become a terrorist.
The Bush plan in response to 9-11 was to free Iraq from tyranny and start the movement of other countries the Middle East towards democracy (with the subsequent dominoes starting to topple in Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia).
9-11 and Iraq are inextricably linked: foster democracy in the Middle East and improve your own security in the long term by stopping the creation of more terrorists and fundamentalists.
(Loadedog sorry for being somewhat inarticulate, I hope you can follow the argument)
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 06 26 at 06:50 AM • permalinkSteppenwolf. Part one.
I have heard similar arguments to the one that you propose before. Your logic has much to recommend it, if you agree with certain assumptions on which it is based. I’d even agree with you, if I also accepted the following:
1. That the Muslim world is largely composed of fanatical extremists bent on world domination.
2. That there were no other alternatives that could be more effective and less destructive.
3. That the reasons for Islamic hatred and distrust of America (and its allies) are irrational, and that there is no way to resolve the many issues that divide the Middle East and the ‘Western World’ without resorting to war.
4. That might equals right and therefore that the superior power of the US gives it the moral authority (and the necessary tactical skill) to pursue its agenda regardless of the objections of many countries and many of its own people and a substantial proportion of the citizens of the coalition.
It is with shock and great sadness that I have read comments on this site supporting assumption number one. One person (sorry, can’t remember who) said ‘… it reminds me of the myth of moderate Muslims’. That intelligent and civilised people could entertain such an idea (that all Muslims are religious extremists) is perhaps evidence of the hysteria that currently abounds, and it reflects a failure of the state (I mean, the government of the country from which the sayer originated) to officially and consistently reject such hateful notions.
That failure, in a civilised democracy, amounts to state sanctioned demonisation of an entire religion, a faith that is as much based on peace and love as any other. Even if it weren’t, the vast majority of its followers are clearly just ordinary people like you and I who want nothing more than to go about their lives in peace and dignity and couldn’t give a fig about dominating the world. To give Bush his due, I have heard him make moderating statements about Muslim people and the Islamic faith, but such statements have been subsumed in the deluge of negative imagery casting Muslims as hateful barbaric sub-humans bent on evil. How else could a literate person in your society maintain the view that there are no moderate Muslims?
Every culture, even that of the United States, has its extremists, people who, through personal experience of injustice and disempowerment, are driven to seek extreme and simplistic solutions to complex problems. What proportion of a society is made up of such disaffected elements has nothing to do with what religion is followed there. The main causative factors are:
Economic and geographical deprivation
The frequency of traumatic events such as deprivation of liberty and the loss of loved ones.
The prevalence of the sense of disempowerment and impotence in the face of perceived injustice and the prolonged failure to achieve any redress or resolution.
These factors are in play all over the world and the history of human civilisation is replete with examples of people taking extreme steps to attempt to upset the status quo. The example most pertinent, because it eventually garnered the support of the entire western world, is that of South Africa and Nelson Mandela who is almost universally and justifiably hailed as a ‘great man’ and whose life story gives inspiration to all who believe in universal human rights and the possibility of eventual justice.
Mandela began his career as a seeker of justice as a follower of Ghandi’s (another almost universally esteemed dissident) principles of non-violent resistance. As much time passed and he made no progress, Mandela came to realise that some regimes are so brutal and implacable that peaceful resistance would make no difference.
So he schooled himself in the tactics of guerrilla warfare and became a freedom fighter, an expression that we don’t hear much these days. Supported by a large enough proportion of his people who were willing to take extreme steps, risking death, even killing other people, Mandela was eventually able, with the support of much diplomatic and economic pressure from without, to force the regime to acknowledge the inevitable.
What did they acknowledge? That keeping an entire people in subjugation, without justice, without the fruits of their labour, and without hope, will eventually cause you nothing but grief and suffering: that justice for you and your kind means nothing if it is not also available to everyone around you.
Part two
I do not mean to make a direct comparison between Nelson Mandela and Osama bin Laden. The situation in South Africa was so clearly one of an unjust minority oppressor exploiting a dispossessed majority that eventually everyone got it, even the white South Africans. And to be honest, I have no idea what role Osama plays in the Middle East, or in the minds of suicide bombers and insurgents.
Let me make it clear, before the usual attacks of being an apologist for terrorists come in, I abhor violence. I do not think that 9/11 was justified. Mandela largely targeted security forces. The killing of innocent civilians cannot be justified for any political agenda. But let us not forget that 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre. How many innocent civilians have so far died in Iraq?
The Middle East is complex, murky, and nowhere near as easy a problem to solve (not that it was easy) as the South African scenario. But what seems clear to me is that within the Middle East, for whatever reason, there exists the conditions that provide an excellent breeding ground for disaffected, hopeless (in the sense of having no hope) and extremist individuals who are ready, for example, to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up.
Many will contend that it is the religion of these people that makes them liable to take such actions. I’d agree that the inculcation of martyrdom mythology is a factor when impressionable young people decide to take this course. Remember, however, that Christianity has a strong history of martyrdom. I believe that what allows such teachings to take hold is the abandonment of any shred of hope for a better life by people who see no chance of gaining justice in their lifetime, no matter how long they live.
Ignoring this is a perilous course of action. As the white South Africans found, a perpetually subjugated people will perpetually revolt. Maintaining the status quo will eventually require more energy and cause more grief than any other course of action.
There are alternatives. I’m not an international political scientist, but it would seem to me that if the US gave the poor and the dispossessed and the oppressed people of the Muslim world hope that there was an intelligent and compassionate power in the world that would value their well-being and need for justice as much as their (the US’s) need for economic dominance and another tax cut for people who are stratospherically better off than them, then they might be a little less interested in blowing themselves up. Cutesy folksy little philosophy that it may be, it has got to have some currency when the only viable alternative, according to some, is to come in with all guns blazing and reduce a country to chaos, however temporarily.
Rather than being surprised at the US response to 9/11, I suspect that bin Laden predicted something of the sort and couldn’t believe his luck when, following a predictably brutal and callous response, the new recruits started rolling in. He couldn’t have counted that many chickens before they hatched if he tried.
But why direct anger at the US? Is it irrational? I think it is clear that the US has been fundamentally involved in creating and perpetuating situations where some Middle Eastern Muslims have become second-class citizens in what used to be their own country. But I suspect that I could never convince some of you of that. It is clear that the US supports Israel, both with aid, military and logistical support, and through the United Nations, where they have regularly used their diplomatic muscle to muzzle numerous attempts by the Palestinians and their supporters to seek redress.
It is clear that at least a few hypocritical stances are a part of that support. Israel can maintain a large arsenal of WMD’s but no other Middle Eastern nation can. Israel can invade and occupy neighbouring countries without sanction but Iraq must suffer invasion and crippling sanctions for doing the same. Israel can defy numerous United Nations resolutions; Iraq does so and this also justifies invasion.
Israel, for its part, maintains a system that very closely resembles apartheid. Without the support of the US, Israel would ultimately have to soften its treatment of a sizeable proportion of its citizens.
A clear case can be made for the US maintaining self-interest as its primary motivation for involvement in the Middle East. Its reliance on oil from the region is not speculation. It is fact. Regardless of what really goes on in George Bush’s brain, it is not the stuff of outrageous fantasy to suppose that the happiness and prosperity of the people of the Middle East is near the bottom of America’s priorities when deciding their position on pressing issues.
