March 02, 2004
CHEER UP, PEACENIKS
Look, it’s really, really, really sad that a murderer who murdered thousands isn’t around to murder people any more, and I feel deeply sorry for everyone who wishes Saddam Hussein was still in power so the murdering could continue, but all the wishing in the world won’t put him back in charge, you know? The Saddam era (at least we still have our memories) is, alas, over.
So do what you have to do -- demand a few more inquiries, march against the injustice of it all, place a candlelit shrine to Saddam in your breakfast nook -- and then move on. Don’t slump around in despair. Make something of your lives! Uday and Qusay would have wanted it that way. You don’t want to disappoint little Uday and Qusay, do you?
Besides, even without Saddam in power, the world isn’t such a bad place. Castro is still killing people. So is Mugabe. So is Kim Jong-il. See? I bet you’re feeling better already.
Posted by Tim Blair at March 2, 2004 03:21 AM"Look, it’s really, really, really sad that a murderer who murdered thousands ..."
It is no exaggeration to say millions.
Posted by: LSG at March 2, 2004 at 03:23 AMName a single "peacenik" who has ever expressed any sort of admiration -- to say nothing of worshipful adulation -- for Saddam or his evil spawn.
Go on then. I'll wait.
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 03:51 AMHow about HRW? Wasn't it that org that set the level of how many people a thug could kill before the world should act?
Posted by: Sandy P. at March 2, 2004 at 04:10 AMPerhaps vaara can explain why, if he thinks Saddam is so bad, he'd prefer that he'd been left in charge of Iraq.
Give us the pro-Saddam case, vaara. Saddam should remain Iraq's dictator ... why? Uday and Qusay should be alive so they can do ... what?
Posted by: tim at March 2, 2004 at 04:30 AMI'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices. Just as the people in Romania and Czechoslovakia and Russia and Latvia and Estonia and Ukraine and Bulgaria and Hungary and East Germany and Poland and Albania and the Philippines and Haiti (circa 1986) were.
All those people managed to get rid of their own bloodthirsty dictators without foreign intervention -- and, more to the point, without foreign democratic governments lying to their own people about it.
But no, apparently anyone who believes that elected leaders should not lead their people into unprovoked wars by intentionally deceiving their own people is automatically a Saddam-worshipper.
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 04:45 AMDave P: You've been in Sean Penn's house and seen his Saddam shrine? Do tell.
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 04:46 AMSean Penn did go back to Iraq. I read his account of his post-war return. An Iraqi brought him to a room filled from floor to ceiling with files on people killed by Saddam's thugs. The Iraqi, just knowing that Penn was American, said to him, "Thank Bush for helping us." Sean Penn suddenly got a throbbing headache and had to leave--I'm not kidding. If anyone has the url to that article, they should post it. It's a very interesting read. Penn has to eat some crow, no doubt about it. Last night that stupid phony just had to throw in that ridiculous WMD tag as he received his Oscar. What a damn sucker. At least Tim Robbins had the sense to keep his mouth shut.
Posted by: Jeffrey -- New York at March 2, 2004 at 04:57 AM(Why doesn't George Galloway count?)
Vaara, while it might be very nice to imagine that we could have left Iraq to its own devices, there is the little matter of broken ceasefires and prima facie violations of Security Council resolutions to consider. How would you have dealt with these issues? What would you have done in the face of the Iraqi regime's refusal to comply with a series of UNSC resolutions requiring them to provide verification of the destruction of their acknowledged WMD programs?
Posted by: reg at March 2, 2004 at 04:58 AMThese people come to mind: Peter Arnett, CNN’s management, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Peter Jennings, and bus loads of “Human Shields” who refuse to protect buses in Israel.
Posted by: perfectsense at March 2, 2004 at 04:59 AMTim,
The sarcasm was dead-on. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Jeffrey -- New York at March 2, 2004 at 04:59 AM"I'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices. "
Gee, I hope you're not a doctor or a fireman.
How about International ANSWER? Even the anti-intervention left thought they were pro-Saddam.
Posted by: monkeyboy at March 2, 2004 at 05:02 AMVaara, right....
That is what Bush senior thought the Iraqi people could do by themselves in the years after Desert Storm.
They tried, and they got slaughtered. I don't believed anyone alive in Iraq dare to try that again while Saddam is in power, or maybe some do but not enough.
So what do you proposed? Waited another generation or so while more pple got murdered?
Posted by: Yibin at March 2, 2004 at 05:05 AMYou need a crash course in history, Vaara. Soviet Bloc people had plenty of help overthrowing their communist masters, from within and without. By the United States and its allies.
Question: How many Iraqi deaths would be acceptable to you before they somehow get the resources to overthrow Saddam?
You're a bigot, Vaara. A cold, smug bigot.
Posted by: Gary at March 2, 2004 at 05:06 AMYes, Peter Arnett. His very last piece of journalism was for the Daily Mirror, written the day that Saddam's statue came down. He was in Saddam City at the time and when he got out of his car and people saw that he was a westerner the mob ran for him. Arnett thought he was about to die. When they got to him, they lifted him up on their shoulders and paraded him around, kissing his feet, and shouted, "Thank you Bush! Thank you Blair!"
It is one of the most memorable pieces of journalism I have ever read, coming as it did just a week or so from his a**-licking interview of the Baathist official and his announcement that the Coalition forces were practically defeated.
Since that article, I have not heard ONE WORD from Mr. Arnett. Does anyone know what happened to him? I google his name now and then, but get nothing new.
Posted by: Jeffrey -- New York at March 2, 2004 at 05:07 AMWithout foreign intervention?
First, I think, vaara, you need to recognize that the governments that were in place in Eastern Europe were in place precisely BECAUSE of foreign intervention.
So, what you term "no foreign intervention" really WAS intervention, in the form of Gorbachev essentially telling them to stand and fall on their own. This is like arguing that the Norwegian people toppled Quisling's government on their own---the fall of the Nazis had something to do w/ it, too.
Oh, and the Eastern Europeans, you might recall, also received some support, through their long nightmare, from the likes of Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan.
Moreover, it might be worth taking a look at the stuff from the Woodrow Wilson Center, where it appears, based on Soviet files, that it was by no means clear that Eastern Europe was going to be let go---East Germany's leadership seriously contemplated unleashing the tanks. It was only Gorby's refusal to assist (foreign intervention, in the negative sense) that stayed their hand too long.
Finally, for the FSU, it might be worth remembering that a whole lotta Georgians and whole lotta Balts died in Gorby's last days, as he tried to make clear that the USSR wouldn't go the way of the Warsaw Pact.
As for the Philippines, I seem to recall Ronald Reagan calling up ol' Mr. Marcos and telling him to step down. Is that foreign intervention? Well, if you're depending on the US to back you up, yeah, actually, it is. Not all foreign intervention, after all, is in the form of F-15s and T-72s.
And not lying about it? West Germany propped up the East German government. Massive transfer payments, on a regular basis, to allow a trickle of people out. Hear much about it? West Germans held to account?
But, hey, if oppressed people wanna be free, they'll do it themselves. And that absolve the allies of not bombing Auschwitz, thank you. If they wanted to be free, storm the wire. Set yourselves free.
And why D-Day? France and Poland and the rest wanna be free? Free yourselves.
Maybe they tried, like in '91, and we failed to help them? Maybe we owed 'em a little? Nah. Too simplisme, I'm sure.
Posted by: Dean at March 2, 2004 at 05:07 AMI'll never forget all the socialist workers signs at rallies where flags were burned and soldiers were urged to kill their officers. Here's a very good piece by Oliver Kamm about the Saddam loving "peaceniks". They were supported by more politicians than just Galloway.
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/the_president_v.html
Posted by: Frank at March 2, 2004 at 05:10 AMExcellent debunking of vaara's intellectually challenged post, Dean. It's refreshing to hear from someone named Dean that isnt full of shit.
Posted by: Oktober at March 2, 2004 at 05:24 AMMr. Vaara,
Just a note on my personal dictator, Marcos. He was not very bloodthirsty at all. He fell, in my opinion, because he and his military and security services did not have the stomach to spill the blood that would have been needed to stay in power.
He was ultimately a disastrous leader, but not a very bloody one.
Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il and the rest of that tribe are another thing entirely.
Posted by: luisalegria at March 2, 2004 at 05:29 AMWow, Vaara. Dean just did the written equivalent of making you kick your own ass with your own foot. That must suck.
Moron.
Posted by: E.A. at March 2, 2004 at 05:34 AM"All those people managed to get rid of their own bloodthirsty dictators without foreign intervention". Nice work Vaara.
I'm sure the populations went to polls with ballots that read:
A. Bloodthirsty Dictator
B. Bloodthirsty Dictator
C. Death Warrant
And then one day the Happy Ballot Fairy delivered new ballots that didn't have Bloodthirsty Dictator or Death Warrant as a choice.
BC
vaara:
When Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Berlin Wall and exhorted, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" he did NOT follow that with "Unless you don't want to, in which case that's fine with us. Up. Down. Whatever. It's up to you."
Instead, he told Gorbachev the U.S. was going to keep supporting freedom and democracy the world over. The U.S. was going to produce and deploy a ballistic missile defense. And if the Soviet Union wanted to test the U.S.'s resolve, well, let's party. He said, in effect, at Rejkyavik, we'll outspend you $100 to $1, our technology will continue to improve over yours at an increasing rate, and there's not a d@mn thing you can do about it. And he was right.
No intervention? What are you, about 12 years old, getting your perspective on history from a 1990's issue of Mother Jones?
Posted by: Rick The Lawyer at March 2, 2004 at 05:47 AMWhen Sean Penn went to Iraq, did he interact with any troops? Because I would think if he was hanging around them spouting his "mindless hollywood cocksucker" rhetoric, that they would kick his ass in the blink of any eye.
Vaara wrote:
I'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices. Just as the people in Romania and Czechoslovakia and Russia and Latvia and Estonia and Ukraine and Bulgaria and Hungary and East Germany and Poland and Albania and the Philippines and Haiti (circa 1986) were.
They weren't "left to their own devices", smegma brain. Ronald Reagan bankrupted their occupiers, forced the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and won these people their freedom.
The tragedy is that you have been "left to your own devices". The first is a hand, the second a dick -- and you've been wanking away since your arms grew long enough to make the connection.
Sorry for the double post.
