ABC News: U.S. Nears Highest Monthly Iraq Death Toll
ABC News: U.S. Nears Highest Monthly Iraq Death Toll
Anytime US military personnel are killed in action (or on duty of any kind) it is a sad occasion. The people of Iraq and the Middle East will owe them a debt they can only repay by living in freedom and peace.
What we are doing in Iraq is not only right, but it is the duty of every freedom loving nation to fight tyranny, terrorism and oppression wherever it tries to take root.
Maybe if some of our European "allies" would contribute to the pursuit of liberty and freedom for the Iraqi people our death toll wouldn't be approaching the highest total dead of the war. Maybe if they weren't interested in protecting their corrupt officials, that made money hand over fist through the oil for food program, protecting their power base by pandering to the emotional liberals, who see doom and defeat around every corner.
Leaders lead. Its what they do. When a cause is right it is the leaders that rally their people behind the cause, and by rallying their people they succeed in their endeavor before they ever commit a resource. Leaders inspire. Leaders lead their people to victory, because the reason is just and right and good.
As I have said before, we are a nation of victors. The spoils of victory are prosperity and peace. Allied with the Iraqi people, (in spite of the weak willed and nuanced crys of assured defeat) we will help them win this victory over the child and woman killing cowards in their midst. Then the Iraqi people will lead the middle east to peace. Because it is the right thng to do.
Those that say war is not the answer never understand the question. They never understand the enemy. Throughout history they have time and time again sought appeasement as an answer, and time and time again they have failed, only to cry for help from a less nuanced country, a country of victors, of saviours.
Peace through victory. God Bless America.
Anytime US military personnel are killed in action (or on duty of any kind) it is a sad occasion. The people of Iraq and the Middle East will owe them a debt they can only repay by living in freedom and peace.
What we are doing in Iraq is not only right, but it is the duty of every freedom loving nation to fight tyranny, terrorism and oppression wherever it tries to take root.
Maybe if some of our European "allies" would contribute to the pursuit of liberty and freedom for the Iraqi people our death toll wouldn't be approaching the highest total dead of the war. Maybe if they weren't interested in protecting their corrupt officials, that made money hand over fist through the oil for food program, protecting their power base by pandering to the emotional liberals, who see doom and defeat around every corner.
Leaders lead. Its what they do. When a cause is right it is the leaders that rally their people behind the cause, and by rallying their people they succeed in their endeavor before they ever commit a resource. Leaders inspire. Leaders lead their people to victory, because the reason is just and right and good.
As I have said before, we are a nation of victors. The spoils of victory are prosperity and peace. Allied with the Iraqi people, (in spite of the weak willed and nuanced crys of assured defeat) we will help them win this victory over the child and woman killing cowards in their midst. Then the Iraqi people will lead the middle east to peace. Because it is the right thng to do.
Those that say war is not the answer never understand the question. They never understand the enemy. Throughout history they have time and time again sought appeasement as an answer, and time and time again they have failed, only to cry for help from a less nuanced country, a country of victors, of saviours.
Peace through victory. God Bless America.
85 Comments:
Guru --
A rather nice post.
However, despite the fact that I pretty much agree with a lot of your sentiments, I have to say that people like you are the perfect tools for war mongers and manipulators of every stripe. Simply by looking at your post as a whole, I can see that you have swallowed several key lies that are used to manipulate public opinion, particularly in the USA. And, why should you not believe these lies? They are very attractive to Americans, and when repeated they create a self enforcing resonance that is comforting in its omnipresence. For example: America stands for freedom. It fights for the liberation of the oppressed. It is compassionate. It is straight-forward and straight - speaking. It stands for the truth. And surely, if this were not so, then America would not be so prosperous! (whispers the little God on your shoulder).
Now, if one accepts these (heh heh!) 'truths', then it is not unreasonable to assume the opposite. That any system other than your own is inferior. That if somebody opposes the designs of the US, it is also opposing the *principles* that your country is founded on ... therefore these resisters actually might EVEN endorse the exact opposite of those principles. Once you believe all that, then this statement:
"What we are doing in Iraq is not only right, but it is the duty of every freedom loving nation to fight tyranny, terrorism and oppression wherever it tries to take root."
.... sounds like a clear high clarion call to all decent people of the world to gather and pitch in to help, to support and aid the US. Sadly though, the rest of the world is looking at the back of your mirror ... and it does not shine ... it is the dull black of lies and forgotten atrocities and double speak.
The fact is, if your country were honest about what it was on about, then perhaps people *would* help you. But the reality is different. The noble sentiments of freedom are merely a smokescreen for the opposite: enslavement.
I will point out to you the truth of the situation.
That the United States supports many despotic regimes as bad or worse than Saddam's, and that *you* never hear about them. I can point out to you that while Saddam was doing the US's bidding, he was screened from criticism and supported militarily. Once his usefulness had exceeded the expiry date, he was dropped like a carton of soured milk. Now! Now are all his faults apparent and his lies exposed. Rather convenient the, ehm, short American memory, no?
We will talk of many things.
We will talk about America's designs on controlling the bulk of the global oil supply, and how that fits into the American but especially the neoconservative agenda. We will talk about the definition of terrorism, and how that applies to both the US and organisations it supports. Also we can discuss the lamentable, illegal European evasion of the UN sanctions and how that profiteering does not absolve the US for its deeds. Hmm. We can also go into detail about how the US used the sanctions as a tool to punish Iraqis, for that matter.
We can discuss the way your media is able to jack knife on identical issues, portraying one side as a struggle for independence and the other as a struggle by terrorists against a peace loving populace. (Parallels between Chechnya and Iraq spring foremost to mind. In fact, the Bushies have now depicted the former heroic freedom fighters there as terrorist scum. And you lap it up.)
We will talk about the 'right' of America to invade other countries, the validity of your casus belli, the hypocrisy that your country practices and finish on the fact that you believe that might is right and how self interest justifies any action perpetrated by the US. And that the pretty talk about freedom and liberty is just tinsel to beautify your true beliefs and agendas to others ... or at best representative of a personal belief system that has not been thoroughly thought through. (The Iraqis 'owing' you any sort of debt is a hilarious, if sick, joke.)
But my position is this: Yes, the USA has benefitted the world in many ways. However, it has been at least, if not more, detrimental, and those benefits it brings are largely in the frame of self interest. And, that your own policies create your enemies, not the other way round.
Thanks for posting Bruno, and confirming what we always knew. Ya’’ll don’t get it.
Bruno said;
“America stands for freedom. It fights for the liberation of the oppressed. It is compassionate. It is straight-forward and straight - speaking. It stands for the truth.”
If we are not a free country why are people from all over the world rushing to get here and not to your country……which brings up another trait about liberals..they hide behind anonymity, so fill out your profile so I know who I am dealing with.
We do fight for the oppressed. Granada, no one else would help those people, we went into Haiti to maintain peace, and then we left them with it. The whole Bosnia/Herzagovina deal which Europe should have handled, but we did most of it for them, to stop ethnic cleansing. We have never had a President more straight talking than we do now. He says it. He does it. Period. We set Kuwait free and did not steal their oil, we freed Afghanistan and they have no resources we need. We liberated 25 million Iraqis and our oil prices are sky high, so we obviously haven’t stolen from them.
Bruno said;
“the rest of the world is looking at the back of your mirror ... and it does not shine ...”
First, we don’t care what the world thinks, every time we do not get involved we end up having to intervene later to clean up the mess of others, and if the mirror is dull, its because your on the wrong side of it.
Bruno said;
“That the United States supports many despotic regimes as bad or worse than Saddam's, and that *you* never hear about them.”
We, like every nation, have always used evil to fight evil. Used surrogates to fight our battles abroad. We supported Saddam in the past against a larger threatfrom Iran. We supported some Central American countries against communism. We supported the Mujahadin against the USSR. It is foolhardy to believe we did it because we like building up rogue nations. And in every example I have listed, things have worked out for the countries we supported.
Bruno said;
“We will talk about America's designs on controlling the bulk of the global oil supply”.
Nice Bruno, right out of liberal talking points. Like I said, Kuwait and Iraq still control their own oil. This is a stupid argument, unfounded and grounded in lies.
Your Chechnya example is pathetic also. We supported their stiving for freedom then they turned bad, so what? Now they are terrorist.
Bruno said;
“We will talk about the 'right' of America to invade other countries,”
Again a pitiful argument. Everyone forgets that the weak kneed UN had 17 resolutions against Iraq and not once did they raise their hand to stop Saddam from doing the evil he did, in fact they profited from it. We are authorized to invade any nation our congress says we can, and we don’t need the support or permission of any European nation, considering their history of complacentcy, I am glad we don’t rely on the Europeans or the UN……All bark, no bite.
Bruno said;
“your own policies create your enemies, not the other way round.”
Exactly what did we do to provoke an attack on our cities? Our embassies? Our ships? Our citizens? Innocent women and children?
Nothing.
Wow. Wordy little fellow aren’t you?
Bruno said;
”However, despite the fact that I pretty much agree with a lot of your sentiments, I have to say that people like you are the perfect tools for war mongers and manipulators of every stripe. “
You just called me a tool? In OUR country thats what is known as "rude".
Bruno said;
“… I can see that you have swallowed several key lies that are used to manipulate public opinion, particularly in the USA.”
Do tell.
Bruno said;
”…Now, if one accepts these (heh heh!) 'truths', then it is not unreasonable to assume the opposite. That any system other than your own is inferior. “
That is not the opposite. It correlates to the original proposition that freedom and liberty are preferable to oppression and tyranny, that victory is preferable to defeat, that the conviction of principles and willingness to stand by those convictions is preferable to appeasement of those with a lesser morality.
Bruno said;
“That if somebody opposes the designs of the US, it is also opposing the *principles* that your country is founded on ...”
Not is every case, but in most of them, yes.
Bruno said;
“…therefore these resisters actually might EVEN endorse the exact opposite of those principles.”
The majority of them do endorse the exact opposite. For example, on the domestic side, witness the huge disregard for individual property rights in South Africa, under the guise of “righting a historical wrong”. How many people can’t find food there now? Or jobs? As is the way of failing Socialist governments, the hand is always at the ready to accept aid from a more moral and prosperous America.
Bruno said;
“Once you believe all that, then this statement:
"What we are doing in Iraq is not only right, but it is the duty of every freedom loving nation to fight tyranny, terrorism and oppression wherever it tries to take root."
.... sounds like a clear high clarion call to all decent people of the world to gather and pitch in to help, to support and aid the US. Sadly though, the rest of the world is looking at the back of your mirror ... and it does not shine ... it is the dull black of lies and forgotten atrocities and double speak. “
Name them. Name the atrocities, Bruno. Feel free to discuss them in relative terms to the atrocities being perpetrated every day in your neck of the world.
Bruno said;
“The fact is, if your country were honest about what it was on about, then perhaps people *would* help you. But the reality is different. The noble sentiments of freedom are merely a smokescreen for the opposite: enslavement.”
So I take it in that in Gauteng they are handing out free crack instead of jobs and food at the Socialist aid stations? America does what is right. And by enslavement, do you mean literal enslavement like in the Sudan, or effective social enslavement perpetrating by the poverty and hunger sweeping South Africa.
Bruno said;
”I will point out to you the truth of the situation.”
I am wet with anticipation.
Bruno said;
“That the United States supports many despotic regimes as bad or worse than Saddam's, and that *you* never hear about them.”
We hear about more than you know. Nixon was right, we play evil off of evil. Once there is only one evil remaining it will be eradicated that much more efficiently.
Bruno said;
“I can point out to you that while Saddam was doing the US's bidding, he was screened from criticism and supported militarily.”
No kidding? Old news there Bruno. We also supported some of the warlords that eventually threw in with the Taliban. I fail to see your point, other than attempting to attach some historical significance to groups of people no longer in power.
Bruno said;
”We will talk of many things.”
You’re all over the place. Is ADD a big problem in South Africa? (Probably not bigger than murdering socialist dictatorships, but you know, big)
Bruno said;
”We will talk about America's designs on controlling the bulk of the global oil supply, and how that fits into the American but especially the neoconservative agenda.”
We control no ones oil. Really, if you are going to start making things up, we may not ever let you visit us.
Bruno said;
“We will talk about the definition of terrorism, and how that applies to both the US and organisations it supports.”
Put down the crack pipe Bruno. Broad generalizations like this might fly on liberal’s websites, of course with all the head nodding and back slapping you guys do, it’s a wonder you ever comprehend anything you read or hear. Here, we require facts. What is the definition of terrorism, Bruno? Something tells me that in South Africa it is different than here, but please, enlighten us.
Bruno said;
“Also we can discuss the lamentable, illegal European evasion of the UN sanctions and how that profiteering does not absolve the US for its deeds.”
Our “deeds” being the enforcement of the sanctions? I’ll wait patiently for the point I know you must be driving at…somewhere.
Bruno said;
“Hmm. We can also go into detail about how the US used the sanctions as a tool to punish Iraqis, for that matter.”
For your info Bruno:
sanc•tion1. A law or decree.
a. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.
2. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
3. A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law
So essentially that’s what a sanction IS. And they were UN sanctions.
Bruno said;
”We can discuss the way your media is able to jack knife on identical issues, portraying one side as a struggle for independence and the other as a struggle by terrorists against a peace loving populace.”
Can we not limit this to just our press? Cause between Reuters, and the Guardian and other globally liberal rags, I am not sure many of our “news” outlets are much different.