Av
the only problem with your theory is that the democtatic revolution has spread to the Ukraine and Kyrgastan!PW if you know your German history well you wil know the East Germans caved in after the Hungarian Pm said that would take any number of East Germans.
Imagine what would happen if Iraqis were given the opportunity to do the same.
Hussein and his cronies would have realised quick smart there was no future.
Hey presto A new Iraq without insurgents.The best and most prescient criticism of the invasion of Iraq were conservatives.
In the Us it was Eagleburger, Scowcroft and the Cato institute.
In Asutralia it was Owen Harries and the Sydney Anglican who demolished any attempt to use the Just war theory.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 07:16 AM • permalinkPart three
America, apparently hypocritically, supports regimes in the Middle East that clearly do not spread the massive wealth they control amongst their citizens. Saudi Arabia is, to some, as oppressive and dictatorial as Saddam’s Iraq, yet they somehow remain hand-shaking, even cuddling, friends of George Bush.
I am not attempting to make a case against America. I am merely attempting to show that, to an average citizen living in relative squalor in many Muslim communities in the Middle East, looking at Israelis and of course the Muslim elites could easily, and not irrationally, form the opinion that America is part of the root of their problems.
Might does not equal right. The schoolyard taught me that. Might and right are not mutually exclusive, but its one of life’s little truisms that they are infrequently working together. America’s role in the Second World War is the classic exception to the (almost) rule. Once again, regardless of what’s going on in George Bush’s brain, it is far too easy for me, an ardent lover of America’s culture, political system and people, to believe that it is a country that has lost its way, has put self-interest ahead of just about everything it believes in, is pursuing those self-interests ruthlessly and with no regard for any lives other than its own citizen’s and is headed down a path that will drag it, and the rest of us, into God knows what awful extremities. How do you think those already pre-disposed to hatred of America perceive it?
So, to get back to your point, Mr Steppenwolf. I question your logic because I believe the assumptions on which it is based are incorrect. The Muslim people of the world are not, as a whole, as a majority, even as a significant minority, bent on world domination. Rather it appears to me that it is the United States that has the greater claim to that ambition. There are other alternatives that are both more effective and less destructive. Muslim hatred of the US is not irrational, and though it may be misguided, it cannot be ignored, and America’s pre-eminence as a world power does not gild its every action with moral authority.
1. That the Muslim world is largely composed of fanatical extremists bent on world domination.
No-one here suggested that, nor is it relevant.
2. That there were no other alternatives that could be more effective and less destructive.
There aren’t.
3. That the reasons for Islamic hatred and distrust of America (and its allies) are irrational
They are.
and that there is no way to resolve the many issues that divide the Middle East and the ‘Western World’ without resorting to war.
Well, if you have a better idea, we’re listening.
No?
4. That might equals right
No-one suggested any such thing.
and therefore that the superior power of the US gives it the moral authority (and the necessary tactical skill) to pursue its agenda regardless of the objections of many countries and many of its own people and a substantial proportion of the citizens of the coalition.
What utter mindless worthless cretinous tripe.
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan were systematically brutalised by their own governments.
Over the objections of those governments (duh) and the idiot left, America freed 50 million people from tyranny.
America’s moral authority comes from doing the right thing. Their military power allows them to do the right thing - but their moral authority comes from the way they choose to exercise that power.
That failure, in a civilised democracy, amounts to state sanctioned demonisation of an entire religion, a faith that is as much based on peace and love as any other.
Have you been hiding under a glacier in Antarctica for the past fifty years? Haven’t you been paying any attention at all to the incessant stream of hatred pouring out of mosques across the Arab world, and indeed around the rest of the world?
Oh, you’re a New York Times reader. You’d be better off stuck in a glacier, because you’d have fewer misconceptions to discard.
How many innocent civilians have so far died in Iraq?
At least 300,000 at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That doesn’t include the million dead, military and civilian, during the Iran/Iraq war (that Hussein started), or the thousands killed by the Ba’athist and Islamist insurgents.
The Muslim people of the world are not, as a whole, as a majority, even as a significant minority, bent on world domination.
Many of their religious leaders are. And the people who oppose them tend to get shot.
Rather it appears to me that it is the United States that has the greater claim to that ambition.
Ugh. That is so incredibly stupid it’s hard to even begin to tell you why.
Look, here’s a clue: What did America do in Germany and Japan and South Korea and Afghanistan and Iraq after they conquered those nations?
(a) Round up all the adult males and sell them into slavery.
(b) Loot the treasuries and force the native population into the least fertile corners of the country while taking the best parts for themselves.
(c) Proclaim those nations part of the glorious American Empire.
(d) Establish a democratically elected government with universal suffrage.I’ll let you guess.
’... became a freedom fighter, an expression that we don’t hear much these days. Supported by a large enough proportion of his people who were willing to take extreme steps, risking death, even killing other people,...’
Been watching this thread and it isn’t pretty.
As usual, NYT’s initial jaw-dropper has been completely ignored by leftist commenters and commenters who pretend they are not left but centrist.
Whatever rocks your boat, leftists. Even if you have to pretend you are not.
But the above comment takes the cake.
The stupidity is astounding, and there have been some pearls lately.
‘people who were willing to take extreme steps, risking death, even killing other people,...’
Even killing other people.
That’s a great aim to ‘will’ for.
But why direct anger at the US? Is it irrational? I think it is clear that the US has been fundamentally involved in creating and perpetuating situations where some Middle Eastern Muslims have become second-class citizens in what used to be their own country.
Read the post above this one. It’s about a Palestinian woman who was treated in an Israeli hospital after being severely burned in a kitchen accident.
She returned to Israel wearing twenty pounds of explosive with the intention of blowing up that hospital. She was caught at a checkpoint and attempted to blow herself up on the spot. The whole thing was caught on film.
HOW THE HELL IS THAT THE RESULT OF A RATIONAL DISAGREEMENT? Tell me that, Mister Loadedog.
The situation in the Middle East has been created by the corrupt governments in the Middle East.
It is clear that the US supports Israel, both with aid, military and logistical support, and through the United Nations, where they have regularly used their diplomatic muscle to muzzle numerous attempts by the Palestinians and their supporters to seek redress.
America has supported Israel because the countries surrounding it have been determined to wipe it off the map.
Israel can invade and occupy neighbouring countries without sanction but Iraq must suffer invasion and crippling sanctions for doing the same.
What are you talking about? What neighbouring country did Israel invade and occupy?
Do you really have no idea how the occupied territories came to be occupied?
Pixy, I think that loadedog refers to Israel simply existing on land that “used to be” a nation that never existed—“Palestine”.
Or perhaps he is whinging about how Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six Day War, and keep it as part of Syria to this day. Of course, that complete ignores the previous Arab-Israeli wars—started by Israel’s Arab neighbors!—with the stated objective of destroying Israel.
Naturally, we wouldn’t want to confuse loadedog with facts now, would we?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 08:19 AM • permalink‘it is far too easy for me, an ardent lover of America’s culture, political system and people, to believe that it is a country that has lost its way, has put self-interest ahead of just about everything it believes in, is pursuing those self-interests ruthlessly and with no regard for any lives other than its own citizen’s and is headed down a path that will drag it, and the rest of us, into God knows what awful extremities.’
Stupid patronising crap followed by the usual left pre-occupations. As if anyone would be fooled.