But let me just say, in case it's not blindingly obvious, that I'm glad Saddam was gone. I hate Saddam. He is a bad man. Bad bad bad. Have I made myself clear enough yet?
Having said that, I continue to believe that the threat posed to the United States and Britain and Australia by Saddam -- and remember, he had nothing to do with 9/11 (as Bush himself has admitted) -- was not sufficient to justify spending thousands of lives and billions of dollars to get rid of him. Especially given the fact that each of the governments involved lied to their own people in order to achieve that result -- not to mention the utter absence of the WMD programs whose alleged existence was used to justify the war.
So call me a Saddam-loving, Pol-Pot-adoring, Ceaucascu-idolizing peacenik socialist traitor if that makes you happy, but I continue to believe that war should not be the first resort, but rather the last.
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 05:53 AMErm, "Oktober," did you click on that link perchance?
Saddam, right up until the summer before he invaded Kuwait, was one of Bush41's very best friends in the Middle East.
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 05:55 AMVaara, where have you been for the last 12 years of useless sanctions and inspections, if you think war was the first resort? Have a little intellectual honesty.
I know a number of very anti-war people (mostly, but not exclusively, Europeans.) It's amazing how many of them are glad Saddam is gone but wish that it had been done differently, i.e., no war. Not one of them has, of course, any idea how to actually go about that effectively, except perhaps another decade of inspections. Had they had their way, of course, we'd still be dithering over the matter, and Saddam would still be shredding people. They get upset when you point that out, for some reason.
Posted by: Rick C at March 2, 2004 at 05:58 AMmr. vaara,
1. How did the people in Romania and Czechoslovakia and Russia and Latvia and Estonia and Ukraine and Bulgaria and Hungary and East Germany and Poland and Albania and the Philippines and Haiti rid themselves of their own bloodthirsty dictator?
2. When did foreign democratic governments lying to their own people about it?
Yes, I am a little slow and but I want to make certain I understand how you arrived at these two points.
So, on the one hand I'm supposed to believe that Iraq was completely unaffected by sanctions and Saddam's regime would have withstood them forever -- while the infinitely larger and more powerful Soviet Union went bankrupt and collapsed because of, um, sanctions.
Okaaay.
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 06:02 AMHe can't afford to get a brain; it would force him to question his position, and then he wouldn't be one of the Anointed.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at March 2, 2004 at 06:11 AMOktober asked:
When Sean Penn went to Iraq, did he interact with any troops?
Actually, that he did, and wrote one of the most complimentary, coherent passages of his, um...'report'.
En route to the Free Prisoners Association, we stop in Utayfiya, where we spot U.S. soldiers guarding a sewage pumping station under repair. We approach on foot as a nearby school opens its doors for a lunch break and hundreds of children come out to engage the soldiers.
The commander of the unit is Lt. Col. Mark Coats. Coats' demeanor is confident and alert. He is accommodating of my request to photograph his soldiers and their interaction with the children. There is no question of politics here, and the warmth of these soldiers toward the children is genuine. I get the impression that such events occur daily here, and not only when journalists are present. The children are excited to visit with the soldiers, but when the street gets too crowded, I wish the soldiers a safe duty and move on.
Farther down the road, Hiwa and I come across a U.S. military foot patrol on Haifa Street. While many of the engagement policies and raid tactics of coalition forces are incendiary to the local population, the rank-and-file soldiers I meet behave with dignity and grace in their daily interactions with Iraqi people.
There's also a paragraph or two, in that section, about going through the prison on a tour complete with photos and torture records. But then the prose turns into God knows what, and it's rough going getting through it. So I didn't.
I'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices. Just as the people in Romania and Czechoslovakia and Russia and Latvia and Estonia and Ukraine and Bulgaria and Hungary and East Germany and Poland and Albania and the Philippines and Haiti (circa 1986) were.
Why stop there? Why not extend it back to Great Britain, France, Poland, and most of the rest of Europe circa 1942? Hitler never attacked America, after all. We should have left Europeans to their own devices.
Your example is a poor one anyway since those Eastern bloc countries eventually won their freedom in large part due to the relentless pressure that American military and economic power put on the Soviet economy until it finally collapsed.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at March 2, 2004 at 06:12 AMVaara: But let me just say, in case it's not blindingly obvious, that I'm glad Saddam was gone. I hate Saddam. He is a bad man. Bad bad bad. Have I made myself clear enough yet?Hmmm... So far so good.
Can you hear it coming?
Having said that, I continue..."BUT..."
Yep, that's what I thought. Vaara, meet waste basket, waste basket, meet Vaara.
^*&^(*&%&^^NO CARRIER...
Posted by: Emperor Misha I at March 2, 2004 at 06:19 AMI guess many in the US have the right to be totally pissed because Lincoln (as in Abe Lincoln) deceived the country about the nature of the US' Civil War. He didn't mention, at the start, that he'd free the slaves. Heck, he pretended it was ONLY to preserve the union. He used the 'slave issue' only as political cover to obtain additional support for the war.
Lincoln Lied, I tell ya. He lied. What a bastard. I'm sure the slaves could have freed themselves, eventually. No need for deceit.
Someone has already mentioned WWII. We should have stayed out of that war. We should have allowed Europe & the UK to free themselves and should have just negotiated a treaty with Japan. No need to go to war during WWII. I'm sure the Jews could have eventually freed themselves also.
(Those clever Joooos!!)
Speaking of deceitful causes for war .. the majority of the US colonists believed they'd just have to show England that their (colonists') rights as English subjects couldn't be trampled on. They never imagined they'd actually try and break free of England. What a sham that was!
The leaders of the US rebellion figured we'd have to break away from England. They should have explained to all the colonists what was going to happen. What deceivers they were.
/sarcasm off
I have not felt or thought that I've been deceived about any of the actions we have taken in response to the war that has been declared on us. I have not seen anyone able to provide an accurate quote that proves 'Bush LIED'. The quotes I have seen have been taken out of context and/or have been misquotes entirely.
I can't understand how some people can be so *prejudiced* as to treat the suffering and oppression of the Iraqi people so lightly. Maybe in 50 years, or so, the Iraqis could have overthrown their government. Maybe. (I doubt it, though.) Just think of all the people who would be tortured during those 50 years. All the lives shattered.
Comparing the Iraqi's situation with that of the peoples who lived in the former Soviet block, at the time of its demise, is like comparing apples with oranges.The better comparison would be to compare the Iraqi people under Saddam & Sons with the peoples living under Stalin. It's still an apples - oranges comparison but it's closer.
I'd be willing to bet the people who believe the Iraqis could have eventually 'freed themselves', have never lived under a regime as ruthless and cruel as imposed by Saddam & Sons.
I'd like to see people who believe this (Iraqis could have freed themselves) mention this to the various Iraqis who have blogs on the net.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at March 2, 2004 at 06:21 AMThe problem with vaara’s initial posting is that it contains no logic. “I prefer” is not policy presupposition. For example, “I prefer” super models buy me drinks, or “I prefer” that the Nazis did not kill Jews and conquer peaceful countries. Likewise, “I prefer” that the Soviet Union did not overrun Eastern Europe and install puppet governments, or “I prefer” North Korea not sell nuclear weapons to Muslim idiots. This is not policy, this is wishfull thinking.
I believe that most Americans prefer that foreigners would take care of their own problems without the necessity of sacrificing American lives and treasure. However, we do not live in an “I prefer” world and whether we like it or not, it is has fallen upon America to make the world a better place.
By the way vaara, since you demand names, name one intelligence source that claimed that Saddam did not have WMD and Bush was lying. The BBC tried to sell this story and its top managers resigned in disgrace when it was exposed they were lying - not Bush.
Posted by: perfectsense at March 2, 2004 at 06:22 AMAnd another thing about the sanctions/inspection régime. If the purpose of the sanctions and inspections was to ensure that Saddam did not invade any more of his neighbors or develop a functioning WMD capacity, well... guess what? They worked. For twelve years.
That's ten years longer than Li'l George's aggressive new "kill all the brown people" policy has been in place.
Finally, let me just apologize for misinterpreting Tim's post. Apparently he meant it as a light-hearted, sarcastic jibe at those of us who don't appreciate being lied to by our governments -- especially when those lies result in decades-long commitments of military manpower and money we don't necessarily have.
So, in the same spirit, let me just say: Tim, don't forget to iron your brown shirt before your next lunch date with Pauline Hanson and Hutton Gibson! :)
Posted by: vaara at March 2, 2004 at 06:22 AMAnd another thing about the sanctions/inspection régime. If the purpose of the sanctions and inspections was to ensure that Saddam did not invade any more of his neighbors or develop a functioning WMD capacity, well... guess what? They worked. For twelve years.
Sorry to disappoint you vaara, but the inspections weren't there to prevent WMD capacity, their intention was to dismantle and existing one and prove iraq was free of weapons or weapons programs.
In that sense they failed badly.
As for your second comment.
That's ten years longer than Li'l George's aggressive new "kill all the brown people" policy has been in place.
I'm not sure what you mean here. But its a good indication that, having lost the argument, you resort to mindless accusations of racism.
Posted by: Quentin George at March 2, 2004 at 06:30 AMAnd another thing about the sanctions/inspection régime. If the purpose of the sanctions and inspections was to ensure that Saddam did not invade any more of his neighbors or develop a functioning WMD capacity, well... guess what? They worked. For twelve years.
So I assume you weren't one of those calling for an end to sanctions, then? And you were happy at the thought of thousands of American troops garrisoned in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait indefinitely, aggravating the region's loons at enormous expense? And you would have supported maintenance of the no-fly zones over Northern Iraq in perpetuity?
And since I suspect you can't answer the question, I'll repeat it: what do you think should be done about nations that flout 14 UNSC resolutions, refuse to provide verification of the destruction of their acknowledged WMD programs, and ignore ceasefire obligations?
Posted by: reg at March 2, 2004 at 06:54 AMI was tempted to try to answer vaara's various idiocies, then decided it wasn't worth the effort. However, she/he/it (pronounced sheeeeeit) did give me an idea.
I prefer that people with AIDS be left to their own devices. When they are willing and put the effort into it, I'm sure they can discover medicines and cures and rid themselves of this affliction. It would be totally wrong to have a foreign intervention interfere with these people's peaceful solving of their own problems. I'm pretty sure that in only a few decades, er centuries, er, maybe millenia, anyway they'll throw off the shackles of AIDS and all those deaths that might have been prevented by a silly, unilateral foreign power will have been worth it when the people take pride in their own efforts.