Bruno said;
“ (Parallels between Chechnya and Iraq spring foremost to mind. In fact, the Bushies have now depicted the former heroic freedom fighters there as terrorist scum. And you lap it up.) “
I lap up nothing. Chechnyans have always been terrorists in my book. Russia (and the US) simply chose to portray them as rebels instead of the fanatical Muslim terrorists child killers that they are. Are we going to talk about what *I* think at all here Bruno? This isn’t Bush’s blog, its mine.
Bruno said;
”We will talk about the 'right' of America to invade other countries, the validity of your casus belli, the hypocrisy that your country practices and finish on the fact that you believe that might is right and how self interest justifies any action perpetrated by the US.”
Wow. Why don’t we talk about the “right” of America to protect her interests around the globe? To defend her sovereign status against those that would strip her of it (i.e, the UN)?
Hypocrisy? Details, Bruno. Again, please feel free to frame them in the ideals that your great homeland holds dear.
Bruno said;
“…finish on the fact that you believe that might is right.”
Might is right? No. If anything the cold war taught us is that at best, might is only a deterrent against those that would do evil against us.
Bruno said;
“And that the pretty talk about freedom and liberty is just tinsel to beautify your true beliefs and agendas to others ... or at best representative of a personal belief system that has not been thoroughly thought through. (The Iraqis 'owing' you any sort of debt is a hilarious, if sick, joke.)”
Not thought through? How so? There are two ways to go in this world Bruno, when you live in a shithole that has no freedom, no liberty. You can sit around and criticize those countries that do, appearing to all that watch as bitter and envious, or you can take up the cause that has toppled tyranny around the world, which bends before no one, the freedom and liberty granted all men by Almighty God. It belongs to everyone, there are just those people (like you) in those countries (like yours) that haven’t the collective will or motivation to stand up and take what is yours from the oppressors. Those that don’t want things to be better for their children because their feeble minds cannot imagine anything better than oppression and enslavement.
Bruno said;
”But my position is this: Yes, the USA has benefitted the world in many ways. However, it has been at least, if not more, detrimental, and those benefits it brings are largely in the frame of self interest. And, that your own policies create your enemies, not the other way round.”
To paraphrase William J. Bennett:
“Nowhere else has freedom flourished like it has here in America; never before in the history of the world have so many around the globe benefited because there is a land of the free and a home of the brave. Even with it’s faults, America remains the best nation on earth—which is one lesson never to be forgotten:
We are attacked for our virtues, not our sins.”
Your a rather prolific writer yourself RG.
Lordy, lordy,
Lets take a look at one section of your recent post:
"Leaders lead. Its what they do. When a cause is right it is the leaders that rally their people behind the cause, and by rallying their people they succeed in their endeavor before they ever commit a resource. Leaders inspire. Leaders lead their people to victory, because the reason is just and right and good.
As I have said before, we are a nation of victors. The spoils of victory are prosperity and peace"
What a load of meaningless tripe, sorry, but you are a 'straight talking kind of guy', so I hope you will permit me to speak frankly.
Let's dissect this bull.
"Leaders lead. Its what they do."
Well, duh, that is what they call a tautology, it is true by definition.
"When a cause is right it is the leaders that rally their people behind the cause, and by rallying their people they succeed in their endeavor before they ever commit a resource."
So, you are criticizing the Bush administration here, I presume. I mean, Bush has partially rallied 'his people' - a little over half of the voting public if you want to measure by the last election, and he has committed very significant resources, and as the headline of your post notes "U.S. Nears Highest Monthly Iraq Death Toll"
In short, if a cause is right a leader rallies his people - In Bush's case, by your logic, his cause must be wrong. Or if you accept that slightly over half of the people count as 'rallied people' then his cause is half right.
Moving on to:
"Leaders inspire. Leaders lead their people to victory, because the reason is just and right and good."
Your buddy, the big Dick, can help you understand a bit about leadership, 'cause I see he is a soldier and they train and study for leadership. Big Dick will tell that a leader can lead foolishly, they can be wrong. They can lead their troops to death.
Lets take a look at Bush's leadership? If you look at his track record according to "Leaders lead their people to victory, because the reason is just and right and good." he appears to be failing, and failing badly. If we assume the latter part of that sentance is true, then victory should follow. Well, victory is not following in this Iraq venture, in fact things are deteriorating. Maybe it is his cause that is not "just and right and good" or, Bush has leadership problems. If we apply your logic to Vietnam, well the US failed there as well, the cause must have been bad. How about the war of 1812? Another failure.
Your last line in that section:
"As I have said before, we are a nation of victors. The spoils of victory are prosperity and peace"
This reminds me of the old line 'To the victor go the spoils of war', except you seem to be trying to wrap it up in righteousness, 'a righteous oil grab'. C'mon, take a critical look at the US. Is it a nation of prosperity and peace? The prosperity part is debatable, many can argue that the divide between rich and poor contradicts this, but let us leave prosperity aside and look the the second part of the equation, that of peace. As your exulted leader claims, he is a War President, the nation is at war, it is not a nation of peace, therefore, by your logic, the US is not "a Nation of Victors", nor is it "just and right and good".
So, the US has yet to claim the spoils of victory and, by your own logic, therefore its' cause must not be "just and right and good"
Do you seriously believe that victory means that the cause was righteous? You do realize the absurdity in such a notion don't you?
James
Uuumm...Bruno?
I believe the "easy meat" comment now applies to you. God I can't stop giggling. This is a great exchange.
I would add something else in here but I believe it has all been covered!
Kender, as I noted to you on another blog how many of these 'redneck' sites will not tolerate dissenting views. Well, your buddy, the Guru has threatened Bruno with banishment after his first post.
"We control no ones oil. Really, if you are going to start making things up, we may not ever let you visit us."
So much for Freedom. Agree or Die!
James
James...oh no you didn't...please explain exactly how the War of 1812 was a failure? The brits came back and got their asses handed to them again! And how are we failing now?
Victory takes time.....it will take a generation for Iraq to fully assimilate the values and virtues that come with freedom.
Vietnam a generation later is drooling over the prospect of trade and normalized relations with the U.S. and the rest of the 'western world'.
Communism will fall there too once they realize that in the end it doesn't work. The same goes for socialism. In theory it sounds nice...in reality it doesn't work.
Fascism? Same thing...it sucks..ask the Italians that lived there before WW2.
America is swamped with people from around the globe, coming here for a better education...more chances...more freedom to chase their dreams....in short a better life.
If this was such a bad country, with such a corrupt way, these people would go somewhere else...like maybe canada?
Of the top ten richest people in the world, even when you lump the waltons together and go all the way to #14, half of them are from America. None from canada.
Half. That, in and of itself, shows what a great country this is. and of those top ten, only #4 is NOT from either America or a european country.
If the Americans system was so bad, it would have collapsed by now. It hasn't, and won't anytime soon.
And you can say that just over half of America is following Bush...that means that just under half need glass belly buttons.
And again...how the hell do you figure the War of 1812 was a failure? Unless you are British...or canadian, which I suspect.
James.....just because I feel smarmy and want to point out how socialism, like in canada, doesn't work, and capitalism, and the freedom to pursue it does:
Canadian Billionaires in 2004....17
American Billionaires in 2004...277
Capitalism...1
Socialism...0
http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/25/bill04land.html
A quick google yielded this site http://www.napoleonguide.com/campaign_1812.htm
War rarely has clear winners and losers.
"The Americans, however, were not blameless and their desire to control Canadian territory backing on to the Great Lakes lead to a series of battles between the two nations.
snip
The War of 1812 achieved little, but did save Canada's independence. It was also a bloody turning point in Western affairs that eventually led to a strong bond between Britain and the United States."
There were many American defeats in that war.
James
Looking at that link has made me glad that canada kept it's independence.....I have traveled alot in canada, and decided long ago that for the most part it is an unspoiled wilderness, (i.e., cold and not worth living in), and would just be a drain on the economy here.
80% of the canadian economy is dependant on the U.S.
Perhaps a boycott of canada is in order?
Is James another one of your boys Kender? You ought to at least teach them to read before you send them over.
James, speak as freely as you like. But in Canada, speaking freely could get you arrested (I can cite cases if you like, but hell, you LIVE there, right?)
Uh...since you don't tell me where Bush is failing, only make the false leap that I am critical of the Bush administration, I can't give your statement much weight. According to your interpretation of the facts we are not succeeding in the war and the situation is deteriorating? How? Is that some French news channel you are watching up there James? Cause you know they don't consider it making progress unless they see people surrendering.
We are a superior nation James, and while Canada is plenty good to go to if you are a draft dodger, or if you want to see some coins with the queesn's picture on them, you are really so uninformed and brainwashed that one has to wonder about those schools up there as well.
Also when talking about victors in war, it is hard to give weight to your perspective. Made up of both the French AND the British, it isn't like Canada has ever had to do much in the way of defending anything. As a matter of fact, a Canadian almost screwed up the surrender of the Japanese at the end of WW2 by signing the document accepting the Japanese surrender on the wrong line. The only thing I can figure is that genetically speaking, he was shaken to his core at actually being in a position to ACCEPT a surrender, he just couldn't concentrate on the details.
Do I believe that victory means a cause is righteous? When it is an American victory, yes.
You say:
"The prosperity part is debatable, many can argue that the divide between rich and poor contradicts this, but let us leave prosperity aside and look the the second part of the equation, that of peace. As your exulted leader claims, he is a War President, the nation is at war, it is not a nation of peace, therefore, by your logic, the US is not "a Nation of Victors", nor is it "just and right and good".
Prior to our being attacked we were a peacful nation. Unlike the historical appeasers that make up the founders of YOU country, America tends to be made of a heartier stock of citizen. So we are at war. A war we didn't start, but will finish.
Now as far as the war of 1812 goes, exactly how is THAT releveant? The British were once again sent packing.
Vietnam? You really don't understand history do you? Communism (you know the older borther of socialism) is an evil that must be defeated at any cost. At that time in history decisions were made that caused America to involve itself militarily in Indochina.
We failed in Vietnam, but not where you think. We failed our allies, the South Vietnamese. When our Democratically controlled congress cut funding for the war we left them at the mercy of the murderous communists. We are directly responsible for the deaths of a couple of million people due to our government's lack of leadership and inability to counter the leftist, anti americans and hippies in the antiwar movement here in the US.
Properly engaged, we would have won that war, as we did every battle in it. The lessons learned were numerous, which is why we will not abandon Iraq or Afghanistan.
To the subject of prosperity that you so casually cast aside due to your observations on the difference between the rich and poor. Here is a clue. Rich and poor are what we down here call "opposing concepts".
The wider the gap gets the more prosperous we are. Know why? Because it means that less people are poor. I'd pull census numbers for you James, but you seem like you really want to be a smart guy, so you can look them up.
Also I NEVER threatened your boy Bruno with banishment. You guys on the left have such an issue with reading for comprehension sometimes I want to write you guys off as somehow disabled. What I said was:
"...you are going to start making things up, we may not ever let you visit us."
Us. Not the website, which I would consider a ME. I was saying that if Bruno kept making things up we wouldn;t let him come to our country. It was a joke, admittedly a weak one. I always welcome dissent. Even weak dissent, like yours.
To use your "mind like a steel trap logic" against you though, you are inferring that Bruno WAS making things up. Which would mean that things that are made up out of the blue qualify as dissent. So if what you are espousing is a dissenting view, I can only conclude, that you are making things up as well.
Hey that was FUN.
You guys have a secret handshake for that club? Or do you guys just do the "group hug" thing?
Posting from my upper middle class home in my prosperous and secure country. Proud to be an American.
I'll try to keep it sorter next time...
hmmm like shooting fish in a barrel ;)
"According to your interpretation of the facts we are not succeeding in the war and the situation is deteriorating? How?"
Hey, you are the one leading off your blog post with, "News: U.S. Nears Highest Monthly Iraq Death Toll" Lets see, that means more US death. There are numerous measures of the deteriorating situation. The US can't even secure the 5 mile trip from the 'Green Zone' to the Airport. I could spend much space demonstrating how things have deteriorated in the last 20 months, but there is something to be said for brevity. Keep your head in the sand, you seem to be happy...
"We are a superior nation James, and while Canada is..."
eh? Why should I care about this statement, and what relevance is it to the discussion. I am an American by the way.
"Also when talking about victors in war, it is hard to give weight to your perspective. Made up of both the French AND the British, it isn't like Canada has ever had to do much in the way of defending anything"
Again, why bother addressing the issues when you can sling some jingoistic nationalist comment out there?
"Do I believe that victory means a cause is righteous? When it is an American victory, yes."
Sounding damn near to racism, though it is nationalism, and, gee, guess from where fascism rises? My country right or wrong...gosh lets all sing together.
"Prior to our being attacked we were a peacful nation."
Try checking your history dude. The US a peaceful nation, yea right? and Gahndi was a warrior. You read it on the internet, it must be true.
"So we are at war. A war we didn't start, but will finish."
I'm not a big Micheal Moore fan but, as he said, "19 Saudi's attacked the World Trade Center, and we attacked Afghanistan (and then Iraq), what did we do, miss?"
"We failed in Vietnam, but not where you think. We failed our allies, the South Vietnamese."
At least we agree about failing in 'Nam. The US is also currently failing the 'allies' in Iraq and the allies in the Rest of the World. The current Iraqi Allies are fighting much like the South Vietnamese did....runaway...
James
An American. Posting from Canada? Hmmm...