Save yourself the trouble, dude. Hold your hands over your ears and scream ‘America has done nothing for the world - ever - and I’ll hold my breath until I turn blue if anyone suggests otherwise.’
As for your stupid non sequitur:
‘How do you think those already pre-disposed to hatred of America perceive it?’
Those ‘pre-disposed’ to hating America voiced their opinions with aeroplanes some four years ago and you and your left comrades are still angsting about what they will think.
No offence intended, but your opinions - translated into active service - would have seen you shot, in too many wars to mention - not for treason which is relatively brave - but for cowardice.
...and keep it as part of Syria to this day…
Apologies. This should read:
...and keep it as part of Israel to this day…
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 08:36 AM • permalinkWell, if he’s referring to the former British Mandate of Palestine, he’s wrong because the Israelies didn’t invade, they bought the land.
And if he’s referring to the Golan Heights, then as you say he needs to read up on the attacks by Syria that led to the Six Day War - including Syrian artillery shelling of Israeli towns from the Golan Heights themselves.
And Homer, you still haven’t explained what the hell your line about the Berlin Wall and Iraq was supposed to be about.
Perhaps Homer should try remembering who built the Berlin Wall… and why.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 06 26 at 08:46 AM • permalinkNon-listening lefties, RWF? Try reading the posts here. ALL of them, not the ones that suit your premise.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 08:56 AM • permalinkWith the pull out of Gaza, Sharon originally wanted to keep Jewish towns in the West Bank and make Arab towns in Israel part of Palestine. It would have worked out fair in terms of land for land but the Arabs in Irael wanted no part of it..they wanted to stay in Israel.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001140.htmlCertainly it does, RWF. But you clearly ignore both sides of the problem.
Whilst ad hominem attacks are generally not effective, lefties arguing by sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “LA LA LA!! Can’t hear you!!!” is equally ineffective and rude.
Chastising one side for rude behavior while ignoring the other side’s antics is hardly the way to facilitate communications. This doesn’t work for the United Nations, and it certainly won’t work here.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 09:27 AM • permalinkSince it disturbs R_W_F (whose login name is “rightwingfuck”—gee, no name calling there) to read people being less than subservient to lefty commenters, I have removed his commenting privileges. He can still read the comments to his heart’s content, but he has been relieved of the burning need to post patronizing, off-topic interjections. I only hope this helps relieves his blood pressure, which must be elevated from the stress of seeing so many people in disagreement with his worldview.
I have not removed the commenting privileges to the other lefty commenters here—aka, loadedog, Homer Paxton, and Gruntled—because so far they have not broken the RULES, which as of this moment are 1) stay on topic, and 2) do not directly insult individual commenters as a substitute for an actual argument (in other words, ad hominem). These rules are, of course, subject to change at a moment’s notice at my or Tim’s whim. That being said:
Loadedog: I don’t know what has given people here the patience not only to read through but to reply to your War and Peace-length screeds, but you should take a moment in your throes of agony over the way your candy-coated unicorn-romping fantasies are being trampled by cold, hard reality to thank your gods or your lucky stars or whatever it is you thank at these times that you have been treated so well. I myself have not bothered to read anything more you’ve written, because there are only so many hours in my day.
Homer: PW, who comes from East Germany, has asked you to cease and desist spouting your Bearded Spock World version of European history here. The rest of us, who are both old enough to remember certain events, and who have actually cracked a history book or two, add our voices to his plea. Please stick to something you actually know about—say, the list of beer varieties currently in your refrigerator, or perhaps the depth and color of the crud between your toes. I realize that would mean you couldn’t comment here, as those two subjects are off-topic, but we all have to make sacrifices for the good of mankind.
Gruntled: as I recall, your comments a few days ago about Mr. Douglas Wood, who had been rescued from captivity in Iraq (a fate that has previously meant certain death by live beheading for most of its victims) ran along the lines of: “I’d like to punch him in the mouth.” Now you have the nerve to come here and say it’s hurting your little feely-weelings to read responses to gormless lefties like loadedog that are less than adulatory. Well, Mr. Gruntled, if it’s a warm and comfy feeling you want out of an internet forum, I suggest you try this one.
That’s all for now.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 09:46 AM • permalinkI know that this is a long thread, but I will add this to reiterate another’s comment: Saddam Hussein had already declared war on the US in the winter of 1991. It took until 2003 for us to acknowledge that declaration and do something about it.
Saddam in his own (and his PR people’s) words.
“[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world.”
Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991 (State-controlled)Posted by Some0Seppo on 2005 06 26 at 11:39 AM • permalinkThanks for not banning Homer, Andrea. He does provide some small amount of comic relief, and credence to the hypothesis that lefties live in an alternate reality.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 11:48 AM • permalink...candy-coated unicorn-romping fantasies…or perhaps the depth and color of the crud between your toes…it’s hurting your little feely-weelings…
Surely the best part of this site is when Andrea Harris gets pissed.
loadedog, first, it’s zeppenwolf—zzzzzzeppenwolf. Thank you.
I specifically asked you to make one point, in the hopes that this thread would remain a manageable size, and wouldn’t drive everyone crazy. You’ve disappointed in that regard, bringing everything from Ghandi to South Africa into this, somehow.
Others have done a fair job of fisking your points one through four; I choose to comment only on what strikes me as the underlying dramatic disconnect in your perception of reality:
The Muslim people of the world are not, as a whole, as a majority, even as a significant minority, bent on world domination.
Er, well… Islam sorta kinda sorta is bent on world domination… that’s part of Islam. Certainly we can see that not all Muslims are ready to saw off heads to get that result, of course. But to deny that the Koran calls for converting the entire world is to deny reality. Look around the globe, and wherever you see armed violent conflict that just won’t go away, nine times out of ten it’s a case of “some” Muslims simply refusing to get along with infidels. They can’t even be happy with their petit blanc neighbors after moving to France! If the shoe fits…
Rather it appears to me that it is the United States that has the greater claim to that ambition.
If the U.S. had even one percent of France’s “amibition”, (let alone China, Russia…), we would be occupying half the globe by now. Your statement could not possibly be more at odds with reality, could it? As Colin Powell recently said, (help me with the exact quote here, peeps; paraphrase): “We have never asked for more land than we need to bury our soldiers.”
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 06 26 at 01:25 PM • permalinkDamn, and here I thought you were educable, not a moonbat, Loadedog. Let’s take your third link. Where does it contradict anything I said?
It repeatedly says the U.S. did not provide arms to Iraq. All it does is make the claim the CIA arranged foreign sales, which requires us to believe Iraq’s major arms suppliers in the 1970s were suddenly unable to sell Iraq arms in the 1980s without CIA assitance. Snort.
It also mentions “billions in credits”. Those were not Federation credits, those were the same Agricultural Export Credits I mentioned. Free food is certainly a support, which I acknowedged.
Okay, so what’s left. Well, the U.S. gave Iraq some intelligence data on Iran in the early 1980s. Still don’t see what this has to do with arming Saddam Hussein, or how it would assist Iraq after the war ended in 1988.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 06 26 at 01:37 PM • permalinkMy apologies, Zeppenwolf. It was a genuine mistake, not an intentional slur (if you perhaps interpreted it that way).