NO to outside intervention in every case. (Also, I think starving populations should be left to solve their own problems, and people who get on board boats that later sink. They should, in either case, be able to figure out a way to feed themselves {I'm sure Mugabe will let them eat, soon} or to swim to safety.)
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at March 2, 2004 at 06:57 AMSo, vaara's response is:
1. To post a picture of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands w/ Saddam Hussein in 1984. The point being? I guess that we had had relations w/ him.
Now, if I were to put up a pix of FDR sitting w/ Uncle Joe Stalin, like the one at Yalta, what does that tell me? That FDR was a Commie pawn and we had no right to fight the Cold War? Or that when confronted w/ larger enemies (e.g., the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany) sometimes you make strange bedfellows?
As always, Churchill put it best, "If Herr Hitler were to invade Hell, I would feel it necessary to at least put in a good word for the Devil in the House of Commons."
Undoubtedly, for the likes of vaara, doing so would be wrong, and it would make the allies JUST AS BAD as the Communists. And since Stalin had been allied w/ the Nazis, we're all the same.
2. Ah, but Hussein was one of our best friends in the Middle East!
Really? How much did we sell Iraq in terms of arms? How does that compare w/ Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or even Morocco?
Oh, and that does leave out one other country in the Middle East, one w/ which we have a real alliance, but they're JOOOOSS, so we won't talk about them much.
3. Oh (and here the dance becomes more frenetic), but the USSR fell to sanctions, so surely Iraq would have as well?
Hmmm. What sanctions were imposed on the USSR? And how long did it take it to fall? And do you remember the nuclear stand-offs? You know, hiding under desks, or even the "nuclear hair-trigger," "The Day After," all the paranoia about nuclear war? That's okay, is it?
Okay, how much was US defense spending? Excessive? Why? Because that's part of the cost of "sanctions" you know.
But, of course, Iraq was suffering under the sanctions. Well, except for the little NYT reports about how the Iraqis were using the oil-for-food program to grease the palms of everybody. But vaara knows better than anyone that the sanctions were working.
I'm curious how well the sanctions imposed by the UN were working on Libya's nuclear and WMD programs? And that w/o a UN-sanctioned, multi-billion oil-for-food program to cover payments, acquisitions, etc.
[BTW, vaara, if the sanctions were so effective, were you opposed to them, when Hans von Sponeck called for them to be dismantled, and Voices in the Wilderness organized convoys of additional aid, and the Left said that 500,000 Iraqi children died because of them?]
Posted by: Dean at March 2, 2004 at 07:07 AM"And another thing about the sanctions/inspection régime. If the purpose of the sanctions and inspections was to ensure that Saddam did not invade any more of his neighbors or develop a functioning WMD capacity, well... guess what? They worked. For twelve years."
The reason Saddam wasn't able to invade any of his neighbors had more to do with troops we had stationed over there than anything else. (Recall one of the reasons Osama is pissed at the US is because of US troops stationed over there.)
The US&UK flew over Kurdish held areas for 12 years to guarantee the Kurds wouldn't become an extinct species.
Thank the troops, not the 12 years of 'game playing' for staying Saddam's hand. As a US taxpayer, I was pretty sick of playing the games we played with Saddam&Sons for 12 years. Time for them to abide by the treaty or face the consequences. Saddam&Sons chose the latter.
"That's ten years longer than Li'l George's aggressive new "kill all the brown people" policy has been in place.""
If someone needs to believe this, they will. Rather pathetic, though. There is no truth in this statement. Show me *all* the brown people that have been killed. Let's exhume the graves of these poor souls. Since they have all been killed, we'll need the evidence in these graves to prove there was such a policy.
What type of people are setting up a new government in Iraq and Afghanstan? Blue People? Purple People? I'm anxious to find out. The pictures I see show brown people in positions of leadership in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I also see lots of other brown people alive in those countries.
Have the peoples' color been altered before the pictures were shown? Is it all taking place on some Hollywood set where white actors have had makeup applied to appear as brown skined people?
" .... Apparently he meant it as a light-hearted, sarcastic jibe at those of us who don't appreciate being lied to by our governments."
If someone could only PROVE to me that ANY of the coalition governments LIED, I'd appreciate it. I've seen lots of allegations, but NO PROOF.
Perhaps I have to wear a tin-foil hat in order to see the lies?
Posted by: Chris Josephson at March 2, 2004 at 07:12 AMSpeaking of lies, the NYT/AP is reporting that it looks like Milosevic will likely not be found guilty of genocide.
Hmmm. Didn't we bomb a whole buncha people on the claim that there was genocide being committed? In a country that posed no threat whatsoever, not even a CLAIM of WMD, to the US?
Indeed, under the vaara Doctrine, let's be clear:
Intervening on behalf of the Kosovars and the Bosniacs was wrong. They should have been left to survive or not, under the Bosnians, or risen up and thrown them off.
Let's see what else we might find, in rummaging through a little near-recent history:
Haiti. Topple Aristide, rather than have a full-blown civil war? BASTARD BUSH! Let the Haitians either duke it out or not. Why is it up to us to intervene?
East Timor. Noam Chomsky's favorite group. But, hey, NO UN INTERVENTION FOR YOU! Nope. Instead, they shoulda just fought 'til the Indonesians killed 'em, or they won! Victory or Death!
Rwanda. Stupid Tutsis. Rise up. Don't ask for help. (Actually, given what happened, vaara sleeps better at night, since nobody gave any, anyway.)
Now, here's the toughie:
Palestinians.
They want a real country, they should do their own thing, right? No foreign intervention. And if the Israelis knock heads, or shoot protestors, hey, that's the Palestinians' problem, right? So, the EU should shut off its aid, ISM and Rachel Corrie should have left, the Arabs should shut off their aid? (But what about the money from Saddam to the suicide bombers?---ED. Shhh.)
Glad to see the kind of world vaara prefers.
Posted by: Dean at March 2, 2004 at 07:28 AMAs to the effectiveness of sanctions in keeping Saddam within his borders, there was an episode in the first Clinton administration in which Saddam began massing his troops against the Kuwait border. Saddam backed down, but only after Clinton ordered US troops moved into Kuwait.
Those sanctions didn't have NEARLY the effect vaara claims; it was US force that kept Saddam at home during those 12 years.
This needs to be said, what with all of you heaping abuse on vaara like this.
Vaara: It must be sickening to read Tim's post, taking the impression that you were happy about the institutional raping, torturing, and killing that was Saddam's regime. You know you weren't. We know you weren't. We know it's only republicans who giggle with joy at the thought of brown people dying. But not you. You are a good person.
If only you could have removed Saddam without bloodshed, you would have. If only you had the powers of Superman, or a magic wand, or a genie who grants wishes, why you would have gotten rid of Saddam like a shot! You certainly wouldn't have wished for Saddam to stay forever and ever. Of course not. Only someone like Donald Rumsfeld would wish that. Not you. You are a good person.
You know that 12+ years of sanctions, which had brought about no noticable political change in Iraq, would have eventually gotten rid of him. And if not, well, he's an old man, and his sons would probably only live another 40, 50 years tops. And after that it'd be clear sailing.
You know that maybe the oil-for-food program was a little bit corrupt, but it would have cleaned itself up eventually. The parties abusing it would have had attacks of conscience...someday.
You know that even though the last rebellion against Saddam failed miserably (because there was no help from outside), the next one must succeed, since this time the rebels will have even fewer resources. The logic is unassailable. And come on, he got 100% percent of the vote--the people must have thought he was doing a good job!
You know that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, even though every intelligence agency swore he did, and the previous administration said he did, and the one before that said he did. His expulsion of inspectors and violation of UN resolutions were just youthful boisterousness. We should have trusted him all along. What did he ever do to us?
vaara, I know you don't want war. It's icky, I agree. I know you don't want to see bombed-out villages and injured civilians on the TV news, just as you didn't want Saddam to continue with his death camps, and his children's prisons, and his torturers, and his professional rapists. I know you think the Coalition of Poodles shouldn't have invaded.
Because if we hadn't rushed to war, yes, it is unfortunately true that the rape, torture, and execution would have continued.
But it wouldn't, you know, have been on television or anything.
Posted by: Araav at March 2, 2004 at 08:27 AMVaara, people like you make me utterly sick. No matter which way you dress it up, your solution i.e let them sort it out themselves, would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of Iraqi citizens before a revolution was successful. Still, as long as we had peace that would be fine eh?
Posted by: Michael at March 2, 2004 at 08:51 AMVaara beautifully epitomises the high-minded racism of progressives. Darkies killing darkies - well, what do you expect? It's the legacy of colonialism, and who are we anyway to impose our values on other cultures? But white people killing 'brown people', even if the brown people aren't very nice and like killing other brown people (and white people) - well that's unacceptable.
Classic leftist bullshit. When it's The People vs. the people, its dollars to doughnuts you end up with a hecatomb.
Interesting to see vaara getting his arse so eloquently handed to him.
Posted by: David Gillies at March 2, 2004 at 08:57 AMThose awful awful people who apparently miss Saddam have reason to cheer up, as Tim says. Just down the road, the Northern Alliance are doing their fair share of killing. But hey, no burqas right?
Posted by: LD at March 2, 2004 at 08:59 AMWhy can't some people understand that you do what you are able to do at the time and that you mightn't be able to get rid of all evil regimes at once. That we might have to settle for a sub-optimal result.
That we [the coalition of the good guys led by the US] can't invade China to free the Tibetans without a very big shitfight or that we don't want to piss off the entire lousy African continent by getting rid of Mugabe even though he deserves it etc etc, that this doesn't detract from the good deed done by getting rid of Sadam.
Just because we can't get rid of them all, doesn't mean we should not get rid of those we can ... and when they threaten us, we must act.
Posted by: theories at March 2, 2004 at 09:08 AMSomeone better tell Rummy and Condoleezza etc to get the hell away from "Li'l Bush" and his "aggressive new 'kill all the brown people' policy".
vaara, you have not proved a single one of your allegations. Furthermore, of course we would all have like to get rid of Saddam like this . . . it couldn't happen. It didn't happen. But he is gone, and Iraq has a chance at freedom and democracy. You would deny Iraqis that.