I guess the fact that 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq are not having problems meaans nothing. The press wants to concentrate on the negative, as do you.
Americans die for freedom and liberty. The number is not relevant to success or failure. Freedom never comes easy.
Jingoistic nationalist comment? Thats funny. Just because you can spell fascism doesn't mean you understand the concept behind it. You don;t have to agree with everything the US does, I don't. But I know that we are the greates hope of mankind, that we (and our true allies) are the ONLY real defender of western civilization.
How is it racism again when I believe my country to be engaged in a just cause? This is typical liberal doggeral. Call names and attempt to confuse with mindless ramblings.
The US IS a peaceful nation from the perspective of protecting its citizens and defending their rights to pursue happiness. The citizenry as a whole is peaceful. The Governemt has to defend the peace against those that threaten it. I guess we could appease but then we would be just like all of the other spineless socialist governments in the world.
Michael Moore is an idiot, and as your quote so glaringly illustrates isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer when trying to discern cause and effect (nor are you, I might add). If you are so narrow minded that you think all of this is only about 9/11, then I have to wonder how you dress yourself in the morning (assuming you can).
Vietnam was a just cause as is Iraq. While one was a war against an organized communist army, this is a war against terrorists and the killers of children. Against those that prefer death to life, suffering to prosperity, control to freedom.
I really must say James, your grasp of world history and cause and effect is very sad.
Barrels open...shoot away. You might want to stand closer though...
Guru, I recommend not allowing anonymous posts, it will keep the riff raff away.
Anonymous said
"Big Dick will tell that a leader can lead foolishly,"
As anonymous pointed out, I am a soldier, fighting for idiots to speak their mind is one of the aspects of the job I do not like but tolorate in the name of freedom and democracy. However, no one said I have to stand here and be insulted. James, my pseudonym is Richard Nixon, you may call me Nixon, RN, Richard, or Richard Nixon, but do not stup to liberal name calling tactics on your first visit, it just validates our points about liberals.
Nixon, it is what they do. Since they have no courage of their convictions (no courage, no convictions) they name call and twist things around.
I *think* he was trying to be funny, but if it keeps up we'll kill anonymous posting.
Kender --
"I believe the "easy meat" comment now applies to you. God I can't stop giggling. This is a great exchange."
Ol buddy ol pal, I'm just getting *started*. I drilled about a dozen holes into that ever-ready, energiser powered twit Paul Edwards, (described by Mark from chi town as a 'formidable debater' - heh ) and that was a monster battle indeed. The opening salvoes have been exchanged, and just you sit back, relax, and watch the show. It might take a while. Because, the least I can say is that your Guru is a step above you in class, and you might get hurt in the exchanges. Gee, I sure wouldn't want to be held responsible if I "ream you a new one", *snigger*.
Just to give you a quick flick off, I want you to think about the lightweight arguments of 'personal prosperity as an indicator of the relative success or no of a system' you made to James. So, the money makes the man, huh? I guess Idi Amin, Hussein, Marcos, the Shah of Iran and your assorted Saudi monarchy must rank very highly in *your* esteem then. How about you write a few modest words on how you see these people in the framework of your theories, hmm?
Guru --
"Wordy"?
:)
Just wait ...
Point number one.
Going on about South Africa (yawn) is not doing your cause any good at all, because you are simply putting your foot into a minefield that you know nothing about. And, in doing so, are likely to get it blown off. (What the hell is this supposed to mean, for example : "Is ADD a big problem in South Africa?" I have lived here my whole life and never heard of 'ADD' Is this some communist tax system or something? Whatever it is, I'm sure we don't have it. We use VAT.)
FYI, South Africa is not Socialist, it is a democratic, capitalist society. And yes, we have serious issues with poverty and hunger ... in our DEMOCRATIC, CAPITALIST country. Socialist Aid Stations? You just made that up, didn't you? As in, a lie? The only link between SA and Socialism is in the composition of the government, many of whom are ex commies, and the fact that the Tripartite Alliance (do you even know what I'm talking about, or are you going to blow another foot off? Google it, chum.) is composed of communist/ commy leaning junior partners.
So why isn't SA communist, then? Well, simply because the powers that be are just as corrupt as the old white regime, and have discovered that there is much money to be made from Capitalist systems, far more than in a Communist society. This, for example, explains the serious rift growing between COSATU and the ANC. The only difference between America and SA is that your economy is far greater, allowing for a modest trickle down effect that saves the trailer trash element there from total starvation, whereas here after the fat cats have skimmed the profits there is precious little left for anybody else. Frankly, I can't see the relevance of SA to the argument, unless, of course, you are a closet Socialist and are merely trying to discredit the entire idea of capitalist systems.
Kender, watch out, your friend might be a mole!
Point number two.
You and your pals indulge in much moral relativism.
As in, "yes we know we suck, but so does that guy!" Sadly, pointing out the fact that the kettle is black does nothing to remove your own soot.
Basically, you ARE ADMITTING that this: "What we are doing in Iraq is not only right, but it is the duty of every freedom loving nation to fight tyranny, terrorism and oppression wherever it tries to take root.." and this: "I believe my country to be engaged in a just cause?" is a LIE, exemplified by the statement "We, like every nation, have always used evil to fight evil. Used surrogates to fight our battles abroad. We supported Saddam in the past against a larger threatfrom Iran.".
Uh, okay, so me and my friends steal from a shop. He takes 2 candy bars, I take one. When the police catch me, I point out that I'm morally superior to my friend, because he stole double of what I did, and thus they ought to let me off the hook. Gee, you think that excuse might work?
"Feel free to discuss them in relative terms to the atrocities being perpetrated every day in your neck of the world. "
This exemplifies your moral relativism perfectly. Their is such a thing as right and wrong, and by pointing to one disaster, it does not have a bearing on the moral value of another. I condemn the "atrocities being perpetrated every day in your [my] neck of the world" strongly. There! Are your own sins white washed? NO.
You think that we ought to forget that you are complicit in Saddam's crimes because he fought a proxy war FOR YOU against Iran? Using "evil to fight evil" makes *your* position morally just? We could go far with that excuse. We could justify the use of force against virtually anybody, so long as we can make the rest of the world believe that they are sufficiently "evil".
(But, when does the "cure" become worse than the affliction?)
So what exactly in your book is *right*?
"Do I believe that victory means a cause is righteous? When it is an American victory, yes."
Oh! How did I guess?
America has ceased to be a country, it has become an abstract moral principle. Its actions in the real world no longer apply to the moral standing it has. As in, "if America supports X, then X is correct". In other words, America can never do any wrong; all excesses are excused because of its enormous moral standing, and if, by any sad turn of events, it fucks up, then the subsequent mess is excused because its *intentions* were noble ... according to America, of course.
Anybody but me see the tautology here? America is right because it says it is right! And, because it is always right, it is right!
Which imbecile would believe that?
Remember what I have already said? "... and finish on the fact that you believe that might is right and how self interest justifies any action perpetrated by the US." (Well, I hate to trumpet the fact that even after pointing out how you are going to make this simple logical error the first thing you go and do is jump in with both feet. Not so clever, huh?)
Another follow on to this: in Iraq, for example, the US has made much of Saddam's evil and his great toll of Iraqi dead. This has been pointed to as a justification for his violent elimination and probable hanging.
OK, I can agree that if his is guilty of what he is accused of, then the consequences are just. But, he will defend himself, of course. He will call the people he killed criminals and radical revolutionaries. They deserved to die, he will say. And, sadly, despite the best intentions of his administration, many innocents were killed along with the fighters. But of course that was all excused in the interests of preserving a united Iraq and in preserving law and order. Now, I don't know about you, but these excuses stink to me. As do his methods. He was a scumbag that deserved the condemnation heaped upon him. Do you agree?
NOW, apply that to the US in Iraq. Go on, drag yourself to the task. Two towns (Fallujah and Najaf) have been levelled to find radicals and resisters. Oppressive laws are passed. Torture is virtually endorsed by your government, and the Geneva Convention dismissed as 'quaint'. Estimates range up to 100 000 deaths over and above the regular rate since the invasion. News is censored and controlled. Civilians are regularly mown down while in search of the rebels. Maximum firepower is the norm. ("No its not!" says one or other sidekick, eager to prove his manliness by spelling 'nuke'. Sit down, tool. You will just prove your stupidity.)
Now, given that YOUR country's methods and YOUR country's justifications for keeping control are for all practical purpouses the same as Saddam's ... do you agree that your current actions are as repugnant as Saddam's were? Do you agree that the US deserves the same kind of condemnation as he did? Or are you going to dig for excuses?
Never fear, it will be option (b) of course, and my arguments are already marshalled for your response. Go for it.
Point Three.
America is indeed trying to control the oil spigots. It has been doing just that for a long, long time, and the Iraqi invasion is just a stepping stone to invading Iran as well.
Afghanistan? While I can understand and even get behind the concept of punishing the Taliban and bin Laden for their actions, the fact is if you Google "trans Afghan pipeline" you will see just what the oil interests of the US are there. As a matter of fact if the evil, horrible, despicable Taliban had been just a little less attached to their Islamic principles, the US would still be cheering them on. For example, in 2001 US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15, 2001) while talking about the pipeline.
Perhaps, of course, you lot are merely ignorant about what your country is doing to protect its 'interests', particularly with respect to the aspect of the US seeking control (your think tank heroes would say 'geostrategic control') over the world's oil supplies.
In which case, a short history lesson might be in order to rectify the lamentable standards of certain individuals' education.
So.
Recent declassification of National Security Council documents show that in 1949, the Truman administration signed directive NSC 26/2 (and later supplemented by a series of additional NSC directives) that called for the demolition by explosives oil refineries, installations and wells, in the case of Soviet expansion to the Middle East. This was without the knowledge or consent of the governments of these Middle Eastern countries. This plan was implemented, and considerable quantities of explosives were duly moved to the region. They considered, but ultimately rejected the use of 'radiological means' as detailed in NSC 26/3, dated June 29, 1950. This was not due to concerns for the wellfare of the Arabs, but more due to the fact that these would hamper later US access to the oil.
(In 1957, the Eisenhower administration reinforced the plan following the Suez crisis, and apparently there is evidence that this plan persisted to the 1960's.) More tangible manifestations of US designs was the 1953 CIA overthrow of the democratic Iranian government by organising a coup in response to the nationalisation of British oil assets in that country. Essentially, the British had controlled the entire production and revenues thereof in Iran. As I have said before, the fact that the CIA also assisted in setting up the brutal SAVAK Iranian secret police further illustrates that geopolitical and economic issues take precedence to 'Democracy' in the USA's foreign policy. In 1956 the USA intervened militarily in Lebanon to protect the TAPLINE pipeline, and to produce a 'politically reliable' leadership, excluding the Socialist politician Kamal Jumblatt.
In 1973, (during the Oil Crisis) through its proxy Iran, the US supported the crushing of Omani dissidents that might have exacerbated the situation. The most direct expression of American intentions of controlling the Middle East was stated in the Carter Doctrine : “any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” A clearer statement of intent than that it is hard to find.
In 1975, a series of articles under different authors appeared in influential publications such as Harper's, proposing the US solve its energy problems by taking over Arabian oilfields and using Texans and Oklahomans to run them. The then US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Akins, criticised these articles as the work of "...either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union." He later found out that the articles had been 'seeded' by his boss, Kissenger. Akins was subsequently fired. In the 1980's Reagan began pressing Arab governments for bases on their territories, and with these bases, he expanded the old Rapid Deployment force into Central Command, and expanded US presence to upward of 40 warships. Since then, the American footprint has only grown larger.
Following the Shah's overthrow in 1979, the USA switched to supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I will not go into details about the nature of this support; suffice to say that the US at the time knew about the atrocities Saddam committed, supplied him with dual use chemicals and toxic bacterial strains for the fight against Iran.
Why did the US not continue supporting Hussein?
Well, the truth has many faces. (a) The threat of Islamic fundamentalism sweeping across the Middle East from Iran had been seen off. (b) Hussein had not moderated his style of government and was becoming more of an embarrasment than an asset to the US. (c) Hussein had demonstrated individual tendencies, where he saw himself as an Arab Saviour, and not a US Stooge. This was clearly against the Carter Doctrine, and continued US foreign policy, as a united Arab Bloc was not something the USA wanted / wants. (d) The invasion of Kuwait, a US client state, clearly moved the US to oppose its wayward son in a more forceful way, and to destroy his military ability to influence events in the MIddle East.
To finish off my assertions that the US operation is all about oil :
Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative strategist, recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time," he said. "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies." Kagan is affiliated with PNAC, and all the neocons that go with it. (Cheney, Perle etc...) Another neocon 'thinker' , Dreyfuss : “To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at anytime. It must also control key resources – chief among them oil – and especially Gulf oil”
I hope that that gives you a little background as to the ... ummm ... oily nature of the US invasion. Again, my point is not only that the US wants to assure an oil flow, it is that control of that oil flow gives the US immense leverage over any country disputing with the US, for whatever reason. In the long run, the advantage of an energy monopoly would be incalculable to the US, as this could be a weapon used against other countries.
I can go on to add that while the US is expending some efforts in order to reduce its oil dependency, we must ask ourself ... why does it then want to control the oil flow? Look east to China, your major competitor, who is vitally dependant on oil to keep growing, as are many other potential rivals. This ties into the ideals espoused in "Rebuilding America's Defences" and earlier documents.
Point Four.