The desire to convert people is not exclusive to Muslims. Christians, riding on the back of European imperialism, have converted, often by force, a sizable proportion of the world’s population. Is there a religion in the world that doesn’t have the goal of converting as many people as possible?
Your statement that Muslims are responsible for 9/10 enduring conflicts in the world is a colourful interpretation. With whom are they in conflict? Christians? Have you examined every conflict in the world and determined that they have solely been caused by the actions of just one side in all cases?
Christains and Muslims have at times over the centuries lived side by side, in peace and mutual prosperity. Conversely, at times, expanding Christian empires have been responsible for much devastation in the Muslim world. At other times, the reverse has been true. These sort of tragedies are not, IMHO, the result of any particular religious dogma, but surely stem from universal human characteristics of greed and intolerance and fear of difference.
As to US world domination, until recently I would agree with you, with a slight qualification. The Twentieth Century was marked by the withdrawal of most colonising powers from the old-style, conquer, divide and rule style empire, to a more subtle but equally effective method of exerting covert and overt influence over its dominions, without having to suffer the expense of actually running countries.
America has excelled at this and has prospered accordingly. Good luck to them, but let’s not pretend that America does not dominate, either economically, diplomatically, strategically and certainly (though less effectively than we might have presumed) militarily, a sphere of influence over which, as they used to say of Great Britain, the sun never sets.
Warmongerer. I still don’t think you’ve proven my statements incorrect.
Are you all quite finished?
We invaded. Saddam is in jail. Iraq is a democratic nation.
Now on to the important question.
Should we keep giving Saddam Dorito’s, which he enjoys, or should we force him to settle for Cheeto’s, which he doesn’t like as much?
I am leaning towards Cheeto’s, because he is an evil bastard.
Posted by papertiger on 2005 06 26 at 04:59 PM • permalinkloadeddog: The desire to convert people is not exclusive to Muslims.
Nor is it exclusive to religions, come to that.
Christians, riding on the back of European imperialism, have converted, often by force, a sizable proportion of the world’s population.
And when was the last time forced conversion was attempted by Christians on any significant scale? A more accurate sentence would be along the lines of ‘... once converted, often by force ... ‘
Is there a religion in the world that doesn’t have the goal of converting as many people as possible?
My own (Wicca) doesn’t put a big emphasis on it, and we certainly don’t divide the world into us and ‘dar el-harb.’ I don’t get the impression Buddhists, Hindus, or Shintoists(?) are enjoined to proselytize (with or without force), either, but those more conversant in those religions are welcome to correct me in that regard. There’s a world of difference, however, between politely offering pamphlets and sawing off the head of unbelievers.
Madame andrea,
you, timbo and the rest are as conservative as ABL.
however like him you are reationaries.Who are the true conservatives.
Eagleburger, Scowcroft, Cato institute, Harries Sydney Anglicans etal.They and I criticised the Iraq venture as missing the point about terrorism read AQ.
As yet no-one here has been able to show that Iraq was a threat, have been able to show the 9/11 commision was wrong visavis Aq links with Hussein, nor ahow any understanding how AQ operate. ( In business lingo they are a low cost producer which in simple english they could not and would not use WMDs unless of course they got them at
dirt cheap prices.)So in the end all Bush has done has made an easy target to kill US soldiers ( have you noticed how suicide bombers are not falling away), put the US budget into deep doodoo with no improvement in sight and the war on terrorism shows little improvement.
mind you he has given great impetus to the Islamists in Arab States.
It would be ironic at the end of all this that his great feat would be putting them into power!
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 06:26 PM • permalinkChristains and Muslims have at times over the centuries lived side by side, in peace and mutual prosperity.
Does the word “dhimmi” mean anything to you?
Anyway, here’s the fundamental difference: The Christian church, and the Christian world, has been through the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment.
Islam and the Islamic world hasn’t. To a significant degree it’s still stuck in the dark ages, but with imported Western technology. And this is because the leaders of the Islamic nations are very much intent on keeping it that way.
Feeling expansive, after a hard day’s housework, I reply to Homer Paxton’s… thing:
you, timbo and the rest are as conservative as ABL.
Who is ABL?
however like him you are reationaries.
What are “reationaries”? That word does not seem to exist in any normal English dictionary.
Who are the true conservatives.
Questions are commonly followed by question marks, which look like this: ?
Eagleburger, Scowcroft, Cato institute, Harries Sydney Anglicans etal.
The relationship of the first two persons to this topic are unknown to me, so I don’t see that their political position matters. The Cato Institution is a libertarian public policy research foundation. Their motto is Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace. Conservatives are generally for the middle two, but they are somewhat less enamored of the first and last items. I realize you don’t believe me, but I can only link once more to their about page.
Who or what “Harries Sydney Anglicans etal” might be I have no idea.
They and I criticised the Iraq venture as missing the point about terrorism read AQ.
I have no idea what “AQ” is so I can’t very well read it.
As yet no-one here has been able to show that Iraq was a threat, have been able to show the 9/11 commision was wrong visavis Aq links with Hussein, nor ahow any understanding how AQ operate.
I can see that you are of that number of people who wouldn’t recognize a threat if it sat on your face and made you suck it’s Weapon of Mass Destruction so I’m not even going to bother refuting you.
( In business lingo they are a low cost producer which in simple english they could not and would not use WMDs unless of course they got them at
dirt cheap prices.)This sentence makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps you could have one of your ward-mates translate it out of the Gibberish into common English.
So in the end all Bush has done has made an easy target to kill US soldiers
Yes, soldiers who go to war often get killed. See what you miss when you skip history class to go smoke pot out behind the gym?
( have you noticed how suicide bombers are not falling away)
It seems to me that not only do they tend to fall away, pieces of them tend to fall just about everywhere. What is your point with this?
put the US budget into deep doodoo with no improvement in sight
When I want an expert opinion on my own country’s budget I always go ask a half soused pub-crawler on the other side of the world. I guess keeping track of a beer tab does give one some sort of financial acumen.
and the war on terrorism shows little improvement.
And they call us armchair generals… What, pray tell, is “improvement” in your eyes? In a few scant months a dictator that was openly paying terrorists to wreak havoc in other countries, that invaded a hugely armed and just as crazy neighboring country at the cost of millions of lives, ran political opponents and people he plain didn’t like through plastic shredders, had two sons with the personalities of Arab Ted Bundies waiting to succeed him—and who had been treated by our timid world leaders like a crazy ex-wife: at arms length with velvet-tipped tongs and the truly Fierce Frowns of Disapproval, and he still flouted the so-called sanctions and led the UN inspectors a merry dance and terrorised his country’s citizens and basically did whatever the hell he pleased—was run down by a small contingent of our forces, who found the Magnificent, Terrifying, would-be second Saladin cowering in a sewer pipe. There haven’t been any more major terrorist attacks in this country. Terror squads are being mopped up all over the place, and as for the terrortards who’ve been waltzing into Iraq with the idea that they’re going to be the ones to break the USA’s back, that country is so far serving as a kind of Hotel California, where terrorists can check in any time, but they’ll never leave.
But YOU aren’t satisfied, and God himself on the throne up in Heaven labors daily to figure out ways to make you happy. He’s even stopped making new worlds—can’t do the creating right now, Homer’s downcast again! Poor Homer, why do people conspire to make you so miserable? I can’t figure it out—you seem like such an amiable, reasonable person to me.
But let’s finish:
mind you he has given great impetus to the Islamists in Arab States.