Posted by: Liz at March 2, 2004 at 09:19 AM"Just because we can't get rid of them all, doesn't mean we should not get rid of those we can ... and when they threaten us, we must act."
You slack-jawed troglodytes still don't get it, do you? Until you can do that, and make everything better instantly, you are all a bunch of racist hypocrites.
Why do you think vaara posted that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam? So you could get all snarky and say, "well, if we created the problem, shouldn't we remove it?" Hell no! It was to prove that since you guys made deal with the devil during the cold war, you should never say another word about Saddam again. And that isn't silencing debate, either. Put that thought out of your heads right now. Silencing debate is what you guys do!
I'm helping!
Posted by: Araav at March 2, 2004 at 10:26 AMVaara, re your original request: "Name a single "peacenik" who has ever expressed any sort of admiration -- to say nothing of worshipful adulation -- for Saddam or his evil spawn."
Try Hillary Clinton:
Sen. Hillary Clinton said this week that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein, arguing that when the brutal dictator ran the country women were at least assured the right to participate in Iraq's public life.
In comments that went unreported by the mainstream press, the former first lady told the Brookings Institution on Wednesday that since Saddam's removal from power, Iraq's postwar governing councils had engaged in "pullbacks in the rights [women] were given under Saddam Hussein."
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/27/111415.shtml
God, is "vaara" still around? How many times does an idiot have to get slapped down before they come to their senses or go home? Oh well ... entertaining, I guess.
Posted by: brett at March 2, 2004 at 10:30 AMI'm late coming to this. So I'll just comment on one thing. Vaara, you said: "I'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices."
That has got to be one of the coldest, most inhuman, most evil thoughts I have ever seen anyone admit to in public. If I had such beliefs I'd kill to keep them secret; I'd die of shame if I were exposed. Of course, if I had such thoughts, it is questionable as to how much shame I'd be capable of feeling; you certainly don't seem to have any, since you not only proudly admit to believing that suffering people should be left "to themselves," lest their suffering get stains on the pure souls of those who could help them but won't, you continue to argue in favor of your despicable position and you attempt to smear the character of those who disagree with you. I won't ask how you can sleep at night -- I am sure that like many evil creeps you sleep like a baby.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 2, 2004 at 10:51 AMJust stumbled across your site. Keep up the good work.
I couldn't agree more with the post above. Do you think vaara would also prefer that the Jews were left to their own devices during WW2?
Well, we can all see Vaara's preferred action in-action all around town: all those earnest young people driving Volvos with 'Free Tibet' stickers on them. I know the Tibetans have benefited tremendously from all those stickers. There's Vaara's ilk showing the world what the power of the Left can accomplish!
Maybe Bush could have accomplished the overthrow of Saddam with some Free Iraq stickers. Whaddya think?
Posted by: Mark at March 2, 2004 at 11:15 AMGraham Mueller: they pretty much were. See what happened to them then. That's "don't interfere, it's none of our business" for you.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 2, 2004 at 11:17 AMWe spent over ten goddamn trillon dollars to defeat the oppressors of Eastern Europe. And that doesn't even begin to tote up the incalculable human cost of all those soldiers (and others) on the front lines, not all of whom made it back alive, or whole.
And Saddam was "contained" not because of sanctions, but because of continous low (and high) level warfare throughout the 1990s. The sanctions were brought to bear before Iraq had been pushed out of Kuwait. Their effect was precisely dick. It was war that pushed him out and continous warfare that kept him in. Nearly every day from the end of the Gulf War through 2003 American and coalition aircraft patrolled over Iraq. And quite often Iraq, in violation of the cease fire agreements they signed, would fire on these aircraft and get smacked down as a result. Oh, and I suppose little Vaara forgot about the times when Iraq made every preparation to invade Kuwait again and was only forestalled by our definitive statments that if they tried we would come down on them hard. I suppose Vaara also forgot that little dust up in 1998 when the Clinton administration bombed the ever loving hell out of Iraq. Or has simply been ignorant of these facts from the beginning...
Yeah, it was the sanctions, that's what did it.
Posted by: Robin Goodfellow at March 2, 2004 at 11:37 AMYou're reaching, Tim. Getting desperate to grasp them straws.
But them straws keep getting farther and farther away.
Interesting to see vaara getting his arse so eloquently handed to him.
Heh. Indeed. :)
Posted by: Sortelli at March 2, 2004 at 12:00 PM"You're reaching, Tim. Getting desperate to grasp them straws.
But them straws keep getting farther and farther away."
Checkmate!
Posted by: Angus Jung at March 2, 2004 at 12:09 PMThe cold fury of Nemesis' logic never fails to scare the opposition into silence.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 2, 2004 at 12:33 PMCan somebody please explain the logical basis to the argument "they should have been left to their own devices"? Because I can't see it for the life of me.
Posted by: PNN at March 2, 2004 at 12:38 PMSlatts,
I should point out that Hilary Clinton was no peacenik and she in fact supported the war. Voted for it in congress, and to my knowledge has not said anything indicating a change of heart. Can't even recall anything from her about the WMD, Yellowcake or any other of the "scandals". She's a smart operator and knows that shooting her lip could have consequences for her future presidency runs. The speech about women was merely expressing concern about the possible suppression of women's rights in Iraq, a real concern given the power that the mad mullahs have got in many parts of the country.
Posted by: Chelsea's a babe at March 2, 2004 at 12:42 PMYou Republican lemmings are missing the point. The war in Iraq is a fine thing. If we could finish up there and move on over in to Iran, the world would be a better place.
The *problem* is that your little coke-head, drunk-driving, C-student president mentioned a lot of stuff about WMDs and the like that haven't seemed to materialize. Did W himself lie? I doubt it. Was the information (or lack thereof) manipulated for political gain? I think so. Was a war started for bogus reasons? ABSOLUTELY.
Posted by: Guy Incognito at March 2, 2004 at 01:57 PMFantastic Guy! Can I sign on to your campaign? I just LOVE how you're going to do a better job than Bush or any of the other leaders on this issue.
The way you transition from "Did he lie? Nah" to "Was a war started for bogus reasons? ABSOLUTELY"--Brilliant misdirection. I eagerly await to lend my support to your future fine, yet bogus, war in Iran. Your moral clarity is a beacon to all of us who have been fooled by men who speak about bringing liberty to the Middle East so that oppressed Arabs and Persians stop trying to kill us to score their place in paradise.
Open letter to everyone who thinks that it's good that the UN Security Council shifted the focus of regime change in Iraq away from "Let's get a bastard" to "Let's get a bastard, only if he has WMD, because we must learn to distingush between the bastards of the world": SHUT UP
Posted by: Sortelli at March 2, 2004 at 02:23 PM
Charles Krauthammer via The Federalist: "The Truman Doctrine of 1947, the Kennedy inaugural of 1961, and Reagan's 'evil empire' speech of 1983 ... all sought to recast a struggle for power between two geopolitical titans into a struggle between freedom and unfreedom, and yes, good and evil. Which is why the Truman Doctrine was heavily criticized ... and Reagan was vilified by the entire foreign policy establishment: for the sin of ideologizing the Cold War by injecting a moral overlay. ... Today, post-9/11, we find ourselves in a similar existential struggle but with a different enemy: not Soviet communism, but Arab-Islamic totalitarianism, both secular and religious. Bush and Blair are similarly attacked for naïvely and crudely casting this struggle as one of freedom versus unfreedom, good versus evil. Now, given the way not just freedom but human decency were suppressed in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the two major battles of this new war, you would have to give Bush and Blair's moral claims the decided advantage of being obviously true."
Nitpicking over WMDs or interfering in other countries' affairs doesn't alter this big picture. As for 'grasping at straws', this is not just an exercise in indignant post-rationalisation, Nemesis and others; many simply believe the above scenario to be closer to the truth than you obviously do.
And was intelligence manipulated, Guy Incognito? There is always a political element to prosecuting a war; it cannot be otherwise except under a totalitarian state, which you would obviously far prefer to be living under. Go ahead, be my guest.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, cant.
Maybe the UN would have cooperated if we let the Europeans set up underage sex-slave rings, like their peacekeepers did in the Balkans.
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at March 2, 2004 at 02:32 PMFull Disclosure: I consider myself a pretty committed liberal on many issues, although economically I would say I am primarily libertarian (pro-free trade, pro-market).
That being said, I want to take an opportunity to engage in an intellectually compelling manner with the other side. I am a strong believer that both sides have relevant things to say. As the saying goes "Reasonable minds can disagree."
Too often, I feel like both sides, liberal and conservative, automatically swing to oppose the other, even if it's at the cost of what they considered correct.
The Iraq war is a good example. I, personally, do feel that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, and for me the primary reasons are 1) he was a stain left behind by Bush I that should have been rubbed out years ago (and that either Clinton or Bush II was obligated to do so) and that 2) the invasion of Iraq is probably the biggest reason why Mommar Quadafi (sp?) has decided to disarm, and that Iran has allowed some inspection. On balance, I will readily admit that taking out Saddam had good overall for Iraq and the Middle East. I will also say that it is very plausible (although not definitively so) that the threat posed by enemy states is reduced by our actions in Iraq.
Thus, my concern (and I think the concern of most reasonable liberals) is not about going to war. We are not the French. Bombing the crap and shooting the stuffing out of Afghanistan was fine and dandy with everybody on this side of the tracks. (crazies excluded. If you accept peacenuts and the French as not liberals, then I will accept people who shoot abortion doctors and Timothy McVeigh as not conservatives.) Uday and Osay got off easy, in my book. They should stick Saddam in a cage and have Randy Johnson throw baseballs at Saddam's head until his arm falls off.
Here is my problem. Getting rid of Saddam did many good things. But getting rid of Osama Bin Laden is better, in my humble opinion. Why did Bush call off the dogs for so long? Why are we only NOW, stepping up our efforts? Why is Pakistan doing our work? How can we even TRUST Pakistan? They had a top official SELLING nuclear secrets! Why do we want those fools doing the avenging that WE should be doing? 3000 Pakistanis didn't die on 9/11. 3000 Americans did, and frankly, I don't think Bush's actions demonstrated that when he went to war with Iraq. I want Osama Bin Laden's head on a stick. I want him captured alive, and if possible, tortured like a rat. Bush, in my view, has failed his duty to those of 9/11 by not working hard enough to avenge those who were murdered. It is an abomination that a guy who murdered 3000 Americans almost 3 years ago is still running around free as a bird. It makes me sick, and many liberals like myself are angry at Bush because he uses 9/11 so much, but yet hasn't even gotten the man responsible for it.