"Here, we require facts. What is the definition of terrorism, Bruno?"
*YOUR* country is the terrorism expert. YOU endorse its policies vis a vis the rest of the globe. Therefore YOU tell me what terrorism is, and how you are justified in combatting it the way you are doing. Then we can discuss cause and effect.
Point Five
I like your flip flop UN stances. They basically demonstrate that unless the UN is acting as your tool, you don't have time for it. On the one hand you feel that it was justified in passing the resolutions against Iraq. The US was happy to hijack the process and squeeze Iraq until it bled, denying it goods it needed for basic services. For example, up to July 5th 2002, the US and Britain blocked the delivery of 5 billion $ of humanitarian goods already approved of by the UN sanctions committee and paid for by Iraq. They included food products, medicines and medical equipment, as well as items vital for water and sanitation, agriculture and education. There are other examples of the US allowing delivery of one part of a water purification system but not the motors to run it ...and so forth.
Then you feel the UN was not doing enough, and thus irrelevent. So you took it into your own hands to invade. But hey, America is always right, right? (The last people to marginalise a world body were your buddies Hitler and Mussolini, remember)
I put it to you that your "interests" constitute what is "right" in the world. If it is against the US's interests, it is wrong. Of course, any moron can see that that is incorrect from a moral perspective. Yet this seems to be the overall tenor of your commentary. Not that I am surprised, of course.
"To defend her sovereign status against those that would strip her of it (i.e, the UN)? "
Hmm. I second your call for fact here, please. Where did the UN ever attempt to strip the US of sovreignty? A lie methinks.
Finally, you asked for evidence of US hypocrisy. What could be more hypocritical to maintain that one's country and system is all about Freedom and Democracy, when you say in the same breath that YOUR country is "superior" and that it does not have to listen to what everybody else thinks?
Smacks a little of a dictatorial flavour, no?
"Guru, I recommend not allowing anonymous posts, it will keep the riff raff away.
Anonymous said
"Big Dick will tell that a leader can lead foolishly,"
As anonymous pointed out, I am a soldier, fighting for idiots to speak their mind is one of the aspects of the job I do not like but tolorate in the name of freedom and democracy"
ohhh, here we go again, stifle dissent, ban the words you don't like to hear, stick your head in the sand and relax. If you haven't noticed, Little Dick, you have contradicted yourself in your statement. Urge a Ban/Fight for idiots to speak their mind.
Hmmm, starting to look like a Turkey Shoot around here as well.
Bruno, they are rednecks, too many words. If they read them all, and understood, I fear their blood pressure would rise too far, a vessel would burst, and there would be no more foolish comments to play with.
Anyway, to keep the party rolling, RG, you wrote:
"I guess the fact that 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq are not having problems meaans nothing. The press wants to concentrate on the negative, as do you."
Lets take a look at the current situation in Iraq and it will show how the exulted leader Bush, has lead foolishly, to a lose-lose situation for the US.
This is a simplified account:
Currently, the US is fighting a war with Sunni insurgents. Primarily Saddam's old gang. Meanwhile, the Shite's are sitting back on their ceasefire agreement actually fiedling members for the election. If the election occurs on Jan. 30th they will win easily. The US has said they will respect the results of the election. What will the Shite's do? Welcome the presence of the US, ummmm, no. Why the theocracy in Iran are their buds. US, loses.
If the elections are not held, the status quo remains, but again, what will the Shites do? Why they'll join the Sunni insurgents against the infidel US. US, loses.
Tell me, please, what scenario that can play out that will yield a US victory?
Bush has, and is leading badly. He is incompetent. It certainly appears as if the Fool is leading the Bllind.
James
I will ignore Anonymous, as he has validated a leftist tendency to insult people he disagrees with.
Bruno,
As per the FBI, terrorism is defined as....
"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".
US Dept of Defense
The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Hope this helps.
Bruno said;
"For example, up to July 5th 2002, the US and Britain blocked the delivery of 5 billion $ of humanitarian goods already approved of by the UN sanctions committee and paid for by Iraq. They included food products, medicines and medical equipment, as well as items vital for water and sanitation, agriculture and education. There are other examples of the US allowing delivery of one part of a water purification system but not the motors to run it ...and so forth."
Could you please supply a referance?
hehehe, I'm sory Mr. Nixon, sir, I was just playing like the CONservative Troll's do on the LIEberal blogs. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words....don't ignore me!
James
Bruno...you summed it up beautifully with this quote:
“any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
See...what you guys don't understand, and if you do can't accept, is that the U.S. government is watching out for U.S. interests. A good government will do that. I believe that is what is pissing off the rest of the world. The fact that most governemnets simply cannot protect their interests anymore. Unless they are in line with OUR interests. Our interests are peace, even through force, and prosperity. If you live in a country that is corrupt and you cannot be prosperous then do something about it or shut up.
By your own description it sounds as if SA is corrupt to teh point that either you are rich or poor. So your power elite 'skims' money off the top and little is left to trickle down? Here in America that gets you sent to jail.
Money doesn't not make the man. The despots you mentioned were thieves for the most part, skimming money while their people suffered.
And as for the WMD question in Iraq...we know he had them because we sold them to him.
Using evil to fight evil is smart. We don't commit evil acts...we let others do that, and when, as RG said, there is one evil left it will be that much easier to eradicate.
Bruno said:
"Again, my point is not only that the US wants to assure an oil flow, it is that control of that oil flow gives the US immense leverage over any country disputing with the US, for whatever reason. In the long run, the advantage of an energy monopoly would be incalculable to the US, as this could be a weapon used against other countries."
And....
"that while the US is expending some efforts in order to reduce its oil dependency, we must ask ourself ... why does it then want to control the oil flow? Look east to China, your major competitor, who is vitally dependant on oil to keep growing, as are many other potential rivals. This ties into the ideals espoused in "Rebuilding America's Defences" and earlier documents."
Good points Bruno, and honestly I do not see a problem with this theory. I would rather a free independent nation assist the locals in controlling/protecting the oil from the gulf states, than allow dictatorial regimes or comunist/socialist nation doing it. I would contend that we are not stealing the oil, on the contrary, we have less now, and it is driving our price of fuel up, but we are PROTECTING it, our national intrests, and as a by product, the interests of all free nations. In addition, we helped free 25million Iraqis from an oppressive regime and have given them the opportunity that they would never have had without our support, the opportunity to self govern. All democratic nations start out feeling pain, growth hurts, but in the long run it will make a better life for everyone in the region.
my, my,
not only am I being ignored, but so is this website.
*yawn*
c'ya
James
No James....don't go!!!! *sob* What will we do with out you?
Oh wait..the same thing we have been doing...being right!
RG? One fool down...3 billion to go!
Bruno said:
"Idi Amin, Hussein, Marcos, the Shah of Iran and your assorted Saudi monarchy must rank very highly in *your* esteem then."
How many billionaires did those countries have? Yeah...that's what I thought.
The Forbes list start in 1986 I believe, and that was far after Amin was in exile....
Hussein made the list valued at 2 billion....and I am sure it ALL came from his legitimate business dealings, as his acumen as a wiley business man is well known...(Ack, I just choked up a sarcasm ball....sorry)...
Marcos..a corrupt politician that turned dictator...he did at least fight muslim rebels before going insane and corrupt and running his country into the ground...
The Shah of Iran...a good puppet of the U.S. and a man that was 'run out of town' by fundamentalist islamic thugs under the direction of Khomeni....
King Fahd of Saudia Arabia.....An 'ally' of the U.S. whose family realizes there good fortune completely depends upon keeping the peace with the U.S...otherwise it would be another islamic country that would be on the U.S. list of unfriendly nations.
As Forbes magazine put it when it created a new catagory of wealthy people, of which King Fahd is on, "They don't exactly represent success stories of entrepreneurail capitalism".
My point on that whole excursion was to show the benefits of living in a free (capatalist) society.
How many billionaires are there in SA?
Two. enough said.
Point #1
SA is not a democratic socialist government. The ANC will eventually own you and everyone else there and run the country right into the ground. Then their communist roots will grow until they have ruined the country completely.
For SA to not be relevant, you spend a lot of time on it as well.
My contention is that where you live lends or diminishes credibility to your argument based on your real world experience living in a free society. Or one like yours.
Size of economy means nothing, and you’d be surprised at what I know of SA, having been watching the situation deteriorate yearly since the great terrorist Nelson Mandela was released from prison.
Point #2
It is very easy to cry moral relativism when you have no moral base at all from which to start your supposition.
So here is where my moral base starts, for your future reference:
America is the best and brightest hope of democracy and freedom the world has ever seen. It is currently mankind’s primary defender of freedom and liberty, and as such must be guarded and protected at all costs. The collapse of the American system of government and law would cause calamity throughout the world on a scale never seen before. Too many around the world depend on her.
Therefore her interests and security must be protected. Until we have other sources for fuel, we have to make sure that the oil market remains free and uncontrolled by those that would use the oil or access to it to cause harm to any freedom loving countries.
And please Bruno, when you quote make sure they are actual things I typed instead of comments from someone else.
Bruno said:
“Uh, okay, so me and my friends steal from a shop. He takes 2 candy bars, I take one. When the police catch me, I point out that I'm morally superior to my friend, because he stole double of what I did, and thus they ought to let me off the hook. Gee, you think that excuse might work? “
Not sure whether you are having some type of flashback or talking to someone else here. This attempt at a metaphor or whatever it was has no bearing to geopolitical events you insist on taking out of historical context. It is a common theme of the left that the only time they believe in nuance is when it suits them. When you say “we could justify the use of force against virtually anybody” I guess you are correct. That’s what makes it all the more important that our way of life and security is preserved. We could, but we don’t. The reason that no one stands against us by means available to the Global community is that they know we are correct. So much of their “outrage” is political posturing.
When does the cure become worse than the affliction? What the hell are you talking about? You make little if any sense when you blurt out things like this.
Bruno said:
“America has ceased to be a country, it has become an abstract moral principle.”
This statement goes to the core of the idiocy that makes up the majority of your attempts at dialogue, or debate or whatever it is. America started out as a concrete moral principle. Those moral principles are well defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
America is right because it was founded on moral principles that are universal. America is right because we are the greatest bastion of freedom and liberty the world has EVER known.
Bruno says:
“America is right because it says it is right! And, because it is always right, it is right! “
Do these types of nonsensical outbursts interfere with your ability to earn a living? Sad.
Where did I “jump in with both feet?” Is it just me or are Bruno and James trying to turn this into some type of Liberal Kindergarten Recess romp?
I said that might didn’t always equal right but it was a deterrent. I sincerely believe that there are 2 things that deter you and James from understanding the truth about America:
1) you don’t read for comprehension
2) You have no sense of “cause and effect”
Bruno says:
“NOW, apply that to the US in Iraq. Go on, drag yourself to the task. Two towns (Fallujah and Najaf) have been levelled to find radicals and resisters. Oppressive laws are passed. Torture is virtually endorsed by your government, and the Geneva Convention dismissed as 'quaint'. Estimates range up to 100 000 deaths over and above the regular rate since the invasion. News is censored and controlled. Civilians are regularly mown down while in search of the rebels. Maximum firepower is the norm. ("No its not!" says one or other sidekick, eager to prove his manliness by spelling 'nuke'. Sit down, tool. You will just prove your stupidity.)”
By attempting to define the parameters of the argument you have attempted to predict the outcome based on my reply. In advance. What’s up with that? Cite the “oppressive laws”. Tell me how they are any different from the laws enacted after Germany was defeated?
Cite where the Geneva conventions have been dismissed as “quaint” (post a link to them if you must, or I can, and show me how your interpretation differs from many legal scholars that have found that we are within compliance.) Really Bruno, you make a lot of claims, but no factual analysis other that what you “believe”.
And stop the name calling. It takes away from what little credibility you have.
Point 3.
Bruno said:
“For example, in 2001 US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15, 2001) while talking about the pipeline.”
No one has ever proven or confirmed that this was said. Really, if you are now quoting things that other people have made up, why are we talking at all?
Addressing my “education”.
What you have shown in all of your diligent research is your high level of ability around cutting and pasting. The problem with this (although I am sure you don’t see it) is that, once again you are trying to hold up points from history with zero historical context. None. So what you prove by this is…nothing.
America, being the most industrialized nation in the world, with the most prosperous population in the world, the worlds best hope for freedom and liberty, America and all that we stand for **will be** preserved. It is guaranteed in our Constitution that the government is charged with protecting the American way of life.
We cannot allow anyone to stop the free flow of oil. Or block our access to it. It is part of every nation's (well every superpower anyway) global defense strategy to be able to secure fuel for their military in the even of attack or threat. All nations have a plan for this. It is why we have the Strategic reserves we have been storing since after Carter nearly ruined the country.
Only idiots could possible think that we “control anything”. If we did, our gas would be damn near free. Your inability to grasp historical perspective and historical context, with little of no understanding of global defense strategies in place by ALL countries in the world (even yours) completely kills your argument.
hehehehe
it is really quite amusing watching you two talk to eac other.
ewww, "Kender said that Bruno said..."
Slimeneckguru said "hey, make sure you quote me as I wrote it..."
kissy kissy
James
Point 4:
Bruno said:
“*YOUR* country is the terrorism expert. YOU endorse its policies vis a vis the rest of the globe. Therefore YOU tell me what terrorism is, and how you are justified in combatting it the way you are doing”
This sounds like a child arguing at school. I can’t even begin to diagram the sentence. “You endorse the policies….etc” what does that even mean Bruno. Gee, you are so tiring.