It would be ironic at the end of all this that his great feat would be putting them into power!
Er… proof? Links? Quotes? Anything? Bueller? Funny, this little bit smells kind of like… your ass. Like that’s where you pulled it from.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 07:41 PM • permalinkHa—Forbes, it took me so long to type my fisk you got in before me!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 07:54 PM • permalinkloadedog — Republican Party 1 and 2 has nothing to do with it. Democrats and Republicans both signed off on removing Saddam in ‘98. Hell, John KERRY voted to remove Saddam in ‘98, and Clinton signed the deal. Look up the word “bipartisan” some time.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 26 at 08:14 PM • permalinkMy apologies, Zeppenwolf. It was a genuine mistake, not an intentional slur (if you perhaps interpreted it that way).
No, I didn’t; no damage.
The desire to convert people is not exclusive to Muslims.
I didn’t say it explicitly, probably because I really should not have to—Islam is unique among the world’s largest religions, in the valence of incorporating the theocratic state as a central doctrine. That’s the kind of “conversion” we’re concerned with here—I don’t mind if Christians bug me on the street corner, neither Muslims neither Hare Krishnas. The problem with Islam comes from two places: 1) When the religion actively pursues a stifling theocracy, that’s a problem, and 2) when the religious take up arms to “convert” me that’s a problem.
And like it or not, the Koran has all too many passages requiring the faithful to spread Islam with the sword when the word doesn’t work fast enough. We’re going over old ground here. There’s no point in screaming about what Christians did in 1600 something—we’re talking about 2005, and no Christians or Buddhists or Jews are out there strapping bombs onto their kids or people with Down’s syndrome and sending them out to martyr themselves. We’re going over old ground here. We’re going over old ground here. We’re going over old ground here.
You may say the Bible says this, the Bible says that… I agree—ultimately, it doesn’t quite matter what holy book X says, it’s what the people who read it do with it. We. Are. Going. Over. Old. Ground. Here.
As to US world domination… to a more subtle but equally effective method of exerting covert and overt influence over its dominions
Extremely “subtle”, in fact. Dominions? What is this, Star Wars? We control Europe because McDonalds has a restaurant in Paris? Or something. Didn’t seem to help with Chirac much.
Bummer we couldn’t get our troops through Turkey, though… Maybe they don’t like McDonalds.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 06 26 at 09:24 PM • permalinkI like how Homer pretends that he gets to define what a “true conservative” is, presumably so we fall on our knees and pay tribute to the One True Conservative Thinker on this blog who Will Show Us The Errors Of Our Ways.
Homer, I realize by now that none of us are able to disabuse you of your delusions, but if you’re conservative at all, it’s in the Pat Buchanan mold…you know, the type of paleo-con that find themselves sounding like Far-Left nutcases these days. And you have the gall to call us reactionaries? (Well, “reationaries” really, but let’s not split hairs.)
I’m glad Andrea isn’t banning you…you’re the perfect embodiment of Blair’s Law, and your presence is a daily reminder of it.
Just one more thing, since again you insisted on talking about something that you don’t have a clue of, but I happen to do:
( In business lingo they are a low cost producer which in simple english they could not and would not use WMDs unless of course they got them at dirt cheap prices.)
More proof that you’re a closet lefty at best. No conservative would actually assert that cost is the primary variable in business decisions. Newsflash, Homer: It’s potential profit, or in more general terms, rewards. Al-Qaeda clearly has (or, to be cautious, had) the financial means to acquire expensive weaponry. I know you claimed otherwise, but since you can’t be arsed to provide evidence, I’m ignoring you on that point. The “business” question thus isn’t whether they could afford it, but whether the rewards exceeded the costs, keeping opportunity costs in mind. In other words, would a terrorist use of WMD be sufficiently more rewarding than their usual fare to justify the higher costs. Those rewards don’t just include higher body counts (although that’s obviously the primary goal if you’re trying to kill all the infidels eventually), but also the shock-and-awe value of having used WMD, the additional media attention, the potential for increased recruitment, etc. That whole bundle taken together, I’d say it becomes very hard to argue that Al-Qaeda would consider WMD not cost-effective. Therefore my conclusion that they haven’t used them because they haven’t had a chance to do so, either due to lack of availability, or lack of applicability, i.e. they haven’t managed to get their WMD to where it counts, into the US or other Western countries. Given all the horror stories about porous borders both on land and sea entry, I doubt it’s the latter.
As to US world domination, until recently I would agree with you, with a slight qualification. The Twentieth Century was marked by the withdrawal of most colonising powers from the old-style, conquer, divide and rule style empire, to a more subtle but equally effective method of exerting covert and overt influence over its dominions, without having to suffer the expense of actually running countries.
You’ve shifted the goalposts so far that they are on another planet.
Don’t you see how dishonest that is? When someone shows that you’re wrong, you can’t just change the definition of the words you’ve used.
Newsflash, Homer: It’s potential profit, or in more general terms, rewards.
“Return”
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 26 at 10:15 PM • permalinkNFA, it aint at business school old son.
Try loking at 1) on AQ or
2) whst the CIA has said about AQ.They do not have a lot of money which is why their ventures have been low cost affairsd.
to acquire WMDs ( and the inference about Iraq always was they possessed sophisicated ones) you need:
1) the money
2) the firing mechanism
3) infrastructure to put hem somewhere
4) a vast upgrading of the skills needed by the ‘workforce’.By the way Aq always bought weapons that were tested. Just when did Iraq post gulf war ever test a WMD?
PW.
you are more a buchanite than I.
I favour free trade and therefore open borders.
I don’t like spendthrift Governments like the US one.by the way PW business which are successful rarely try to change until they need to.
Unfortunately AQ is quite successful at what they do.
You will have noticed of course that if certain people were killed then the WMDs would be useless!
Given your expeience of AQ you will have noticed they ensure any of the operatives can replace others if killed.
This is easy if they continue in their present ventures of not using sophicated weapons.
the moment you change this the pyramid becomes vulnerable.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 10:30 PM • permalinkNot only has Homer Paxton pushed us over the 150 mark, I have absolutely no clue what he’s talking about. I’m outta here.
It’s a great name, though…
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 06 26 at 10:49 PM • permalinkNFA, it aint at business school old son.
Unfamiliar with “Return”, aka “ROI”? Which business school are you referring to?
For that matter… Which primary school did you attend?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 26 at 10:56 PM • permalinkquite right Zeppenwolf.
A knowledge of business and economics is in short supply around here.
That is why you can vote for a man who has increased the size of government in the USA and shows no sign of slowing down.
you are all leftists!I have news for you NFA.
ROI is actual figures not potential and it isn’t even generalPosted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 11:03 PM • permalinkHomer, you are truly clueless. Quit while you’re behind!
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 26 at 11:07 PM • permalinkAndrea- Not meaning to “call names” in the last comment. But really… such blatant stupidity must be remarked upon!!! And he makes it soooo easy!
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 26 at 11:11 PM • permalinkWell my good friend try looking at any book on corporate finance.
They will tell you the ROI is based on ACTUAL figures on what the company has earned.Potential profit comes from examining future projects usually using NPV.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 11:12 PM • permalinkAnd your business school didn’t teach you to project return or calculate potential ROI? What school was this, again?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 26 at 11:25 PM • permalinkNFA , That isn’t what you asserted previously.