So why aren't conservatives bothered by this? Why aren't more of them concerned even more when the Administration has admitted many times that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? Why are we bothering with something that doesn't concern the 3000 Americans that are dead??
This leads me to my next point. Remember, I think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. If Bush had said, in May, that we should take Saddam out because he's a blood thirsty murderer, I would have backed him 110%. I already backed him for Afghanistan. BUT, when Bush gives us reasons that are UNTRUE, then I have a problem. This is the same thing with Clinton. Personally, I don't care if he got a blowjob. I DO strongly care that he lied under oath. While impeachment, in my opinion, was a waste of taxpayer dollars, I sure as hell lost lots of respect for Clinton when he had the gall to lie on the stand. Lying, as we all know from that episode, was a big deal.
Now, I actually don't think Bush lied like that. He's not in the same ballpark as Clinton in that regard. But what I do think is that he chose not to listen to both sides. On the one side was Cheney and his Office of Special plans. On the other side was Hans Blix. Now, you can say whatever you want about Hans Blix, but there's one thing you can't say. You can't say he was wrong. There are no WMD, and Hans said that a long time ago. David Kaye, the senior US leader in the hunt, agreed with Hans himself.
Now Hans was the one on the ground in Iraq. He's the one who sniffed around and had the real intelligence, better than anyone else on the planet (including, sadly enough, the US). And so when he says there are no WMD, he would seem a pretty credible source. Why didn't we listen to him? That seems like a pretty scary thing, to ignore the people who know the truth and listen to those who don't know. Personally, I would want a Commander in Chief who was making decisions based on correct information, and I suspect most people would agree. Would you want your boss firing you because he heard you had done something wrong, even though you hadn't, and that he learned this from some guy who had no idea what he was talking about? I sure don't, and that goes double for the President.
So, here's my question (finally). Why is it ok for Bush to mislead us? Tim's post here is about how we got rid of a murderer, and like I said, that's a good thing. But Bush didn't say we went to Iraq to get rid of a murderer. He said we went over there to disarm Iraq, and he chose to ignore evidence that EVERYBODY knew. Why don't conservatives demand better from our President? And I won't accept the answer that Bush couldn't say that because liberals wouldn't let him. Baloney. Bush's biggest quality is that he has a clear vision and that he goes ahead and says what he feels. I highly doubt that he just caves to liberals like that. If that's the reason, then I have much less respect for Bush if he's just a common panderer like that.
PS. Last note, I'm really glad that we can agree that we should take down murderers. I hope this serves as a good rallying point for conservatives and liberals to agree and take down some of those murderers "leading" African countries. There's nothing short of genocide going down there, and we finally have the moral clarity to stop it. I think we should all urge Bush to go in as soon as possible.
Posted by: TOTL at March 2, 2004 at 03:32 PMHans Blix? You must be joking!
The man's a dissembling shape-shifter!
Are you blind?
Posted by: laughing at March 2, 2004 at 03:48 PMSorry, I couldn't help that outburst at the end. But seriously, Hans Blix had no credibility whatsoever. He would contradict himself daily, often according to who he was talking to - typical bureaucrat.
Rather than extemporising at such length but to so little purpose, I suggest you actually carefully read his reports. They fully supported Bush's position, so what are you on about?
TOTL, Bush wasn't making his case for war to us. He was making it to the UN. That's why he had to run the WMD angle, period. If UN authorization didn't matter, he could have turned to the American public and made the humanitarian case to us. The humanitarian case would not work in the UN, because the UN is FULL of people who also deserve to get their asses handed to them for humanitarian reasons. The UN response to humanitarian tragedy is being "gravely concerned". The UN response to a dangerous country is a little stronger, so we had to treat Iraq like a danger to us and not it's own people. And David Kay, even without WMD, still says Iraq was a danger. Blix just wanted to inspect, inspect, inspect, so that Saddam could live to lie another day. Say what you will about the war--our method of inspection's pretty darn final.
So anyway... where IS Osama? Has he just been bombing the hell out of us non-stop since 9-11 while we're all distracted by Saddam and stuff? No. Osama's in a hole right now. Dead, or hiding. Either way, he's not hurting us, nor will removing Osama from the world make that big of a dent in terrorism at large. Osama, unlike Saddam, will go down as a martyr when we get him. Democracy in Iraq does more to harm Osama's cause than capturing or killing Osama will. Osama's boys in al Qaeda are running off to to fight us in Iraq and getting a first class beat-down. Osama's just a figurehead. Bush, Blair, Howard et all are attacking the body of the beast.
And we can urge Bush to go in and get all the murderers in the world that we want for all the lovely liberal reasons that we want. Really, I'm with you there. What are we going to say to the French? To Mr. Anan? To the wily peaceniks? YOU might have a better moral compass than say, our own anti-war trolly trolls, but they're still out there with their Intl ANSWER rallies and their not-so-subtle support for the genocidal dictators we agree to hate since those dictators are slightly above all of us colonialist imperialist capitalist oppressors in their book. I'd support a candidate that would do better than Bush in the War on Terror. But there isn't one. That's why all of our arguements about how to do the job better tend to get derailed by the picky "YES, BUT" people who think we shouldn't be doing the job at all.
I recall Mork arguing recently that since there is a consensus on agressively dealing with Islamofacism any attempt to style this a "war on terror" is just a cheap political ploy. Mork would be right there actually WAS a consensus on agressively dealing with Islamofacism. Nem, Miranda and all the venomous punks who keep trying to paint targets on the pro-war leaders may SAY they don't like Saddam, but they think the real enemy is us, not the terrorists.
"I'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices."
Translated from vaarish: "left to their own fates".
Posted by: Craig Mc at March 2, 2004 at 04:16 PMGrah... last paragraph, "Mork would be right IF there was a consensus. . .". There's not. Any attempt to claim that there is, is a lie.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 2, 2004 at 04:18 PMThere are no WMD, and Hans said that a long time ago"
Blix never said Saddam got rid of his WMD pre-GW2.
"He said we went over there to disarm Iraq, and he chose to ignore evidence that EVERYBODY knew"
Who is this "EVERYBODY"?
Posted by: Gary at March 2, 2004 at 04:58 PMI am not dead. I live in the hearts and the minds of our fellow travelers in the west.
Posted by: Uday at March 2, 2004 at 05:47 PMPardon me, TOTL, but how do you know the "dogs were called off" in terms of searching for Osama? Quite the opposite is true. The search continued, but you don't need a huge military force to search for one man.
Posted by: Big Dog at March 2, 2004 at 06:01 PMDead attack dog placed there by American interest long ago. A good thing.
Spinning reasons for war a bad thing.
Taking the battle to those who would attack us. A good thing.
Attacking another country that has had no provable relation to 9-11, and no WMD's. A bad thing.
Ignoring the ties to Saudi Arabian interest and financing of terrorist. A good thing.
Attacking a country rich in oil. A good thing.
Defending dirt poor Africans who often chop up pieces of each other to eat for their magical powers later. A bad thing.
Caring about oil. A good thing.
Caring about Aids infected, ignorant Haitians. A bad thing.
Getting worked up over Janet Jacksons breast. A good thing.
Getting worked up by politics, and the lying liars who float to the top. A bad thing.
Feel free to add to the list. For even those things addressed as good can be explained in another light as bad, and vice versa. It is very easy to be glad Saddam is gone, while still asking why there was such bad intelligence, and no proof of any conection to 9-11, while being curious the connection between Saudi Arabia, while perfectly clear didn't result in the US attacking there.
Its all about the money. Show me the money. Better yet, share.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 2, 2004 at 06:52 PMTOTL - I'm in the Steyn camp on Osama. He's brown bread. I might be wrong but I'm a betting man and I reckon the odds are in my favour that he's pushing up Daisy Cutters somewhere around Tora Bora. All he needs to do is release one picture with a provable date/time recognition and I'll admit that I'm wrong.
Posted by: Razor at March 2, 2004 at 06:55 PMSo tell me, you beacons of freedom: when do you plan to free the long-suffering Usbeks?
Posted by: warbo at March 2, 2004 at 08:25 PMWhen you know enough about them to spell their name right, leftie opportunist idiot copycat let's-save-the-world wannabe dickhead. Join the forces yourself, fool, and take it one step at a time and you'll see how difficult it is and how fucked your leftie subject-changing mantra really is.
Come on. Do it. I'm waiting for your response, like, maybe, two years down the track.
No I'm not. You'll be forgotten in five minutes as you should be.
Posted by: ilibcc at March 2, 2004 at 08:39 PMTotl:
"Bombing the crap and shooting the stuffing out of Afghanistan was fine and dandy with everybody on this side of the tracks.".
I never supported bombing anyone/anything in Afghanistan except as needed to grab Osama and drive out the Taliban. I believe we did a great job of limiting the destruction we caused. Not 100%, but we are not perfect yet.
"Here is my problem. Getting rid of Saddam did many good things. But getting rid of Osama Bin Laden is better, in my humble opinion. Why did Bush call off the dogs for so long?"
Not sure we have ever 'called off the dogs.' Fighting is still taking place in Afghanistan. It's still more or less a war zone, although not as active as it once was. Just as it's vital to kill all the Taliban who won't give up; it's also vital we put resources into supporting a new government. There are infrastructure needs to be met. I want the US to leave Afghanistan with a working country akin to Japan after WWII.
Other than things being a bit quiet in Afghanistan I do not see we have called anything off. It's just a different phase of the war on terror that we are in.
"Why is Pakistan doing our work? How can we even TRUST Pakistan? They had a top official SELLING nuclear secrets! Why do we want those fools doing the avenging that WE should be doing?"
Wars make for very strange bedfellows. I cringe when I think of all the various 'devils' we went to bed with during the Cold War. Having Pakistan as an 'ally' is troublesome, but necessary. Better an 'ally' than not. The folks in Washington aren't stupid. I'm sure they are keeping their eyes closely peeled on Pakistan and have no illusions about our 'ally'.
As far as them doing our avenging, we won't be totally avenged until we wipe out the various terrorist groups and put the 'fear of God' into any country that helps them. I think we're doing quite well in that regard.