Point 5.
Bruno says:
“I like your flip flop UN stances. They basically demonstrate that unless the UN is acting as your tool, you don't have time for it.” Uh. How do you get that, no, never mind. The US squeezed Iraq till it bled? Really? Typical liberal crap AGAIN, showing that poor old IRAQ was a victim of the mean old US. Their government had NOTHING to do with it did they, Bruno? Their government was using all of this aid EXACTLY as it was intended and we just arbitrarily withheld it?
Your argument is deranged.
The UN was right to sanction but wrong not to enforce them (remember our little lesson yesterday on the definition of “sanction”?). Everyone here as already said it several times which again points to the whole problem with reading for comprehension.
Bruno said:
“I put it to you that your "interests" constitute what is "right" in the world. If it is against the US's interests, it is wrong. Of course, any moron can see that that is incorrect from a moral perspective. Yet this seems to be the overall tenor of your commentary. Not that I am surprised, of course.”
Again, by defining the intelligence of someone that disagrees with you, you set a “trap” for them. You are good. Well, not really.
Actually, Bruno, any moron should check their premise before holding forth on things they don’t understand. Or you would think they would.
My moral base, which I outlined above, would mean that your statement above is somewhat true. I would change it to read”
“…that your "interests" constitute what is "right" **for** the **people of the** world. If it is against the US's interests, it is wrong”.
Once you have accepted the position of the US as the world’s guiding moral light and best hope for freedom and liberty, you are correct.
Bruno said:
“"To defend her sovereign status against those that would strip her of it (i.e, the UN)? "
Hmm. I second your call for fact here, please. Where did the UN ever attempt to strip the US of sovereignty? A lie methinks.”
Ever hear of the World Court, Bruno?
Here is a good article detailing some of the anti US sentiment in the UN and their members:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/20/40436.shtml
Bruno said:
“Finally, you asked for evidence of US hypocrisy. What could be more hypocritical to maintain that one's country and system is all about Freedom and Democracy, when you say in the same breath that YOUR country is "superior" and that it does not have to listen to what everybody else thinks? “
Countries that are bastions of freedom and democracy are superior Bruno. But since you don’t live in one, how could you know?
Sorry to all that are reading here but I am setting anonymous to off.
Once again someone in Canada is spoiling the fun for everyone.
I see the anonymous post option got turned off....good job james, you got your ex-pat ass exiled.....actually I will miss you. Hearing you whine about your country while living in a socialist country makes me wonder if perhaps your parents didn't run across the border to give birth to you so you would have citizenship in the greatest country in the world. Hey, some mexicans do it, why not the canuks?
Bruno - From a quick read of your comments, I'd venture that you're an offspring of one of the "upperclass" in SA; you made it abundantly clear your "Democracy" hasn't a "middleclass" as we have. And, if you were in the poor class, you obviously would not have a computer. This, perhaps, explains your penchant for mindlessly following your fellow far-left koolaid-drinkers. You know the kind I speak of, don't you? They keep regurgitating the same old, tired rhetoric we hear daily from the same old, tired whiners.
It's been a blast watching RG and Kender taking you, Anonymous, and "James" to the woodshed for a good old fashioned butt kicking.
You attempt to counter everything RG writes, but I have yet to see a strong, logical, reasoned response from you, although it is fun trying to decipher some of your sentences. Parroting your idols, the US-haters, is a waste of everyone's time.
Here's a major fallacy of your assumptions about US goals in oil-producing countries. You believe the US wants to steal the oil in the Mid-East. Yes, our economy depends on an uninterrupted supply of this black gold, and the terrorists will do anything to give us a black eye. President Bush is a man who will defend our interest anywhere, anytime, against anyone threatening those interests. We do not need 17 resolutions before we take action. We will give a warning and then, if not heeded, take care of business. The only reason some foreign governments do not support us is simple. They either have no intestinal fortitude or they were on Saddam's "Coalition of the Bribed".
Now if you care to see why we are in Iraq, click this.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11498606%255E31501,00.html
Hello Grouch.
Hello Bruno.
Hello RG.
Hello Kender.
Goodbye Anonymous.
Thankyou RG.
Now that all the greetings are out of the way, I must ask Grouch to do the same thing I asked Bruno to do. Please don/t hide behind anonymity by not having a blog or not filling out some part of your bio......actually, since this is RG's site I have no right to ask that of either of you so disregard.
Bruno, I hate to side with the others all the time (not really but I want to be polite, I am a conservative after all) but Grouch has a point. You spill rhetoric on the floor and ask as to clean it up. Some of your points are valid, like define terrorism, which I trited to politely do for you. But some of your other ramblings.......can you offer us any proof? Even a liberal website will do.
Hey Grouch, nice to have you.
Grouch said:
"...if you were in the poor class, you obviously would not have a computer."
He's running Windows 98. If that makes him privileged, (and it may), that country is in worse shape than I thought.
Guru --
On South Africa : You ask why I make a meal of this point if I think it is irrelevant. This is somewhat a moot allegation, because you seem to feel that it is highly relevant to the discussion, given your frequent allusions and references to my home country. So, it seems somewhat puzzling that you feel I should ignore a salient point of my opponent's argument. Especially since you go on to make the statement *again* about how my nationality is relevant because I am a product of my country.
Related to this is your statement "My contention is that where you live lends or diminishes credibility to your argument based on your real world experience living in a free society. Or one like yours." Which of course means that because I do not live in a free society (according to you) I cannot make credible arguments on the values of such a society - ie - freedom, democracy etc.
Then you say: "America is right because it was founded on moral principles that are universal." ... which of course refers to the concepts of freedom and equality and all that jazz.
Given that you seem to believe simultaneously that there are universal values that the US embodies that everybody actually understands and yearns for, but ALSO essential national characteristics that preclude people from making arguments on specific subjects (such as the aforementioned universal values / systems) that YOU seem to feel they are not qualified to debate ... how's about you soothe the troubled waters of your mind and decide: do I share these universal values of the US or do I not?
The consequences, of course, being, that if people DON'T share America's values, then that kinda undermines your crusade to spread them, to understate the matter just a tiny bit. If they DO want those same values and systems, then who the hell are you to tell me that I cannot make arguments about the subjects? That is *assuming* your extremely biased view of the society that I live in is correct. (Again, using your own logic against you, how can you decide that SA is not a free society if you have not lived here? "Ah", you say, "I have read and seen enough to make my mind up". Well, the same applies to me when commenting on your 'values'. Do you not see the contradictions apparent in your argument?)
Decide please.
(Oh about the misattributed quote - sorry - you and Nixon seem so alike that I got confused. BUT, you *did* second his evil vs evil comment, so I guess you can be said to agree with that statement anyway)
Okaaay.
“America has ceased to be a country, it has become an abstract moral principle.”
"America started out as a concrete moral principle. Those moral principles are well defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights."
Let's cut to the chase here, OK. I don't know the complete details of your Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, I can see that whatever is in those documents (pretty words I'm sure) is not reflected in the CONDUCT of the United States abroad. What I am saying is: you talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. Quite frankly the rest of the world does not give a fig for your Bill of Rights; what we care about is your *deeds*. The numerous massacres and killings and heavy handed treatment dealt out by the US in Iraq alone flatly deny whatever nice words your founders may have written.
In your feeble attempts to imbue America's actions with righteousness due to some sophistry and fancy espousals of moral superiority you completely ignore the fact that words and deeds are not the same. I wrote : “America is right because it says it is right! And, because it is always right, it is right! “ ... in words simple enough for a child to decipher, yet you still do not understand the essence of what I am saying. Let me, in my great patience, try again.
Here is another tautology for you: "God exists because it says so in the Bible. How can we be sure that the Bible is true? Because God wrote it." Surely even you can understand this.
Now, can you see that you are saying that whatever action the US takes, it is the right thing to do, simply by virtue of it being undertaken by the United States. But how can we be sure that the United States is right?
Oh, yes, because it says so.
You said "Once you have accepted the position of the US as the world’s guiding moral light and best hope for freedom and liberty, you are correct." in regards to my assertion that your interests are a synonym for morality in by virtue of their country of origin. You restated my assertion to state that the US's interests are what is right for the people of the world. This is shifting the meaning such a miniscule amount it was hardly worth your effort. In other words, the US is right because it is acting *for* the interests of the people of the world. But who says that the US is acting on behalf of the people of the world?
*drumroll*
The United States, of course.
Strange that worldwide approval polls of the conduct of the US are at possibly their lowest point ever in the history of your country? (For example over 90% of Egyptians, to name just one country, a so called 'friend' of yours, think you suck. But then again, they live in a dictatorship, so who cares, right?) Remind me again in who's interests the US acts? Or ... is it a case of "father knows best", and we ought to just accept the "superior" country for what it says it is, and watch the grand plan unfold? ("Uh, and what if they are lying", goes the little voice at the back of our minds. "What if the 'only evil' left to defeat in the end is the US itself?")
No thanks.
"“we could justify the use of force against virtually anybody” I guess you are correct ... We could, but we don’t ... The reason that no one stands against us by means available to the Global community is that they know we are correct."
Firstly, you managed to justify the use of force against Iraq by depicting what you did as both an act of self defence ( a blatant lie) and as representing the broader interest of the international community. The latter being in defiance of the laws and wishes of this community. The fact that nobody stands up to you militarily is because they don't want to get squashed, not because they think you are right.
Sorry pal, deeds, not words make up your moral standing, and those deeds are pretty low indeed, as we will be shortly seeing.
The Geneva Conventions.
This little story has been brewing for quite a while.
It started with a request by the Bush administration to John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, on the 9 January 2002 to basically provide legal justification for the use of torture and for circumventing the Geneva Conbvention. This was rationalized by Yoo as being legally correct because no international laws (including the normally observed laws of war) applied to the United States at all because they did not have any status under federal law. Now, I am no legal expert, but this seems to me like saying because Texas never ratified the Geneva Convention, it has no bearing on the behaviour of Texans. Or, for that matter, any member of any state of the USA because their states also did not sign the Convention. All this while conveniently ignoring their subsidiary status to the US proper. Furthermore, the memo illustrates the US hypocrisy that I mentioned earlier:
MSNBC - Double Standards? - 25 May 2004 - Michael Isikoff
"At the same time, and even more striking, according to critics, the memo explicitly proposed a de facto double standard in the war on terror in which the United States would hold others accountable for international laws it said it was not itself obligated to follow.
After concluding that the laws of war did not apply to the conduct of the U.S. military, the memo argued that President Bush could still put Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on trial as war criminals for violating those same laws. While acknowledging that this may seem “at first glance, counter-intuitive,” the memo states this is a product of the president’s constitutional authority “to prosecute the war effectively.”" // end excerpt.
Now, despite some serious opposition from the State Department, the neocons / Bush persisted in their / his attempts to find ways around the Conventions via the White House Legal Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. The following is an excerpt from his 25 January 2002 memo to Bush.
from http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Legal_Arguments_for_Avoiding_the_Jurisdiction_of_the_Geneva_Conventions
'As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,' Gonzales wrote to Bush. 'The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.' Gonzales concluded in stark terms: 'In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.' //end excerpt
When Powell lashed back at Gonzales, a compromise was ironed out : Bush *said* (oh, we all believe HIM, right?) that he would adhere to the GC in February 2002, but that Taliban / Al Qaeda prisoners were exempt.
Fortunately for Bush and Rummy and the rest of that rotten crew, they were able to set up a covert operation (s?) whereby drastic measures would be used in order to coerce prisoners to talk. This involved special forces programs like Copper Green as well as what is termed the "rendering" of prisoners to foreign allied governments who specialise in torture routines. Not to mention the fact that Gen. Miller (if memory serves me) was later shipped down to Abu G to 'gitmo-ize" the operation. Well, we all saw the results of *that* little idea, did we not?
Mmm.
Sure to WHAM with that stunt, eh?
On the Afghanistan Pipeline and OIL story. The "carpet of bombs" quote was made by a Frenchman, Brisault, if I recall, and while yes, I don't have it on 4 channel stereo TV for you, it has been fairly well documented. In any case, historically the US has, as I have already amply demonstrated, been aggressive in protecting / promoting its oil interests. You yourself admit, and more, condone this behaviour. So what is so shocking about it?
(Oh, and as an aside - "Really, if you are now quoting things that other people have made up, why are we talking at all?" is rich seeing that you prefer to make things up yourself, a la "socialist aid stations' Not to mention of course that these *same* standards of proof - ie - the absence of proof of Iraqi NBC weapons being touted as 'proof' that they were there - was used by your country to justify an illegal invasion.)
You said "We cannot allow anyone to stop the free flow of oil. Or block our access to it.It is part of every nation's (well every superpower anyway) global defense strategy to be able to secure fuel for their military in the even of attack or threat."
Well, just there, you have proven my point about your "might makes right" tendencies. Again.
You have proven your blatant hypocrisy by complaining about the awful disregard for private property in South Africa on the one hand, while simultaneously staking a claim of ownership to foreign oil. Newsflash! Middle Eastern oil is not yours and you have no right to it whatsoever, except as an uncoerced, willing, commercial exchange of goods for cash. Your problem is that you know that a bunch of Arabs hold the keys to the economic stability and prosperity of the US, and you can't handle it. Tough break, huh? You chose to go ahead and make your economy reliant on petroleum products, didn't you?