I will allow you the squeeze to get out of the hole you dug yourself in.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 11:28 PM • permalinkWhat school was this, again?
The International School of Bartending, I think.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 11:42 PM • permalinkbut if you’re conservative at all, it’s in the Pat Buchanan mold…you know, the type of paleo-con that find themselves sounding like Far-Left nutcases these days.
Or as we like to call them, anti-semitic isolationists, which is why they wrap around the ass end of the political horizon so well…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 27 at 12:03 AM • permalinkNo Gary I said a lot more than three budgets and you merely asked for my experience not qualifications.
We were talking about the costing of the perties picies in the election.
I might add Treasury backed me up on that!Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 12:13 AM • permalinkGary,
What I said came three weeks before Treasury gave its opinion.
I said it wasn’t hard at the time for anyone with experience and it wasn’t.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 12:24 AM • permalinkAnd just to take another shot:
I favour free trade and therefore open borders.
Out here in the real world, Homer, “open borders” does not logically follow from “free trade”. But then, logic has never been your strong point.
We’ve got to hand it to ol’ HP, he sure doesn’t just parrot lefty talking points. Although that would probably be an improvement as far as coherency goes.
PW, I hate to be the one to tell you but you cannot support free trade without supporting open borders or to put it more simply free labour markets.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 12:31 AM • permalinkDamn, Homer’s just the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 27 at 12:41 AM • permalinkPerhaps the three gentlemen should cite more substantive authorities in support of their various positions. I am certain the following would be recognisable to the readers of this forum, and supply additional gravitas to the trio’s discussions:
1. Nuanced appreciations;
2. People Speak to the Truth; and,
3. A Lone voice of reason.
Other authorities are available; I only suggest these as exemplars.Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2005 06 27 at 12:43 AM • permalinkLooking at Tim’s update #1, and the linked document I’m starting to feel a little silly for engaging in this debate.
The New York Times editorial said there was no connection between 9/11 and the war. I asked Tim if he could tell us what was the connection? I, like the New York Times, was making a distinction between Iraq, the country, its history, previous wars etc, and the war, the current war, the invasion of 2003, that was supposedly necessary because… well you all know the reasons given to the gullible for invading Iraq. Whatever reasons you now add on as post-scripts are irrelevant. We were lied to, gulled, and I don’t care what side of politics they’re on, a government that lies to its people and the world isn’t fit to run a great country like America.
It’s obvious that bin Laden would have used the previous war on Iraq as a further (and only one of many) justification for the continuing Jihad, but is that all you’ve got Tim?
The NYT was referring, as if any of you didn’t know, to connections between the actions of Saddam Hussein and 9/11 which were insinuated by Bush, Cheney, Rummy etc as a major motivating factor for the invasion. Like providing support to bin Laden. We all know there were none. But still you go on. Iraq deserved to be invaded in 2003 because, when they were invaded before, a third party used it as justification for saying hateful things and convinced some desperate men to do a crime against humanity.
Homer Paxton, as difficult as it is to make sense of a lot of what he writes (hint for Homer, write your posts in Word with spell check on), makes one good point. The majority of people here are not conservatives. In supporting the neo-cons with such curious logic they paint themselves as dangerous radicals, bent on subjugating an entire religion and dragging it kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, or else. Whoopee. At least we (the real conservatives, the humanitarians, the people who believe in [ALL] peoples rights to peace, dignity and the freedom to choose their religion, governmental style etc. without coercion) know what we’re up against.
loaded dog that is fair criticism.
Pixymisa.
I hate to be the one to tell you this but slavery is a very regulated labour markerPosted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 01:48 AM • permalinkPW, the Buchananite Leftist (apparently)
PW, too bad you ain’t “The Buccaneer”, eh? Less reputable (not by much, though), but certainly less moonbatish.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 01:52 AM • permalinkI hate to be the one to tell you this but slavery is a very regulated labour marker
Why do you hate to tell me that?
You were claiming that free transfer of goods necessitates free transfer of labour. There is no connection, unless labour is a good, which is why I asked. Not that I expected (or received) a relevant response.
We were lied to, gulled, and I don’t care what side of politics they’re on, a government that lies to its people and the world isn’t fit to run a great country like America.
FWEEEP! FOUL!
What lie? Name it. Direct quote, attribution, link to a primary source.
We’re waiting.
Imaginary insinuations, whether the result of your personal delusions or the folie-a-multitude of the NYT and the like, do not count. Sorry. One per customer. Not available in South Australia.
free flow of goods means fre flow of other markets whether they be financial or labour Pixymisa.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 02:03 AM • permalinkTo expand: You can have free trade of goods, and a border closed to people in both directions. You can have free trade of goods, and capital markets closed in both directions. That makes things harder, but it’s definitely possible.
Sorry, Homer, but in as far as you are coherent at all, you are completely wrong.
pixy the only reason for free trade is to gat the most efficient allocation of resources.
Without the other markets deregulated you don’t get that!Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 02:39 AM • permalinkI’m beginning to get the feeling nobody cares about the Doritos vs. Cheetos debate.
Posted by papertiger on 2005 06 27 at 03:04 AM • permalinkpixy the only reason for free trade is to gat the most efficient allocation of resources.
Wrong.
Without the other markets deregulated you don’t get that!
Doesn’t matter.
Free trade without freedom of movement and freedom of capital still allows a more efficient use of resources. It’s not optimal, but it’s still better.
And you’re still wrong.
fine Pixymisa.
go ahead and write a book on the subject but that is what is taught in international economics.
Look up any textbook.
Kindleberger, McKinnon, Samuelson who ever.I have news for you free trade in goods and services usually means over time freer trade in other markets as well.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 03:17 AM • permalinkI’m beginning to get the feeling nobody cares about the Doritos vs. Cheetos debate.
I favor Lay’s potato chips myself. Ruffles, y’know, with ridges? Good stuff, ‘specially for dipping
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 03:28 AM • permalinkI have news for you free trade in goods and services usually means over time freer trade in other markets as well.
So what?
That’s not what you said. I can’t read your mind, it’s all blurry. So I have to go by what you actually say, and you didn’t say anything like “free trade in goods and services usually means over time freer trade in other markets”.
What you said was:
I hate to be the one to tell you but you cannot support free trade without supporting open borders or to put it more simply free labour markets.
Which is bollocks.
Homer, I’m a professional economist with over ten years experience and your posts on ‘economics’ make about as much sense as your other posts….
btw, I vote for Pringles.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 06 27 at 03:33 AM • permalinkExactly Pixy if you support one without suporting the others it is inconsistent andb contradictory
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 03:35 AM • permalinkWell then Art go ahead and show your expertise
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 27 at 03:36 AM • permalinkI’m sure Art will do so, Homer, when you show your expertise. You haven’t, thus far.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 03:48 AM • permalink“What lie? Name it. Direct quote, attribution, link to a primary source.”—Pixy Misa(180)
Yes loadedog an actual quote like this one
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”—Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
And not Homyfide recollections like this one.
“George said Iraq threaned the USA itself”—Homer Paxton
http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/?p=502#comment-2144
PW, too bad you ain’t “The Buccaneer”, eh? Less reputable (not by much, though), but certainly less moonbatish.
Arr matey, I likes me my moonbat there on me left shoulder. Just needs a good slappin’ when he go wraawk-Bushitlerburton-wraawk from tim’ to tim’.