"I want Osama Bin Laden's head on a stick. I want him captured alive, and if possible, tortured like a rat. Bush, in my view, has failed his duty to those of 9/11 by not working hard enough to avenge those who were murdered."
Torturing Bin Laden, while satisfying to envision, would do more harm than good. I want to show him for the weak, pathetic creature he is by capturing him like we did Saddam. Humiliate him but treat him very nicely. Then hand him over to the new government in Afghanistan for trial.
(Assuming Osama is still alive.)
"It makes me sick, and many liberals like myself are angry at Bush because he uses 9/11 so much, but yet hasn't even gotten the man responsible for it."
Patience. All things will happen in time. I may not agree 100% with how Pres. Bush is doing things, but he is waging a war on terror that's yielding far better results than just capturing Osama. Osama is one of many we need to remove.
If he is still alive we'll get him.
Look at what's happening in the ME as a chess game. You have to knock out pawns and others while keeping your mind on the piece you will checkmate. This we are doing. It's wrong to assume Bush, or any other coalition leader, is distracted and NOT playing a very clever game.
"So why aren't conservatives bothered by this? Why aren't more of them concerned even more when the Administration has admitted many times that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? Why are we bothering with something that doesn't concern the 3000 Americans that are dead??"
Can't speak for any conservative. I'm not one.
But I can tell you why I'm not bothered. See chess game analogy above.
We are fighting a war, declared upon us, called the War On Terror. It's not just a war on Osama. That's too narrow a definition and scope. Osama is just one (an important one to us) of many leaders of various groups world wide that have declared war on the West.
Narrowing our scope to just, and only, Osama would be pretty stupid. It would demonstrate our inability to understand the scope of what we are facing. Taking Osama (plus followers) out is NOT enough to ensure we never see another 9/11 or another Bali again. We must take out as many terrorist groups and their leaders as possible. At the same time we need to remove their ability to wage war by going after their supporters in governments around the world.
"So, here's my question (finally). Why is it ok for Bush to mislead us?"
He did NOT mislead anyone. He did NOT lie.
I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at March 2, 2004 at 09:09 PM
This is why I got sick of arguing with leftists.
Faced with their own hypocrisy and complete lack of pragmatism they resort to ad hominem attacks.
And when their ad hominem attacks fail them; they simply log off...only to spout the SAME rhetoric again later...
Posted by: Virtus at March 2, 2004 at 09:14 PMYour a fuckwit Vaara
pure and simple...
get a clue you idiot
"TOTL, Bush wasn't making his case for war to us. He was making it to the UN."
Yes! The many OTHER reasons, besides wmd, were given to the American people during the 2003 SOTU as well as being listed in the war resolution passed by Congress.
As for Osama I don't think Bush could have gone to Iraq if we already had him (assuming he's alive). Unfortunately too many would believe the war was over if Osama were proven dead. And we now know the dangers of NOT having taken Saddam out (Libya, Khan, Iran). The nexis of states, wmd, and terrorists is too dangerous not to address.
Also, our guys learned a lot about gathering intel and coordinating it when closing in on Saddam. We were having no luck at all in the territories. The 'natives' are very protective of their 'guests'. So what our guys learned about what questions and how to ask will reap benefits in the hunt for OBL.
(I personally think OBL is either dead or in Iran though.)
Oh, one more thing. Re people thinking Saddam had something to do with 911...yes, that's what the polls say. But the polls asked that question on 9/13/01 as well and even MORE people thought that then!
So the insinuation that the lead-up to the Iraq war misled the people into thinking Saddam was connected to 911 is a flat out LIE!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm
Posted by: Syl at March 2, 2004 at 10:20 PMVaara said "Name a single "peacenik" who has ever expressed any sort of admiration...."
I saw some magazine articles before the first Gulf War praising Saddam. Sorry I don't remember anything more specific. Anyone out there with enough free time to dig through back issues of the Progressive, Mother Jones, the Nation, etc? Of course, you'll need a strong stomach....
"I'd prefer it if the Iraqi people had been left to their own devices."
Back in the 80's I knew many leftists who sided with the Russians in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Paul Stinchfield at March 3, 2004 at 12:01 AMThe war has been a strategic failure. The US army has recruting and retention problems, no WMDs were destroyed, allies have been alienated, international institutions have been traduced, domestic populations have been lied to, the Arabs have not been intimidated, jihadist terrorists have been provoked and the defence budget has blown out to unsustainable levels.
Anyone who thinks that GW II constitutes strategic success is an idiot.
But the war has also been a moral success. A criminal regime has been deposed, civilian atrocity-potential has been reduced, justice is being done, a fledgling democracy has been set up, the better part of a fair-sized nation has been integrated into the world system, refugees are flooding back, there has been no humanitarian crisis, indeed the US is spending a fortune on humanitarian aid to Iraq.
Anyone who thinks that GW II constitutes moral failure is a monster.
GW II: Strategic Failure, Moral Success.
That's the way it is.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 3, 2004 at 12:04 AMJack, an interesting position, as always.
I can't agree with three of your assertions in support of "strategic failure", however. And they are simply assertions - not arguments or statements of undeniable fact.
First - no true allies of the US have been alienated. The military action to bring down Saddam has drawn the *true* allies of the US closer to it and has exposed a very few nations who pretended to be allies while consistently undermining its efforts.
Second - a number of corrupted and ineffectual international institutions have been "traduced", but so what? These institutions had an undeserved "sacred cow" status and their exposure for what they are has been a good thing.
Third - it doesn't make any sense to say "the Arabs have not been intimidated" as if "the Arabs" were some kind of monolithic block subject to a weird form of Arab groupthink. However, surely there can be no doubt that the leaders of several Arab or Islamic regimes have re-evaluated their position and modified their behaviour. Again, a good thing.
I don't necessarily dispute you overall point about "strategic failure" in the sense in which you seem to use the term. However, I think it is too early to say. You will be aware of the longer term aims of some of the centre-right thinkers who have influenced the policy of the Bush administration. It is simply too early to evaluate whether these goals will be achieved. From the outset, I have believed that we will need five years or so on this one.
TFK
Posted by: Bob Bunnett at March 3, 2004 at 12:31 AMJack, are you vaara, come for another round?
Strategic failure, eh?
Jack writes:
The US army has recruting and retention problems, no WMDs were destroyed, allies have been alienated, international institutions have been traduced, domestic populations have been lied to, the Arabs have not been intimidated, jihadist terrorists have been provoked and the defence budget has blown out to unsustainable levels. Let's take each of these.
Recruitment? Gee, meeting recruiting goals for the fourth straight year is a problem, innit? And they're talking about expanding the size of the volunteer force, guess that means they'll need a draft? http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/armyjoin/a/recruitinggoal.htm
And don't even think about claiming you meant retention, since "Both defense and Army officials said that so far the services in all components are meeting recruiting and retention goals."
http://www.ausa.org/www/news.nsf/0/48033b573286e8eb85256e2e0057f074?OpenDocument&AutoFramed
(Notice those http thingies? They're called links, as in evidence.)
No WMDs were destroyed? Well, no Iraqi WMDs were destroyed. Yet. But Libyan ones were. Or are you going to claim that Libya was going to destroy them any day now, whatever happened in Iraq?
Allies have been alienated? Gasp! Yes, France and Germany haven't gone along! But alienation works both ways. I wonder, do you ever comment on French and German boards that their actions have alienated the US/UK/Australia/Poland? And if alliances must never, ever, ever, ever be alienated, then come out and say what you really mean, Jack: other states must agree on our foreign policy, or WE should not proceed.
International institutions have been traduced? I'm sorry, but if you mean the UN, you cannot make a travesty out of what is already a mockery. And the oil-for-food program reporting that is now coming to light indicates that it has long been a mockery. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/international/middleeast/29FOOD.html)
Domestic populations have been lied to? What is this, the Clinton Administration over "genocide" in Bosnia and Kosovo? (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MILOSEVIC_GENOCIDE?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) Show a LIE, Jack. Not your assertion, where your widdle feewings have been outwaged. And the absence of WMD ain't it, unless you can show an intelligence service saying, prior to the invasion, "Iraq has no WMD."
The Arabs have not been intimidated? Guess Mu'ammar is an African? And why are the Saudis suddenly a little more pro-active in their domestic hunt for terrorists? But I'll give you one thing. Khan is NOT an Arab. Now why did he come forward of a sudden? Beats me!
Jihadist terrorists have been provoked? Gee, Jack, have you been asleep since, oh, 1993? You know, when the WTC underwent their FIRST attack? Or are you suggesting that the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were attacked by temporal al-Qaeda terrorists, outraged by 2004? And the USS Cole was hit by, what, a time-displaced suicide boat?
Although innit funny how, since we went to Iraq, there've been a lot fewer attacks anywhere ELSE in the region?
Defence budget blown to unsustainable levels? Tell me, Jack, what is the US Defense Budget (try Google, it'll tell you wondrous things!)? What is the US GDP? What is the percentage of the current US defense budget as a share of GDP?
Now, here's a toughie: Was the US defense budget higher or lower against the USSR? You know, when we pursued the policy of containment that you and your ilk regularly claim would've worked better?
(Hint: Bigger numbers means higher!)
But maybe you come from a world where the above little things are idiotic?
Posted by: Dean at March 3, 2004 at 12:41 AMDean
You believe that the curbing of Libya's WMD program was caused by the deterrent effect of GW II. The Libyan WMD backdown was caused by multilateral co-operation, with the Germans - of all people.
You must be an airborne pig spotter if you believe that.
You also believe that Gaddafi is, or was, a strategic threat to Western powers. The guy is a high-camp nuisance with an attitude problem. See war nerd for the goods.
You are a nancy boy if you think that Gaddafi is a threat.
The US War College and retired staff officers have stated that the war was unnecessary for security and is a strategic failure, which is why they were against the invasion from the beginning, and why so many of them are lining up to support the Democrats.
They are not idiots.
You are.
The "US War College"?
Do you mean the National War College, or the Army War College? And if the latter, are you referring to the paper by Jeff Record, which was neither issued nor endorsed by the AWC?
But, hey, you know better, doncha? I mean, apparently the faculty and staff are calling you w/ announcements of who they're gonna vote for!