I have made this analogy before, and will make it again. Staking a claim to Middle Eastern oil is like South Africa staking a claim to Silicon Valley, USA, because we are screwed without your software and electronic goods. And then sending a bunch of tanks and troops down to secure our access to these vital commodities. Hmm, do you think Americans would be sympathetic to our cause, given that you are in the same predicament with regards to access to oil in the Middle East? (Because, hey, a war between Liberals and Conservatives might erupt at any moment, endangerering the flow of Microsoft products.)
I predict bombs and bullets. How about you?
Yet you seem to ignore the fact that Arabs are as dependent on oil for income as you are on oil as an economic engine. They cannot play around with refusing to supply the world with oil, because they will be driven to poverty just like you will be damaged by high oil prices. It has been pointed out elsewhere that countries like Japan are even more vulnerable to an oil embargo than the US ... yet strange to relate, they have not put 160 000 troops into the Middle East. Why do *you* still have the urge to, especially after there is not even the threat of an evil communist USSR to threaten imminent takeover of the fields? The only conclusion is that the US wants to use the oil as leverage against future competitors / non compliant states.
"Only idiots could possible think that we “control anything”. If we did, our gas would be damn near free."
Newsflash # 2. You live in a capitalist society. That means big oil companies get to make a fat profit off of oil sales to people like yourself. You didn't really expect some sort of charity, did you? *Somebody* must pay for their jets ...
Finally, the laws I am talking about are amongst others, the shock therapy liquidation of Iraqi assets, for easy and virtually costless purchase by foreign (US) companies so that IF Iraq ever gets up from its knees, it is legally owned by foreigners. I see you do not contest my other claims, though. No denial that the tactics and rationale that you use to control Iraq are virtually the same as those of Saddam?
Now, why is that ...?
Nixon --
OK, a short piece on the sanctions against Iraq. The source for the "goods stopped" comment was John Pilger, who said this:
John Pilger on why we ignored Iraq in the 1990s
4th October 2004
"... the fact that, up to July 2002, more than $5bn worth of humanitarian supplies, which had been approved by the UN sanctions committee and paid for by Iraq, were blocked by George W Bush, with Tony Blair's backing. They included food products, medicines and medical equipment, as well as items vital for water and sanitation, agriculture and education." //end excerpt
This is also relevant to the story:
'Sanctioned genocide: Was 'the price' of disarming Iraq worth it?'
By Rob Kennedy, dpa - Deutsche Presse Agentur - 10 Jun 2003
"Professor Joy Gordon from Fairfield University in Connecticut, spent three years researching the economic sanctions and interviewing U.N. staff involved in Iraq. In a Harper's Magazine story in November 2002, Gordon concluded most resistance holding up vital goods into Iraq came from the United States and the United Kingdom.
U.S. officials routinely claimed "dual-use'' (having both civilian and military applications) items needed to be "held'' and contracts reviewed to ensure the Saddam Hussein regime could not use imports for weapons programmes. Gordon, Halliday, von Sponeck, among numerous others, accused the U.S. of deliberately withholding aid vital to the health and welfare of the Iraqi people.
Last year, for example, the U.S. blocked contracts for water tankers on the grounds that they might be used to haul chemical weapons. Yet the arms experts from the United Nations Special Commission (UNMOVIC) had no objection to the tankers, Gordon reported in the Harper's article. This was at a time when the major cause of child deaths in Iraq was a lack of access to potable water, and when the country was in the middle of a severe drought. "
This must be seen in context with that the US knew full well the results of its policies' results through the sanctions regime. A declassified document from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 1991 - titled "Iraq's Water Treatment Vulnerability'' detailed the consequences of the denial of water purification chemicals and equipment to Iraq. This only compounds the amoral nature of these actions.
Thank you very much for this, btw:
"As per the FBI, terrorism is defined as....
"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"."
You mean like the Shock and Awe campaign? Or the constant accidental killing of journalists that are not 'embedded'? Or the levelling of Fallujah in order to make an example of it?
These of course, are just a few examples.
Hmm. Tricky things, these definitions.
Kender --
I hear you are mumbling about Canada again. Yeah, that country really sucks (you say). It must be the real pits to live there, not to mention kinda sad to actually be Canadian (you believe). After which, of course, this article made me crack up with laughter:
Bush Seeks Canada's Help in Iraq, Mideast -
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer 1dec 2004
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia - President Bush asked Canadians on Wednesday to move beyond their deep opposition to the Iraq war and get behind his vision of democracies blooming from Baghdad to the West Bank. "Sometimes even the closest of friends disagree, and two years ago we disagreed about the course of action in Iraq," Bush said, standing at the side of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
...
Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to send Canadian troops to Iraq, and polls show more than 80 percent of Canadians still support that decision.
...
On the day of the terror attacks against New York and Washington in 2001, some 33,000 passengers on airplanes bound for U.S. airports were diverted to Canadian provinces, including Nova Scotia.
Bush offered a belated thank you, and used the moment to seek a fresh start with Canadians.
"For days after Sept. 11, Canadians came to the aid of men and women and children who were worried and confused and had nowhere to sleep," the president said inside the Port 21 Museum, a historic site that was for decades a gateway for immigration and troop movements. "You opened your homes and your churches to strangers, you brought food, you set up clinics, you arranged for calls to their loved ones, and you asked for nothing in return," the president said.
"Thank you for your kindness to America in an hour of need."
...
A couple of hundred protesters chanted anti-Bush slogans and held signs that read, "PM (Prime Minister) don't make deals with the devil," "Terrorists go home" and "Tanks for nothing." Bush's audience sat mostly in silence as he called on Canadians and other allies to join him in "great goals," each of them relating to terrorism and each long ingrained in Bush policy.
Hmm. I wonder where the Democratic Freedom Loving Canadian Bush Supporters were holding their rally in order to welcome their hero. Damn liberal media never reported it, huh? ("I betcha there were *millions*" thinks Kender)
Guru --
PS-
I did indeed read that link you posted. Man, that was quite the mindfuck, to believe that the US, which has 820 + military installations over the globe - is in imminent danger of being done in by the evil Communists of the defunct and ailing USSR countries. I don't know whether to laugh at or be scared by the ignorance of those that take seriously the idea that the US is in mortal danger from a few commy remnants.
OH, AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT BY THE UN WHATSOEVER IN THAT ARTICLE TO TRY AND STRIP THE US OF ITS SOVREIGNTY.
The best one can say is that the world body is not a US cheerleader. But, big deal if you have the nukes, right?
Please, stick to your own arguments if you are going to cite garbage like that to me. Redneck you may be, but you still make more sense than THAT drivel.
Bruno said:
"What I am saying is: you talk the talk but you don't walk the walk." Actually we are the only nation that does what we say we will do, an example of the opposite is the UN, they say they will do bad things to bad nations, but they never do.
Bruno said;
"Quite frankly the rest of the world does not give a fig for your Bill of Rights"
Actually our constitution and Bill of rights is one of the most copied on earth. Look at all the new constitutions written by emerging democracies in the last 50 years and they emulate ours.
Bruno said;
"what we care about is your *deeds*. The numerous massacres and killings and heavy handed treatment dealt out by the US in Iraq alone flatly deny whatever nice words your founders may have written."
Please give examples. Then I will send you videos of Iraqis beheading civilian aid workers.
Bruno said;
"Now, can you see that you are saying that whatever action the US takes, it is the right thing to do, simply by virtue of it being undertaken by the United States. But how can we be sure that the United States is right?"
We may not always be right, but we have the best intrests of our nation, and indeed the free world in mind when we act.....and at least we act.
Did your mom ever spank you for something you did not do? Does that make her evil? Or did you do enough other things that her conclussion you were wrong could have been correct?
Bruno said;
"But who says that the US is acting on behalf of the people of the world?"
Unfortunately for you based upon your political stance....we do. As stated before, who else is trying to right the wrongs of the world? Did SA act in Rwanda? No, and neither did we, much to the regret of many dead tutu's. Did SA act in Somalia? No, we did, and payed for it. Did Europe act to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? Not until we did, and that was to save muslims. All these acts were in a part of the world where other nations could have, should have reacted, but did not, we did. Even the UN is powerless with out us.
Bruno said;
"Strange that worldwide approval polls of the conduct of the US are at possibly their lowest point ever in the history of your country"
Fortunately we do not listen to the rest of the world, or there would be several tyrannical regimes oppressing their own people, and genocide taking place in Europe. I think world opinion is low out of a sense of jealous remorse that they did not act. Also the fact that the pockets of several nations were being lined by corrupt money lend to the reason some in the world did not act.
Bruno said;
"The latter being in defiance of the laws and wishes of this community."
Actually we were fullfilling the requirement spelled out after 17 UN resolutions that the UN would not, (since Kofi's boy was getting rich off the misery of the Iraqi people).
Bruno....yes, Bush is asking for the Canadians support...perhaps he is giving them a second chance to do the right thing. They won't, as canada is s socialist country and dislikes our economic freedom as much amost of the other socialists countries. Why do you think that alot of canadian doctors practice in the U.S.? Because they can get paid commiserate with their skills and don't have to work for a government with a salary cap. I don't believe there were any Bush supporters in canada, demonstrating or otherwise, as I really don't think they exist up there.
Now onto the blatant B.S. about the 'carpet of gold' comments. you do know what 'B.S.' is don't you? I only ask since the term 'ADD' escaped you.
I was going to cut and paste alot of stuff for this argument, however I will simply post links to save space and also let you decide what you deem relevant.
This link shows, through alot of research on the part of the author, exactly why that "quote" is so suspect to as not even merit mentioning in true debates.
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/carpet.htm
However, to give a counter point so you will feel good living in the world you live in:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.17A.Oil.Taliban.htm
But the first link has already shredded the second links lies.
You can stop with the quotes that can be so readily dismissed. After all, if a caveman like me can find thuthful rebuttals so quickly imagine what a shredding you would get at the hands of RG, Nixon, and as you will soon see, The Grouch.
Oh wait, you have already seen, and felt, that shredding haven't you?
Bruno says:
"Now, can you see that you are saying that whatever action the US takes, it is the right thing to do, simply by virtue of it being undertaken by the United States. But how can we be sure that the United States is right?"
Bruno, what is your purpose here? WE can be sure that the US is right because of the the documents that it was founded on and goverened by.
Does the US make mistakes? Yes. Is their malice of forethought behind these mistakes? No, not as a rule. Exceptions to the rule (abu Gahrib or however it is spelled) are dealt with accordingly.
How can I be sure the US is right? AS a student of history AND a citizen of this great country I am able to contextually experience both the intent and actions of a government charged with defending the last hope for freedom and democracy on the globe.
You will not change my views on this. Its not that they aren't changeable, I encourage people to try. Its just that changing my views is something that is beyond your ability to accomplish. You do not have access to the nformation needed to accomplish this and as this has been going on for quite awhile, I would hope you would quite wasting your time.
If you put half the effort into posting criticism of your country, you might stand a chance at affecting some change. Or they would kill you.
Bruno says:
"But who says that the US is acting on behalf of the people of the world?"
Maybe not all people of the world. Its obvious we aren't acting on your behalf. Which should only be one step closer to proving that we are right.
Quting worldwide opinion poles is a laughable excercise if I have ever seen one. If we cared what the rest of the world thought, our economy would be in shambles, our people would be poor, and we would be paying taxes to the UN. Egypt? They don't like us? REALLY? Their government does. They understand the geopolotical implications of allying themselves with a non malicious superpower. Plus if your getting your poll results from the same types of polls that said Kerry would win, I'd triple check my sources in the future.
I am beginning to dislike having my views that oppose yours labled as LIES. It is a childish schoolyard tactic that may work in most liberal dicussions but not here.
When the "broader interest" of the International Community is aligned with freedom and democracy, we will support them. When it is not, we will not. If other countrys disagree with us so strongly they don't have to face us militarily. there are sanctions, there are tariffs, there are many ways to "punish" us. They don't do it because they know they need us more than we need them.
Bruno said:
"The latter being in defiance of the laws and wishes of this community"
So you speak for the international community now? Somehow I thought they could have done better.
(the above quote is your view, just like what I post, unless otherwise attributed is mine. )
Again, what are you trying to accomplish here Bruno, other than illustrating just how much spare time you have on your hands?
Geneva conventions:
While your "research" only points to internal memos and anecdotal recollections of debate in the US government over what was applicable to the GC and what did not, let me point you to this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm260.cfm
Which details actual infractions and the area of the Geneva convention voiolated by the Iraqi army.
Now. When civilians (we call them terrorists here) take up arms and attack the US, behead women and amen of differing nationalities, and kidnap and kill other workers in their country, they are known as enemy combatants. Not covered under the GC.
Now as I have a fairly successful career here to work, I haven't read all of the geneva conventions nor do I care to. Show me where the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists.
And what does WHAM have to do with this? They haven't released an album in years. If your a fan, keep it to yourself. :-)
On South Africa.
Bruno said:
"...essential national characteristics that preclude people from making arguments on specific subjects."
I never said that at all. Comprehension Bruno. Big word, easy concept.
I said it lends to or takes away from your credibility. It doesn't preclude you from discussing your perception of it ( as distorted as it is since you can only see it from the outside looking in.)
I have no troubled waters in my mind Bruno. I am a happy American, blessed to be living in this country.
I don't think you share the same values of our country. Values are acquired and a direct result of your upbringing, your environment and your education. Take all of that an mix in some life experience and you form your values. If you value your station in life, good for you. I just know that America has more to offer.