(Okay, that was silly. I quite prefer Ruffles btw.)
And you guys suggest I live in a fantasy world, sheesh! I suppose you guys follow the debate about what ‘fixed’ might mean as if it were anything other than an attempt to bury what is incontrovertible proof of what many of us here in Australia, and I’m sure in the US as well, knew long before the war actually started was a blatant campaign to mislead the world as to the necessity of fighting that particular war at that particular moment.
I’ve said before, I think invading Iraq was possibly inevitable. My main beef with Bush is that he was prepared to lie (as explained above) to us about why and when we had to do that. My other beef is that, in doing so, he gave invaluable ammunition to the terrorists to claim that the US was an unprovoked aggressor, and has probably made the world more unsafe as a result.
Most of the world, in a rush of sympathy for the US and a desire to see the perpetrators come to justice, supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Besides, the Taliban were hardly sympathetic. Neither was Saddam but there wasn’t a strong enough case for tying up so many resources in that theatre when the real job lay elsewhere.
So Bush had to lie to get anyone to agree with it. So we became justifiably suspicious about his real motives. And those on the verge of joining the Jihad had another reason to join up.
Loaded Og:
So Bush had to lie to get anyone to agree with it.
Pixy’s already asked you once:
What lie? Name it. Direct quote, attribution, link to a primary source.
We’re waiting.
Imaginary insinuations, whether the result of your personal delusions or the folie-a-multitude of the NYT and the like, do not count. Sorry. One per customer. Not available in South Australia.
Most of the world, in a rush of sympathy for the US and a desire to see the perpetrators come to justice, supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Besides, the Taliban were hardly sympathetic. Neither was Saddam but there wasn’t a strong enough case for tying up so many resources in that theatre when the real job lay elsewhere.
Oh joy, a Homerite “Bush screwed up by diverting precious resources from Afghanistan into Iraq” claim from loadedog. Does that qualify as another instance of Blair’s Law?
lode wrote:
And you guys suggest I live in a fantasy world, sheesh!
...and then goes into fantasy mode.
Hint: the Downing Street Memos are hardly “incontrovertible” no matter how many times you declare it such. Your…. fixation on the word “fixed” isn’t the only weakness, though I suppose pretending it is might be helpful for you.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 06 27 at 04:55 AM • permalinkExactly Pixy if you support one without suporting the others it is inconsistent andb contradictory
Nonsense. It just means that resource allocation won’t be globally optimal.
For such a staunch conservative, Homer sure has bought into the lefty notion that if things can’t be perfect, they must be impossible, eh Pixy?
I take back the claim that Homer’s a Buchanite. Even those guys don’t fall for that one.
Because Afghanistan is the perfect place to send 100,000 troops, including armored units, into—and it’s no problem keeping them supplied. Do I have to include sarcasm tags?
(Probably, since I’ve seen people argue that we should have sent the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan so we’d “get” Bin Laden.)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 06 27 at 05:15 AM • permalinkI’ve said before, I think invading Iraq was possibly inevitable.
OK, got it, loadedog.
My main beef with Bush is that he was prepared to lie (as explained above) to us about why and when we had to do that.
Was the truth misrepresented by someone? Perhaps, although simple human error could account for it (which you understand if you had any intelligence background—yet another leftie meme that seems fact proof). But I’ve not seen solid evidence that demonstrates George W. Bush personally lied about Iraq.
My other beef is that, in doing so, he gave invaluable ammunition to the terrorists to claim that the US was an unprovoked aggressor, and has probably made the world more unsafe as a result.
This one, however is really interesting. As a reminder, your very first sentence in this paragraph was:
I’ve said before, I think invading Iraq was possibly inevitable.
OK, so you accept the invasion as ”...possibly inevitable…”, but then you bitch about Bush ”...gave invaluable ammunition to the terrorists…” by invading.
I think you just tried to coat your main beef with mustard so we’d swallow it easier. You can’t complain about the latter while conditionally accepting the former.
If the war was “possibly inevitable” (is that an original leftie oxymoron?), then it follows that the US was not “...an unprovoked aggressor…”, and that, at the very least, the terrorists hold a major share of the blame for “...probably made the world more unsafe as a result.”
Your assumptions and premises simply don’t stand up under your own logic. The cause and effect of all this must include the terrorists as a major player, simply because there was no “unprovoked aggression”.
More circular leftie logic, like a dog chasing his tail. Characters like you are so locked into your alternate reality that you are willing to look like fools in the process.
No wonder you are so lonely at your blog.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 06:01 AM • permalinkI never said Afghanistan or any other theatre of war was the ‘real work’ that was diverted from by invading Iraq. Another case of people here thinking for me.
The real work involved seeking out real, fair, diplomatic solutions to the real, festering, problems that bedevil the Middle East and its relations with the western world, rather than pulling on the jack boots and knocking off one after another ‘evil’ enemy.
#127
War and Peace-length screeds
why shouldn’t loadedog offer more than a few text lines on this subject? isn’t it worth the exposition? or does everything have to be expressed in satisfyingly small, soundbite-sized paragraphs?
reading this blog is like feasting on crispbread.
Posted by frankly-gertrude on 2005 06 27 at 07:02 AM • permalink(Lack of sleep can be a dangerous thing…)
Has anybody ever explored the notion that the reason lefties become so enamored with their bogus memes might be that they (consciously or subconsciously) believe in the labour theory of value? I.e., they spend all this time and brainpower to come up with “what Bush should have done differently”, or “how Bush lied”, not to mention elaborate “root cause” constructs. Us evil righties then point out that 99% of their fantantic ideas and suggestions are either objectively wrong, or objectively useless - in econ speak, we’re faced with lots of supply, but little demand, resulting in a low (intellectual) value for these ideas. Meanwhile, our lefty visitors don’t consider the truthfulness and usefulness of their ideas as the important determinants, but rather the effort they expended on coming up with them, and expect to be rewarded commensurately. That would certainly go a long way toward explaining why even overwhelming evidence tends to fail at penetrating lefty skulls.
But then, I’ve probably just gone nuts.
The real work involved seeking out real, fair, diplomatic solutions to the real, festering, problems that bedevil the Middle East and its relations with the western world, rather than pulling on the jack boots and knocking off one after another ‘evil’ enemy.
What would you suggest?
We’ve tried everything else. Knocking off the evil enemy - and make no mistake, the Taliban and the Ba’athists were evil - has worked. Everything else failed miserably.
I say stick with what works.
The real work involved seeking out real, fair, diplomatic solutions to the real, festering, problems that bedevil the Middle East and its relations with the western world, rather than pulling on the jack boots and knocking off one after another ‘evil’ enemy.
That’s boilerplate UN-speak, not a credible suggestion of a (workable) alternative.
For evidence, see the going-nowhere mess that the nuclear talks with Iran have become. There are no “real, fair, diplomatic” solutions with some regimes, but I don’t think you’ll ever understand that. Just keep clinging to your fairy tale ideas about how the world should be working, meanwhile the rest of us will continue to do what needs to be done.
And nice use of scare quotes. You oughta be careful, your facade of reasonableness is dropping. A few more posts and you might have an nwab-like outbreak of passive-aggressiveness, and wouldn’t that be a shame.
Interesting, PW.