Leaving that aside:
So, Gaddafi just happened to choose late 2003 to come clean, eh? Yup, woulda happened anyway. In fact, it was there on everybody's calendar books, October 2003, "Announce possession and relinquishment of WMD". Ooookay, Jack.
But he's not really a threat, anyway. Why? Because some guy who was "drooling for Reagan to unleash the dogs of war pent-up by Carter" says so. Of course.
And I'm merely the idiot who, apparently, can find what Army recruiting and retention rates are. Which leaves you???
Posted by: Dean at March 3, 2004 at 02:00 AMDean,
Every thing you said was idiotic. Strategy-logistics is for grown-ups and may be too complex for certain idiots too grasp. Dont rely on my diagnosis. The professional (not political) experts concur - if you think GW II was a strategic succes, then you are an idiot.
Army Reserve Chief Fears Retention Crisis (sleazy left wing Armyt general, no doubt)
Pentagon: 3 Months in Iraq Cost $14B (thats $5 bill per month for any idiots out there who cannot count. Plus $167 bil spent in 2002/3...)
Al Qaeda planning Iraq sectarian war (Read the papers today, you idiot?)
Talks aside, North Korea won't give up nukes
You call this success? That's kinda lowering the bar for achievement, right down to snail scale.
The debate about the strategic value of GW II is over. The Right has lost.
Deal with it. Get over it. Move on. Quit while you are behind. Don't get married to a position.
Here is my advice. Play up the good ethic-morality virtues of GW II. To be proud of, Iraqi citizens should thank America.
Play down the strategic-reality vices. For shame, American tax-payers should sue the Republicans.
You can take this advice, or leave it. But if you leave it, then you are an idiot.
Got that?
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 3, 2004 at 02:38 AMJack called me an idiot, waaah!!!!
Why?
Because NORTH KOREA would have given up its nukes, but for Iraq.
Because Al-Qaeda plans for a sectarian war in Iraq now, as opposed to no more attacks anywhere, but for Iraq.
But, yes, Jack, it's costing money. But is that affordable? I mean, that $14B in three months, that's HUGE. That's, like, 3% of what the Medicare drug benefit is going to cost! (The old estimate, btw. It's a little over 2% of what the Medicare drug benefit is NOW going to cost!)
And it's going to cost lives. Including that of American troops (and Australian, British, Polish, and potentially Japanese and South Korean and others). For a unilateral war, it's gonna have a lotta spill.
But funny how, for all that retention crisis, even Helmly, from the article YOU cite, said it was a POTENTIAL crisis, and it was due, in no small part, to misleading reservists as to the amount of duty required. Which is not exactly the same thing as people not enlisting and re-enlisting. But then, when you're only authorized 205,000 men to fill 226K slots, that might happen, ya know?
But, you're right Jack [sniff]. I've dared to question YOU, and we all know that that just won't DO. [sniff]
Can you forgive me, Jack? For thinking that I, a lowly poster, could possibly hope to match a shining policy professional such as yourself? [sniff]
Posted by: Dean at March 3, 2004 at 03:04 AMHey, Jack, you're improving! Last time, you dishonestly claimed that the US Army had deemed the war a strategic failure. This time, you claim that the US Army War College has deemed etc. etc. This is not quite as dishonest: Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the War College, has written a paper claiming the war was a strategic failure. Here's a newsflash: academics are prone to disagreement, the War College is an academic institution, and publication of a paper does not constitute endorsement of the viewpoint contained therein. The War College also publishes papers by people with viewpoint's quite different from Record's, but you ignore these because they don't validate your preconceptions. You're trying to buttress a weak argument by making a bogus claim about the War College's viewpoint.
And I notice that you have effectively abandoned your doomed utilitarian-humanitarian argument from the other thread, too. Smart move.
Posted by: reg at March 3, 2004 at 03:05 AMMost retired staff officers are voting for democrats because they were appointed by Clinton and his Chiefs to their positions and they DO NOT like Rummy. Career bootlickers who flourished under Clinton do not enjoy the environment under Bush, where apparently there is more to getting promoted or listened to than going to parties and engaging in social experimentation policies on the troops. You know - the style over substance that permeated everything about the last administration.
Posted by: JEM at March 3, 2004 at 03:58 AMDon't forget, reg, last time our genius Jack also claimed the sanctions were in error because Saddam had no WMD.
Hey WARBO, good question about the Uzbeks. Are you asking why we can't just go and invade and bomb everyone, 'cause most people can see the problems with that on their own.
Or are you asking in some piss-weak attempt to imply that we don't care about the Uzbeks? Can you name for me any administration that's seriously gunning for the liberation of Uzbekistan? And would you even support that? I'm guessing should that day come, you'll move the goalpost and ask why we aren't liberating the moon if we're such freedom fans.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 04:52 AMvaara:
I'm a little late coming into this but let me point something out to you:
The Iraqis hate you. That's right they HATE you. Do not ever go to Iraq and let them know what you think. They are very angry at you. They want to kill you and all of your goofy liberal buddies. They would feed you into Saddam's shredders...they hate you.
Because we like to keep you around for entertainment, after all your stupidity is entertaining, we won't let them do it to you. Aren't we nice?
Posted by: Mahatma at March 3, 2004 at 05:04 AMName some peacenik who wanted Saddam to stay in power you ask .... easy, US Congressman James McDermott. Remember when the peaceniks said stop the sanctiosn against Iraq they are killing thousands in Iraq and its all the United States fault ... bla bla bla .... they never cried out stop Saddam he is killing millions.
Posted by: north1776 at March 3, 2004 at 05:10 AMAh, yes, the tired old picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. And we all know that politicians NEVER schmooze with people unless they're the bestest buddies in the whole world, right?
Jimmy Carter and mass-murderer Deng Xiaoping
Jimmy Carter and mass-murderer Yasser Arafat
Bill Clinton and mass-murderer Jiang Zemin
FDR and mass-murderer Josef Stalin
Canada's Pierre Trudeau and mass-murderer Fidel Castro
and my all-time favorite:
Rosalynn Carter and mass child murderer John Wayne Gacy
Posted by: Nick at March 3, 2004 at 06:18 AMDon't sweat it, Dean: Jack believes he that every utterance he makes is Enlightened Wisdom, even though he is strangely incapable of understanding the articles he links to.
Jack, we are a tougher audience than your mommy and your favorite teacher. You can't think, you can't understand, and you can't back yourself up.
Yes, Sortelli, I am implying that you don't care about the Uzbeks, and as no-one here is advocating their armed liberation as a matter of urgency, I conclude you're all supporters of a tyrant who boils peole alive. QED.
There, that was easy, and just as stupid as Tim's comment that started this thread.
Most people with at least a smidgin of intellectual honesty realise that idiots can be found at all points along the political spectrum. Tim Blair and Margo Kingston, for example, have far more in common than they appreciate.
Posted by: warbo at March 3, 2004 at 08:14 AMwarbo:
So, it would have been better not to end the USSR?
In 1950, I'm sure, one could have argued against waging the Cold War, since stopping Communism on the 38th Parallel would have done nothing for those suffering in East Germany, much less Ukraine. And, in 1942, it would have been reasonable, actually, to note that Uzbeks were suffering under the tender mercies of Joe Stalin, so why were we fighting the Nazis?
But the reality is that there will never be enough resources to solve all the problems at once. So, you pick and choose your fights, and you set some kind of priority---which means someone comes first, and someone comes last. Sucks to be the least threatening (or simply the last in the alphabet).
To suggest that this (in)ability to solve all the problems at once is somehow the measure of (in)effectiveness is simply a cop-out; akin to arguing that, since we cannot solve all diseases at once, and death from AIDS or from malaria will occur, trying to stop either is pointless.
But South Korea WAS kept free, Ukraine DID become free, Iraq is NOW free, and the trend, I would suggest, is that Uzbeks WILL be free.
The scary, sad part is that the warbos, vaaras and the like is not that they would not have the Iraqis be free, but would probably not have approved of keeping South Koreans or helping Ukrainians be free. All because the Uzbeks won't be free tomorrow.
But not the Jack Strocchi's. HE's a policy professional. I'm sure that his view is properly thought out.
[See, Jack? I bow before my betters.]
Posted by: Dean at March 3, 2004 at 08:41 AMreg,
Dont call me a liar sunshine, or I will reach right accross the internet, tear your still-beating heart out of that pigeeon-chested body of yours, and eat it right in front of your very eyes.
Here is a fact, see if you can get your tiny little head around it. Most non-active staff officers and most non-bought off military analysts think that GW II was a strategic failure. Instead of nit-picking away about their job titles, try out General Zinnis professional judgement of those who think that GW II made good strategic sense:
When we put [our enlisted men and women] in harm's way, it had better count for something, It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out.
Zinni is a decorated,four star general with plent of ME experience. He knows what he is talking about.
Am I getting through to you, "brain fart" guy?
I have not abandoned my utilitarian-theoretic humanitarian rationale for GW II.
It remains the most solid intellectual justification for the war, although US tax-payers and war-widows may nmot be impressed.
If any pro-war supporter does not invoke the utilitarian rationale, then they too are idiots.
However, I am not dogmatic about it. Things can change for the worse, especially in the ME.
Anyone who does not believe that is an idiot.
If the civil-sectarian war sought by the Suunis occurs, then the utilitarian rationale will have failed, since this will cause great unhappinesss.
If Sistani and the moderate Shia succeed in maintaining peace and building democracy, then the utilitarian rationale will be applicable, since this not being ruled by the Husseins will cause much happiness.
In that case, I would certainly consider nominating GW Bush for a humanitarian award.
But it is not an immutable law, written in heaven, that they all Iraqis will live happily ever after.
Unless one is a moronic neo-con strategist.
Or you, apparently.
See? This is exactly what I mean.
Only a true policy professional could write this:
Most non-active staff officers and most non-bought off military analysts think that GW II was a strategic failure.
I mean, who but a policy professional could know what most non-active staff officers think? I mean, I don't think there's been a poll yet of military officers, period. And there hasn't been one, AFAIK, of non-active staff officers (I assume Jack means retired, but again, who am I to parse the great one's words?).
And who but a policy professional could conclude that if you're a military analyst that doesn't think GWII was a strategic failure, then you're obviously bought-off?
Ah, but this is what comes from listening to one's betters. Live and learn.