Bruno said this without thinking:
"The consequences, of course, being, that if people DON'T share America's values, then that kinda undermines your crusade to spread them, to understate the matter just a tiny bit."
That would be like telling missionaries that there is no need to go visit a village of cannibals because the cannibals don't share their value. The people that DON'T share our values are PRECISELY the people we need to be spreading them to. My goodness, Bruno, is there lead in your water there or what?
I NEVER said you couldn't make arguments. I am not the one making you a victim, it is you that are painting yourself as one. Which was to be expected.
Bruno said:
"That is *assuming* your extremely biased view of the society that I live in is correct."
SA:
In 10 years 1+ million South Africans, mostly blacks, lost their jobs due to the ANC's creeping socialism.
Unemployment is at a staggering 45%+ - much worse than under white rule & worse than the 30% unemployment in the USA during the Great Depression
1 million whites stand to lose their jobs in the coming years to Affirmative Action
1,650+ White commercial farmers were murdered & the food production is being threatened by "Land Reform"
There are farms in South Africa, which were prosperous when run by whites, which were handed over to blacks. These farms then collapsed after 2+ years of black management and are now derelict
SA is the rape capital of the world, currently estimated at 50000 rapes per year.
21,500 children were raped in 2000
40% of rape survivors are under 18...
1,231 children under 5 were raped in 13 months by blacks believing in AIDS myths. Many babies who are raped die...
SA is now an international drug-smuggling route, comparable to Colombia...
150-200 Police are shot dead annually by violent criminals...
SA Police have the highest suicide rate in the world...
More blacks are in our prisons after Apartheid than before.
GDP growth is estimated at 1.3% per annum which compares weakly with growth rates under white rule.
In the Johannesburg (Gauteng) area, 80% of self-help schemes for blacks have failed since 1994.
I am not biased. I am a witness to the destruction of a once vibrant and successful country (whether SA was ever pro US or not).
I see no contradictions in my argument.
Bruno said;
"U.S. officials routinely claimed "dual-use'' (having both civilian and military applications) items needed to be "held'' and contracts reviewed to ensure the Saddam Hussein regime could not use imports for weapons programmes. Gordon, Halliday, von Sponeck, among numerous others, accused the U.S. of deliberately withholding aid vital to the health and welfare of the Iraqi people."
We don't know yet if the money was going to weapons, but given the fraud of the oil for food deal, we are almost assured that some of the money was used to pay palestinians to blow themselves up in Israel, and is probably being used now to fund the insurgency.
Bruno said;
"You mean like the Shock and Awe campaign? Or the constant accidental killing of journalists that are not 'embedded'? Or the levelling of Fallujah in order to make an example of it?"
If it were real shock and awe it would not have been in the news...ever heard of psychological warefare?
Reporters are embedded so as to keep them in a safe area, if your not embedded then your on your own...war is hell.
Fallujah was warned, in fact it was so well publicized that a good few of the terrorist probably escaped. Poor tactics I say, but who am I? Just a soldier.
As for "Bush Seeks Canada's Help in Iraq, Mideast "
I am glad Bush is the President and not me, even from a position of power he still offers up olive branches to those I would not neccesarily offer them to. Canada did support us on 9/11 and they have a new PM who is much more on our side than the last one. That is why Bush offered up the olive branch.
And...."A couple of hundred protesters chanted anti-Bush slogans and held signs"
This is a right of any free nation, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.
More...." [The US] is in imminent danger of being done in by the evil Communists of the defunct and ailing USSR countries."
Actually this is wise. Do you wait until your yard is full of anthills before you exterminate them? Or do you eradicate those that you see immediatly?
(Please forgive my ignorance of the ant population in SA, it may not be a problem, if not, switch to rats, frogs, locust, spiders, or whatever is a pain in the butt for yard maintenance)
On Afghanstan Pipeline and OIL.
"Well, just there, you have proven my point about your "might makes right" tendencies. Again." You aren't real good at this whole "discussion" concept are you?
You never proved it the first time. My commnet was on global defense strategies of the worlds superpowers.
Never staked a claim of ownership of foreign oil. I staked a claim for the free market access to it.
Bruno said:
"...you have no right to it whatsoever, except as an uncoerced, willing, commercial exchange of goods for cash"
EXACTLY. Could it be that you are finally getting it, or was this astatement by you an accident? We protect that commercial exchange of goods from the exploitation by those that would use to to harm Industrialized nations on which the world economy depends.
Don't take this personally but your Anaologys are nonsensical. Really. You should work on them.
Bruno said:
"Yet you seem to ignore the fact that Arabs are as dependent on oil for income as you are on oil as an economic engine. They cannot play around with refusing to supply the world with oil, because they will be driven to poverty just like you will be damaged by high oil prices"
No. Just when I think it is impossible for you to be more wrong, there you go again (to paraphrase from one of the greates world leaders in history).
Without our protection and alliances the oil fields would be held hostage by every retarded Arab with a rocket launcher (and we KNOW how many of those are out there). The Arab business' and sheiks that own the oil know this.
And Russia has its own oil. Other countries don't have over 100,000 troops in teh reason because they didn't hve a jihad decalred against them and a history of terroist attacks against their interests. But you knoew that.
Bruno said:
"Newsflash # 2. You live in a capitalist society. That means big oil companies get to make a fat profit off of oil sales to people like yourself. You didn't really expect some sort of charity, did you? *Somebody* must pay for their jets ..."
Earth to Bruno, earth to Bruno...wake up please.
So if our oil compamies were getting all of their oil for free, it would be REAL easy for several hundred thousand employees to keep that a secret? Deranged.
Bruno said:
"No denial that the tactics and rationale that you use to control Iraq are virtually the same as those of Saddam?"
Okay. I deny it. You don;t answer any of MY question iether but thats okay, I already know the answers. We don't "control" Iraq. We are there finishing up cleaning out the fanatical terrorists, many of which (now hold onto your pants here Bruno) AREN'T IRAQI! They are Arab fighters coming in from Syria and Iran. (and France, but thats a different story)
So you say we control IRAQ, I say we are defending it. you live in a socialist state run by criminals, I live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Isn't diversity great?
Now really Bruno, unless you can offer some intelligent discussion and alternatives to banter around, comment on something else. We may eventually find something you are knowledgeable on.
This post has been removed by the author.
That's funny, I can even take it back if I like :P
I see you boys are still playing with yourselves here, aside from Bruno giving some diversion from your solitude and the addition of Slouch.
Poor Slimeyneck in a foo foo has to work for a living. So much for my illusion that he was 'prosperous'. hehehe j/k dudes ;)
Here is something else for you to chew on.
Kender wrote (elsewhere):
"How is America not superior? On moral grounds perhaps? The system in this country is the best in the world. People flood our country for education and opportunities they would never get in their own country. If we didn't have a better system that promoted a better life then why would they do that? I defy you to show me a better system."
A better system is a parliamentary system. In fact, it is this style of system that the Bush adminstration is trying to install in Iraq.
Kender, this notion that the US system is the best system in the world is a peculiar american conceit. If you look at your system of government you can see that it has a whole host of problems ranging from the conflict between States rights and Federal rights, a system of checks and balances which virtually leave the government deadlocked. Take a look at your budget process, and the absurd line items that get tacked onto various bills. It is quite comical really.
Now take a look at your electoral college, which can yield a president that can 'win' without wining the popular vote. A voting system rife with problems requiring the courts to step in because of problems counting votes.
Also note, how a sitting president can not propose laws, he can only sign them in, or veto them.
The US also tells its children that anyone can grow up to become president. The reality is quite different. You have to make it through the various party mechanisms to get a chance to run. There are really only two parties in the country so the options are limited (to put it mildly).
Which brings us to the role of money in US politics. It requires a HUGE amount of money to mount a bid for the presidency, which leaves any contender beholden to those who have that kind of money. Is it mere coincidence that 2 Bush's have been president and 'families' (ummm Kennedy for example) seem to dominate political life?
Look at the disparity between rich and poor in your country, and the absence of health care for so many. It is really quite astonishing that Amercians sustain this level of conceit on how superior their system is...I guess that is called Patriotism. Kind of like faith, you believe despite the evidence.
You mention many want to come to the US, true. They also want to go to many other countries as well. Canada is a nation of immigrants, as is Austrailia. Britain, France and Germany also have high immigration demand. The list is long.
There is much that is good about the US, but there is much that is not good. The good ole American Dream of prosperity is just that for many in the world, including Americans, and they will do much to seek it. Attaining the 'dream' can be a different story. Look at your cities, with their decrepit downtown cores, the crime rate and your 'gated communities', and the corruption within the business elite, and tell us why you think the American system is better than all others, one which requires the rest of the world to bow before the awsome superiority of the US system of government.
Kender, methinks you should stop and make a pledge to your flag, for which it stands, and don't forget to say that line 'under god' whilst it is still legal to do so ;) The american system of government is the best in the world - hahahahaha hehehehehe BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
------------------------------
Dang, those trolls are hard to escape ;)
Mr. Nixon, SIR!
This from one of your brethren:
"A Sergeant Speaks The Hard Truth
Why We Cannot Win
by Sgt. Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.
Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq."
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Special%20Reports.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=312&rnd=782.9430511976432
I cannot believe that I am going to say this but.....
Bruno is an intellectual compared to you James. You finally sign up, if only to comment on blogs that block anonymity, and when you jump back in you start off with namecalling? Even my five year old son realizes it is wrong to go play at someones house and call them names.
You are so childish when you are being slaughtered.
I am pretty sure that RG will take you to task for it, and I know that The Grouch will.
We do have a great system. however I wasn't talking about our political system. By the way we don't have a democracy. The founding fathers didn't like democracies. We have a Constitutional Republic. I was talking about our system of CAPITALISM.
You said look at our cities with their decrepit downtown cores, their crime rate and their gated communities. A funny thing about those cities. They are FULL of Democrats. The whiny left. The business people don't live there. They live in large houses in the suburbs. Or in better neighborhoods, where their higher taxes due to property that costs more pays for more police protection and seperates them somewhat from the lazy criminal element. Capitalism works. It is as plain and simple as that. IN a socialist society there is little incentive to work hard and sacrifice by saving and investing as the government is just going to steal your money and hand it out to those that are lazier, or more stupid than you are.
I don't believe that I have ever said others should 'bow down before the awesome superiority of the U.S. system of government', but take off teh government part and I think that the American system of capitalism is great.
Here is something from another post I wrote that illustrates your comment "Attaining the 'dream' can be a different story"
"I left home at 16 due to a step-father that was rather free with the discipline. At the time, it seemed draconian as all I wanted to do was hang with friends and listen to music, whereas he wanted me to go to school. I had given up on school in the 8th grade because I had major health problems and the military said they couldn't take me. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. That takes several things, including great eyesight, no problem there, high intelligence, no problem there either, (I was full on honors until the military wouldn't take me, and on my way to scholarships, and was working at the local airport washing planes and anything else so I could get in flight school and have a pilots license by the time I graduated college) and it also takes perfect health, which I don't have. When I left home, sans high school diploma, everybody was certain I was doomed. I worked hard, learning my newly chosen business (racehorses) and spent 14 years on the road, traveling from track to track, mostly in horse vans, working at everything I could and learning everything about the business. It is 20 years later, and rarely am I not working for at least three people just training horses, in fact I have to trun people down due to time constraints. I also have fallen into the movie business, behind the scenes, and in just over one year of doing that have worked on 4 projects, with 2 more ongoing and fast approaching "shooting", as my friends in the business say.
In between all this work I find time to be the President of the PTA at my sons' school, working on raising funds and planning field trips. He is in a small private school and money is tight there so this also is a time consuming process. I also hold at least 4 small charity concerts a year, where I recruit the musicians and work out all the logistics myself, just to make certain that charities I care about have some money rolling in.
For many years I had very hard times, sometimes having just enough to eat. I couldn't even afford a car until I was 22, and that was a beater that barely made it anywhere. If I hit hard times again I will just pick up and chanrge back into the fray, knowing that I will come out onn top, as I am NOT prone to sit there and whine. Did I mention that in between all of this I have a scottish guild that performs at renaissance faires, and I have kept all of this in the air while being on dialysis and undergoing two kidney transplants?
If ever someone had a right to sit down and cry don't you think that would be me? No, I don't sit down and cry. I keep standing, and working for a better life.
My wife also started working at 16...married at 17 to an Air Force fellow, divorced at 23...she has held up to three jobs at once, walking to all three when her POS car wouldn't work. She started in the field she is in now as a receptionist, learning on the job and working her way up by telling her bosses that she could do the next job up the ladder, and daring them to give her a try. She has never been fired or demoted. The only place she has left to move up to in her company is already in her sights, and she has warned the person that holds that position that she will have it. I don't doubt she will.
And yes, she did make 340,000 last year, and has already passed 450,000 this year. However due to a great financial advisor the government is getting a smaller share this year than last year, and we are wealthier than ever."
And if the disparity of rich and poor is so great, why did the day after thanksgiving post an 8 BILLION spent?
Stop being a troll and post something more conducive to debate.
Kender,
I am sorry for your problems with your health and I am impressed with you and your wife's work ethic. Life certainly is easier when money is plentiful. I too, am thankful for having a working wife. Though, that is not really the traditional redneck way, is it?
Your health problems are they your fault? Too much booze? If, for whatever reason, you could not pay for your dialysis, should you not receive it? Should you be left to die for want of a few bucks?