What is “fantantic”?
and; has it occurred to you that leftys think the same thing, ie. that rightys (ooh, I like these indiscriminate generalisations. they’re so empowering!)
“don’t consider the truthfulness and usefulness of their ideas as the important determinants… explaining why even overwhelming evidence tends to fail at penetrating [their] skulls.”Posted by frankly-gertrude on 2005 06 27 at 07:13 AM • permalinkWhat a monster thread. Let me catch it’s tail at least.
My main beef with Bush is that he was prepared to lie ... to us about why and when we had to do that.
The left’s obsession with Bush, loadedog, is a little, as Dame Edna would say - spooky. It’s like you need him somehow.
Some people here don’t have a lot of time for Christopher Hitchens but on this issue he said something once during an interview with the execrable Adams I thought spot on:
I think that what bothers me more though is the attitude of many supposed liberals and radicals who act as if they have to be spoon fed. In other words if no government in the west had anything to say about Saddam Hussain, they wouldn’t have had anything to say for themselves.
They wouldn’t have had any quarrel with the existence of this regime; they wouldn’t have had a case against him. They just wait to see if a case is presented then see if they can find fault in it. It seems to me that’s completely wrong.
If you are a proper internationalist, you should have your own indcitment of Saddam Hussain, as many groups did and as many individuals did, including myself.
Is Bush a figleaf for bad conscience? One can’t help but wonder ...
PS Love that Henry Lawson story.
why shouldn’t loadedog offer more than a few text lines on this subject? isn’t it worth the exposition? or does everything have to be expressed in satisfyingly small, soundbite-sized paragraphs?
Because it’s hard to address a lengthy screed, particularly when every single statement in it is wrong.
reading this blog is like feasting on crispbread.
Mmm. Crispbread. No, wait…
I can’t help but notice that the lefty fetish with diplomatic talks also fits neatly into the labour theory of value model. Now, we on the right may consider it a waste of time and resources to follow up on continuously failed diplomacy with even more bound-to-be-useless diplomatic chattering, but for the left that apparently constitutes added-value.
has it occurred to you that leftys think the same thing
Yeah.
But as it happens, they’re wrong.
This is the essence of leftism. Socialism has been proved, proved beyond any doubt to be a catastrophic failure as an economic system. To still embrace it requires divorcing oneself utterly from inconvenient facts.
Some righties do that too, but it’s not required of them the way it is of lefties. So you are far more likely to find rational and reasonable discourse among righties than lefties - even when the subject is neither politics nor economics.
What is “fantantic”?
Sorry, “fantastic”.
and; has it occurred to you that leftys think the same thing, ie. that rightys (ooh, I like these indiscriminate generalisations. they’re so empowering!)
“don’t consider the truthfulness and usefulness of their ideas as the important determinants… explaining why even overwhelming evidence tends to fail at penetrating [their] skulls.”Oh, sure. I’m still waiting for a lefty to come up with something objectively true in this thread though, not just opinion-pretending-to-be-fact. (You do understand the difference, right?) Would you care to try, or are you just here to sneer at the content and quality of this comment section as you did in your first post? In that case, kindly prepare yourself for a rapid loss of commenting ability once Andrea comes around again.
Has anybody ever explored the notion that the reason lefties become so enamored with their bogus memes might be that they (consciously or subconsciously) believe in the labour theory of value?i]
I don’t think you’ve gone nuts, PW. God knows loadedog and his “intellectual” kin spend more time defending their position than they do in researching facts, or developing the logic of their thesis, or even analyzing their own philosophies. Their inability to accept facts as facts, let alone counterarguments, when their worldview is challenged is very much in line with your hypothesis.
In other words, lefties prefer defending their idea, rather than applying the idea to the world. Since most of us have observed that lefties sitting on the sidelines and moaning that things are going the way they should, instead of fixing the problem, you may have identified a basic tenet of leftie thought.
I think you’ve found a new Law of the Blogosphere…..PW’s Theorem. How does this sound for a summary?
Lefties place more value on the effort of developing a meme than on the practical application of that meme to the real world.
Suggestions are welcome.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 07:26 AM • permalinkRats, I messed up the formatting. My bad, preview is my friend…...
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 07:35 AM • permalinkYou guys have a point. It is hard for us to find evidence for our beliefs. If you can’t accept the Downing street memo as fact, and proof that the Bush administration concocted the case for war, then there’s nothing for it but to retire and wait for more revelations.
For me it is enough to know that every single justification given for the war beforehand has been shown to be false. For you, that is not important. It might be evidence of an over-active fantasy life but I find it hard to imagine you guys being so complacent had it been a Democrat President (not that I’m a fan of the Democrats) acting similarly, but that’s just useless conjecture. So, for the moment, I retire, tail not entirely betwen the legs.
Until the next time we meet..
Yours sincerely
...I find it hard to imagine you guys being so complacent had it been a Democrat President…
Depends who the Democrat president was, loadedog. The DNC had several choices, y’know. That’s because I’m not complacent about this. Not in my universe, anyway.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 27 at 10:30 AM • permalinkloadedog: For me it is enough to know that every single justification given for the war beforehand has been shown to be false.
Those mass graves were just Hollywood mock-ups then? And all those accounts of rape rooms, torture, mutiltation, and other grotesque human rights violations were made up out of whole cloth? And Saddam’s very public sheltering and sponsoring of terrorists were simply mass hallucination?
I don’t think they let Saddam have Ruffles or Pringles.
And thats a good thing. Because he is an evil bastard.
Posted by papertiger on 2005 06 27 at 07:50 PM • permalinkWell, looks like it’s been a busy day here. But some of us have jobs… or at least I do. Closing comments:
“Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.”
“Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.”-and of course…
“Wise man make proverbs but fools repeat them.”
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 27 at 09:57 PM • permalinkI think I got blocked for referring to crispbread. You are a thin-skinned lot. And, PW, I liked Fantantic; a new word for the blogscape? plenty of fantastic fanatics here…
BTW. Unless you are blessed with omnipotence (and God doesn’t blog), then opinion and fact can be difficult to tell apart. That’s not to mention the confusion of statistics, history, true stories (only the facts have been changed to exploit the gullible) and the irrelevant truth added to the mix.
Posted by try-again G on 2005 06 27 at 11:50 PM • permalinkAnne, not a terribly bright move to use your work email address on a blog (especially when you work for the Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations).
Don’t you have some ‘draconian’ legislation that will ‘smash workers’ rights’ to work on anyway?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 06 28 at 12:11 AM • permalinkI hope no one else here visits Tim’s page from the Federal Department of whatsit, because I’ve just banned that url.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 28 at 12:39 AM • permalinkAh, the declared “proven false” tactic. Except when they try to post actual evidence and someone has the audacity to do a bit more research, it turns out the evidence is… dubious at best. Sort of like Senator Kennedy declaring Iraq a “quagmire” and demanding others see it that way.
...and then lodey says we are the ones living with a fantasy and makes a lame claim that if it were a Democratic president we’d be all over him.
Sorry, not quite as partisan as loadedog wants me to be, I guess.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 06 28 at 12:54 AM • permalinkLow dog is just fishing for hits on his own site, and the length of this thread bears testament to the long-suffering contributors. The self advertised fact is that he is long-winded recidivist arsehole. Should be enough to discourage visitors, and that seems to be what he is really complaining about - loneliness.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Nope, much like we don’t need to bother with the NYT.