Now, the one time I was in a conference with General Zinni, it was when he was still active duty, and it wasn't quite about the Middle East, but yes, he was quite impressive. Especially when he made it clear to the full-bird colonel leading our discussion group that his (the O-6's) job was to shut up and listen to us consultants and policy analysts, not tell us how things were, or channel the discussion. Got right to the quick of things.
But Jack already knew that---another benefit of being a true policy professional. I can but hope someday to join him in his lofty perch....
So call me a Saddam-loving, Pol-Pot-adoring, Ceaucascu-idolizing peacenik socialist traitor if that makes you happy, but I continue to believe that war should not be the first resort, but rather the last.
this is late in the game, but yo homes, vaara-dog, buddy-ol-pal-ol-bud, for the sake of all that is holy & good & nice, get your murderous tyrants right:
C E A U S E S C U
i no comprende why the lot of y'alls oppressive imperialist zionist pig-dog westerners (sold-out socialists & filthy righties alike) can't take advantage of your FAILED educational system to learn how to spell. oho! i know, maybe your minds have been corrupted by too much suckling @ the nefarious teat of great satan's culture (read: too much reality tv).
Posted by: harm d. at March 3, 2004 at 09:47 AMHey Jack,
You're a liar, everyone here knows it--and best of all, you know it.
You pull facts out of the air ("Most non-active staff officers and most non-bought off military analysts..."), make dishonest claims repeatedly, and generally say whatever it will take to "win". That's pretty textbook lying, Jack.
And blustering won't get you across the internet, sunshine. Empty threats are also a type of lie, no?
Posted by: reg at March 3, 2004 at 10:26 AMStuff the bullshit, Warbo, if we were invading Uzbekistan tomorrow I can flawlessly predict that me and mine would be cheering and you'd still be bitching that we were war-crazy idiots. Don't you dare use the injustices in Uzibekistan or elsewhere as an argument against using force to despose murderers.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 10:40 AMIn that case, I would certainly consider nominating GW Bush for a humanitarian award.
But it is not an immutable law, written in heaven, that they all Iraqis will live happily ever after.
It's a pity that we can't guarantee success. Because even though there is no possible way for our forces to suffer a military defeat against the insurgents in Iraq, it's quite possible that the will of the public bends or wanes or trickles away because guys like Armchair General Jack Strocchi, Eater Of Hearts puff up their chests and repeat "strategic failure" over and over and over again with faulty utilitarian arguments based on bizarre notions like "Saddam was not responsible for the sanctions" until a nice feckless Democrat gets elected and pulls the troops out.
Thank you Jack, for doing your part.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 10:48 AMJake roars:
"Dont call me a liar sunshine, or I will reach right accross the internet, tear your still-beating heart out of that pigeeon-chested body of yours, and eat it right in front of your very eyes."
Ah yes, the old "threaten people who disagree with you with bodily harm" ploy. I can see now why the thought of Coalition success in the Middle East drives you into such a rage. But do threaten someone on this blog again. I'd like an excuse to ban all your IPs from not just posting comments here, but from even being able to visit the site.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 3, 2004 at 11:40 AMAndrea,
Lighten up. The internet is an digital, not analog medium. I was joking. Gary gets it:
Jacks not a liar, he's an entertainer.
PS I did not say that "Coalition success" had not occurred in Iraq. I said that GW II has been a:
Strategic Failure, Moral Success
Disagree? Fine, take it up with this guy. Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 3, 2004 at 12:20 PM
Sortelli: I'm up for having a serious debate about this topic. If you accuse me of bullshitting, I'll take my bat and ball and go home. So, how about it?
Let's assume your prediction is correct. It doesn't alter the fact that, as someone else mentioned, no-one in any position of power - that I'm aware of - is advocating the armed liberation of Uzbekistan. Why not?
OK - 'we' can only do one thing at a time. Iraq is in the process of being liberated and will soon be governed by Iraqis. If not Uzbekistan, then what's next on the list?
Posted by: Warbo at March 3, 2004 at 12:46 PM"Lighten up, it was just a joke." The weasel defense of cowardly bullies everywhere. You've become boring again, Jack. I suggest you lay off the sauce.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 3, 2004 at 01:49 PMWarbo, well, it's a long list, sadly. We've got North Korea and Iran to deal with, obviously, we just sent Marines into Haiti with the supposedly alienated French at our side. I'd still love to see some pressure put on Uzbekistan but I'm willing to accept that the reason we aren't doing that right now is because we've got other battles to fight.
So, if this isn't a cheap ploy to argue against any action anywhere, can you elaborate on why we need to be in Uzbekistan right now instead of exploting them as an ally for the moment, and can you explain how diplomatic pressure will not work to reform that country?
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 01:51 PMI honestly, truly, really do not know under what circumstances external military force should be used to overthrow tyrannical regimes. It seems to me to be a horrifically vexed question for both left and right, not least because, as we're seeing in Iraq at the moment, predicting the outcome is so fraught with unknowns (and no, I'm not saying the Iraqis aren't better off).
What I do know, and why I'm wasting so much time here, is that snarky comments about 'peaceniks' being unhappy about the overthrow of Saddam are a gross insult.
I also want to make the point that it would be very easy for me to latch onto your remark about exploiting Uzbekistan as an ally as suggesting a degree of comfort with the suffering of dissidents in that country if that advances the West's interests ... but I'm pretty certain that would be a distortion of your view, right?
Posted by: Warbo at March 3, 2004 at 02:10 PMWarbo
Let's put it this way: Being nice to the thugs in Uzbekistan does not make me happy or proud but I'm not going to deny that it's happening.
That we had to go to war to remove Saddam does not make me happy either. I would greatly prefer it if countries transitioned to democracies peacefully and that the UN actually had the will to dismantle dictatorships and end oppression with as much cooperation and as little bloodshed as possible. While we're hurtling out of reality, I'd also like a jetpack and some ice cream.
I really have a problem with the people who "like that Saddam is gone now... BUT", because if these people had their way, Saddam wouldn't be gone now and we'd still be picking at the BUTs. The people who vex and waffle and mumble about the complexities of war haven't accomplished anything in this situation except to prolong Saddam's rule and protect others like him who depend on us to be unwilling to resist or unable to commit--it doesn't matter how much they dislike Saddam. So frankly, characterizing them as Saddam's buddies doesn't miss the mark as far as I'm concerned.
If I have to chose between accepting war or being a pacifist, I'll take the former over the latter any day. Ghandi's take on the holocaust is pretty illuminating: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs" I understand that he'd be willing to do the same himself, but I believe we need to protect each other, not lie down and die the moment someone realizes that they can gain power by hurting and killing the rest of us.
And that's not to mention that there are many anti-war groups and pundits who, frankly, aren't so much peaceful as they are literally on the other side. ANSWER, for one. Hell, Ted Rall. There are those who are on the fringe that want to destroy the forces of globalization through violence and are willing to exploit useful, idiot peaceniks to further their ends.
If your final insight on war is that it's a tough issue and you don't have all the answers, then here's your bat and ball. Go home.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 03:13 PMI said nothing about war per se. I'm not a pacifist. When attacked, defend yourself; fight back; whatever it takes. So I'm not going home just yet.
What I was talking about, quite clearly, was the use of external force to overthrow a tyrannical regime. Now if you're seriously telling me that is not an extreme moral dilemma, then we're barely on the same planet.
Oh God, why do we play these games? Look, I know, you know, everyone with a shred of intelligence (no, not that sort!) knows that the US invaded and overthrew Saddam because it believed it was in its strategic interests to do so (the liberation of the Iraqis was a far lower-order priority); just as the US believes it is in its strategic interests to allow Islom Karimov to boil people alive and (as the CIA World Factbook puts it) curtail human rights and democratization.
I'll even admit the possibility that, in the really big, grand, huge scale of things, it was right to do so; that to protect the freedoms and way of life we enjoy in the West and to preserve the power of the 'good' guys (us) as opposed to the bad guys (Islamic radicals), war must be waged, people must die and torturers must ply their trade.
Whaddya reackon?
Posted by: Warbo at March 3, 2004 at 04:06 PMJack Strocchi's clearly a partially educated blowhard with a thesaurus. The silliest part of his ill-informed diatribe is his assertion that the Iraq war has been a 'strategic' failure. Strategic failure (or success) is something that has historians jumping up and down in conferences forty years after the fact. It's completely unidentifiable from the perspective of the present. Tactical failures can be recognised right now (if you lost the firefight, then you lost tactically), but strategic losses aren't apparent until long after. 'Strategic' implies a strategy - in what sense has the Iraq campaign foiled America's strategic vision? And the 'strategic failure/moral success' gambit is so sophomoric I am bleeding from the gums. That sort of jejune analysis might get you a 'C' in your highschool PoliSci class, but in the real world it's simply risible.
Strocchi, wishing for America's defeat won't make it happen.
Warbo: War is certainly an extreme moral dilema, but while you are still busy picking your navel over it someone's gone and fought it and won it for you. "Yay! I'm glad Saddam's gone BUT I don't think we should have done this!"
I'm glad that you're so generous to admit that it might turn out to be a good thing overall, but please understand that there's a connection between your nihilistic waffling and the possible failure of the entire attempt to bring stability to Iraq.
The only front the enemy can gain ground on us is in our resolve, and if you're actually going to put scare quotes around the "good" guys in relation to us versus Islamic radicals... well, nevermind.
Y'know, maybe we should stop talking in black and white and compromise with them... we'll just blow up half of Israel and let gay people get married right before we stone them to death. Maybe we'll still let women drive cars, but take away the pesky burden of voting from them. Maybe they're not such "bad" guys; I bet there's a lot we can learn from them... like how to teach children to fire automatic rifles and wire explosives and pose for gullible journalists.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 09:58 PMAnd while many of us understand that freeing the Iraqi people alone wasn't the prime reason that drove the case for war, it happens to be the reason we supported it.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 10:01 PMYeah, different planets. Anyway, thanks for the chat. Good luck. With your lot in charge, we all need it.
Posted by: warbo at March 4, 2004 at 12:39 AMWith your lot in charge, we will probably all be dead by now.
Posted by: Yibin at March 4, 2004 at 02:17 AMFor some reason the trolls in this thread reminded me of these lines from a Ray Thomas song.
You keep searching for someone, To tell your troubles to, I'll sit down and lend an ear, But I hear nothing new.Posted by: Alan Kellogg at March 4, 2004 at 08:42 PM