Everything I have heard about life on dialysis is not good, itching, discomfirt, hours hooked to a machine. Again, you have my sympathy. I would not wish that even upon my enemy.
Name calling, gosh, that is usually so right wing. I mean, on those other blogs usually tis the right with the name slinging. Here, like in the schoolyard, I do it for the response. Methinks y'all too sensitive, especially if size of your member is concerned ;)
Trolling...I'm still learning that term. What is it really? Just busting in and name calling? Actually posting, but counter to the Blogs point of view?
I just gave you two posts, with real content. You said American system great, I said no, and I said why. Tell me why it is great. Capitalism exists throughout the world, hardly unique to America.
I also re-posted an American Soldier's view that the war is unwinnable, whom cites many of the same reasons I do. But, I, an American, in Canada, have no credibility here simply because I am in Canada. So, Mr. Nixon SIR, and you other two, there is the view of a Patriot, capable of fighting for his country, saying 'you are being duped by the Bush admin, the war is unwinnable, and here is why...'.
These post have meat, and I am looking for your opinions.
James
Well it was nice while it lasted. Any way its nice to know some things never change..."I see you boys are still playing with yourselves here, aside from Bruno giving some diversion from your solitude and the addition of Slouch.
Poor Slimeyneck in a foo foo has to work for a living."
James said; "If you look at your system of government you can see that it has a whole host of problems ranging from the conflict between States rights and Federal rights, a system of checks and balances which virtually leave the government deadlocked."
A system of check and balances that make it so the executive can not have immunity from crimes (France), cannot appoint governors instead of electing them (Russia), cannot take over the media and censor political rivals (russia). I do agree about the budget process being inflated by pork. (finally, we agree on something)
And;...."Now take a look at your electoral college, which can yield a president that can 'win' without wining the popular vote."
A deliberate step taken by the founders to ensure there would not be a majority, or mob rule, we are a republic, not a pure democracy.
And;...."The US also tells its children that anyone can grow up to become president. The reality is quite different. You have to make it through the various party mechanisms to get a chance to run."
Well we have 2 governors born in different countries, as well as a cabinet member born in Cuba. Nixon was born to a poor working class family, as was Clinton if I am not mistaken. Unsure about Carter, but Reagan was born into a poor family and worked his way up to. It can be done.
And;..."Is it mere coincidence that 2 Bush's have been president and 'families' (ummm Kennedy for example) seem to dominate political life?"
You forgot that 2 Adams were president too. And these folks have power because they are elected not because they are rich.
And;... "Look at the disparity between rich and poor in your country, and the absence of health care for so many. "
The rich in our country are mostly self made millionaires. That in and of itself shows what a great system we have. Canada has many less rich..... confiscatory tax laws perhaps?
Health care is not a right.
And;...."You mention many want to come to the US, true. They also want to go to many other countries as well. Canada is a nation of immigrants, as is Austrailia. Britain, France and Germany"
Yes but look at the #'s, we still have many more than all of them combined. And you note the similarities between all the countries you named? Some form of democratic government with a capitalist background.
And;..."Look at your cities, with their decrepit downtown cores, the crime rate and your 'gated communities', and the corruption within the business elite,"
You lost me...what do inner cities have to do with the government? I have travelled all over this world and seen decrepit part of many cities. Our crime rate is not any worse than most countries, in fact Scotland has a higher per capita violent crime rate than the US (I was born there and this stat does not make me proud of my Scottish roots) and they aren't even allowed to own guns. There is some form of corruption in every countries business, we just catch and try ours.
Lastly; (thank God!) Lets address this article. Watch the news (FOX), they often have soldiers returning from Iraq complaining about the poor shake the news gives what is happening over there, it is not as bad as the liberal media make it out to be.
This fellow is confused on one issue and correct on another. Confused on what to call it. A guerilla war is fought by an organized band of fighters with an auxiliary to supply them with rides, food, etc..and an underground to provide them with intelligence, means of communication, and perform acts of sabatage. Now if I were to write this again with the word terrorist instead of guerilla it would still be accurate. How do I know this? I am an instructor at the Special Forces Course teaching guerilla warfare in an exercise called Robin Sage. (google it)
Now on to the next part. Regardless of what he says I think he is just upset to be away from home for along time and away from a potentially high wage job. He is in Civil Affairs, his job is to WIN THE HEARTS AND MIND OF THE POPULATION! So I think he should quit bitching and start working. Yo uknow build a school, get the power on, all the things the Marines are doing in Fallujah right now.
His comment on the unconstitutionality of the war speaks volumes for his political beliefs and mindset which I have already discussed. Congress can declare war, and in this case they voted to give the president the authority to act, thusly it is constitutional.
He is correct about the goal being to disolve the terrorists base of support, and I agree that conventional forces are not the best suited for this task, Special Forces (SF) are, look how easily so few men were able to accomplish so much in Afghanistan, and even amongst the Kurds in the north.
Guru --
On the US Moral Standing
Quite frankly, you seem completely unable to grasp the salient point of my argument, which is really very basic to understand. Let us try again.
"WE can be sure that the US is right because of the the documents that it was founded on and goverened by."
You are merely confirming my arguments for me. YOU say your country is morally superior and 'right' because of the wonderful documents that are enshrined in your Bill of Rights and Constitution. Naturally, the mind blowing idea that perhaps the US's conduct *abroad* does not in any way reflect those ideals has never occurred to you.. The niggling suspicion that perhaps one is able to say one thing and do exactly the opposite obviously has never surfaced in the logical processes of your mind. What *I* cannot understand is how you do not grasp such an easy concept.
A simple analogy, yet again, for those who do not understand: I tell you I'm a nice guy. Then I punch you on the nose. You tell me "Hey, but that's not nice! You are not a nice guy!" I respond by saying "No, of course I am nice. I just *told* you so, didn't I? " Makes sense? Of course not.
Now, that is precisely what the US is doing. Talking the talk but not walking the walk.
Talking Democracy, freedom and suchlike, but practising something quite different.
Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Pakistan are just a few, off the top of my head, just a few countries that the US is so eager to prop up and support that are neither democratic nor free. Your arguments feverishly undermine each other constantly. On the one hand you say you are the bastion of freedom. On the other you endorse the Egyptian dictatorship with this:
"Egypt? They don't like us? REALLY? Their government does. They understand the geopolotical implications of allying themselves with a non malicious superpower."
Their 'government' is a dictatorship. If the Egyptians had the vote and freedoms that YOU enjoy, there would be a US hostile democracy in that country. So ... better a friendly dictator, right? Your hypocrisy is frankly shocking, given that you seem to believe the United States is all about liberating the oppressed. What a joke. Decide: do you prefer a hostile democracy or a friendly dictator? I can with great confidence tell you that the US has virtually always chosen the latter.
Which in itself, of course, completely undermines the 'logic' (heh) of democratic / free countries being natural allies of the US because they share the same values ... otherwise why would the US be so keen to keep dicks like Mubarak in power?
Sooo ... I do see that you have made another key blunder in your arguments ...
"Me : "The consequences, of course, being, that if people DON'T share America's values, then that kinda undermines your crusade to spread them, to understate the matter just a tiny bit."
You : That would be like telling missionaries that there is no need to go visit a village of cannibals because the cannibals don't share their value. The people that DON'T share our values are PRECISELY the people we need to be spreading them to."
coupled with
""America is right because it was founded on moral principles that are universal.""
So basically these moral principles are not universal. Is that what you are saying? By declaring your own morals / values superior, you automatically give yourself the right to barge in and take over, on the premise that these 'other' people need to be enlightened as to just what your 'universal' principles are. The principles that in theory they 'universally' ought to share. Wow, the contradictions are coming fast and furious today. Tell me O wise one, does this not smack just a little of the "white man's burden" syndrome? If these values are universal, then why is the US so reviled lately, if everybody shares your um, 'values'?
Oh, alright, I understand. You are saying that even if the majority of the people of the world DO NOT share your values, then they are just clueless idiots that need to be converted to the ONE TRUE WAY, right? (And, Bruno whispers as an aside, who has decided that the Americans are right - themselves of course ...)
What you are actually advocating is an ideological war, in order to convert the clueless lost societies out there to bastions of freedom and democracy. Sort of what the Commies did in trying to dismantle the evils of capitalism (and yes there are some definite evils in this system) and to export their system to the rest of us. Except for that this ideological crusade that your country *says* it is embarking on is not an honest one, is it? It is in fact a lie, isn't it? Because in fact your country's interests take precedence over the freedom of any given nation, is this not true?
Thus, how can you stand here and argue in good faith to me that America is a bastion of freedom - when it promotes 'regime change' (freedom) only if it is in its own interests? This ideology is false. This Iraqi debacle is a prime example. A prime example of "white man's burden" type excuses being used in order to take over a country.
AND let me point out that IF these values are indeed admired and emulated, then the unpopularity of the US is indicative of your conduct being contrary to your own principles. I myself share many values that the United States espouses it stands for. You should ask yourself: why am *I* anti-US? Then you will start to get answers.
On the Geneva Conventions
So what you are actually saying is that the Bush Administration ordered Yoo, Gonzales and so forth to essentially find ways to justify torture and the ignoring of the GC, for what, an intellectual exercise?? If they were merely exploring theoretical ideas, then why did Powell fly into such a rage about it? Why did the black ops programs get expanded to other countries and prisoners 'rendered' to torture friendly regimes? Funny that such an aberration like Abu Ghraib should occur, when ideas like this are floating about, isn't it? And is it not wierd that nobody of high rank has been prosecuted, when in fact the trail leads directly back to Rumsfeld and Cambone? Your explanations are not what one would describe with the epithet 'convincing'.
Alright, let us assume for the purpouse of argument I agree with all the statements made by the (biased, FYI) Heritage Foundation. Let us decide that on the basis of these Iraqi violations, that the US would no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. (Forget about all the Bush "I can disregard the GC" plans.) What you are actually saying is: we are on the same moral level as Saddam and his men. As low as his standards sink, so will ours. Is this not just a little incompatible with your touted moral superiority? Does this not smash to pieces your other argument that you are bringing moral values to savages, if you yourself are no better than them? You said the US is "superior". Now, you are prepared to settle for "at least as good as Saddam"
How does that work?
On Argumentation --
You are the one with the weak arguments.
You attack my polls without providing a counter example. You further more ignore the fact that it is not one or two percent difference between a favourable or unfavourable result for the US as in your elections, but figures like 60 % unfavourable view vs 20% favourable and the like. Please, save yourself future embarrasment and actually, um, research statements that you intend on making. Like this:
Washingtonpost.com
Opinion of U.S. Abroad Is Falling, Survey Finds - By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 17, 2004;
"At the same time, views of Bush were strikingly low in Europe and the Muslim countries. Only 14 percent of Germans, 15 percent of the French, 28 percent of Russians and 7 percent of Pakistanis viewed Bush favorably. Britons, 39 percent of whom viewed Bush favorably, had the most enthusiastic view among foreigners. The opinions represented a dramatic reversal from 1991, when 75 percent of Germans and 72 percent of Russians had a favorable view of President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father.
Views of the United States were somewhat higher, although Britain was the only country where a majority had a favorable impression. In 2002, Russia, Germany and France had majorities supportive of the United States.
Americans themselves continued to be viewed favorably by Britain, France, Germany and Russia but not the Muslim countries." // end excerpt
Another weak argument:
"Don't take this personally but your Anaologys are nonsensical.
Really. You should work on them."
Without of course pointing out to me *why* they are nonsensical. Uh OK, you suck. I have just made a statement on the intellectual par of that which you have stated above.
Another weak argument:
"I am beginning to dislike having my views that oppose yours labled as LIES. It is a childish schoolyard tactic that may work in most liberal dicussions but not here."
Which particular lie are you referring to? Examples please.
I like the way you get upset at these allegations of mine, yet use words like childish to dismiss my arguments. What I do if somebody calls me a liar is to (a) ask for specifics (b) explain to them exactly why my argument is not a lie, and if necessary provide factual support or (c) if it turns out I was wrong, I swallow it like a man and apologise. And kick myself for not doing my research properly. You on the other hand? "It's childish!"
Mmmh. I'm not impressed.
n your South Africa arguments:
Yes, what you have stated there in your statistics is pretty much true. Roughly.
SO WHAT ? All that these statistics prove is that the black administration is more inept than the white one. Frankly these statistics are more the basis for an argument / discussion on the relative merits between a black and white administration than on whether SA is a socialist country or not. That is a whole other discussion. FACT: South Africa is a Capitalist, Democratic society, despite its major problems. There has been no dismantling of factories and giving them to the 'people' There have been no unpaid expropriations of land. There has been no mass liquidation of the bourgoise class. Nor the brain washing of our children at school, save that they are force fed multi cultural diversity ideas instead of communist ideology. You are just proving that beyond Google, you really don't have much of a clue what SA is about.
For example, your argument sounds like you are advocating that SA would be better if the old white government were still in power. Because the economy etc. was better under its control. If you are, then understand this: (1) You have contradicted your premise of "democracy is best" yet again, and (2) I see strong parallels between the endorsement of the "white man knows best" view with regards to South Africa and the "America knows best" view in a wider global context. All based on the idea that one group has the right to rule over another group because "it knows best".
Pray, do tell, is this what you are arguing?
(If so, then tell me why the US achieving independence from the British was a bad thing. Make sure to take into account the industrial and economic superiority of the British at that time.)
I'm awfully sorry, Guru, but all the problems like affirmative action and so forth are related to *problems between blacks and whites* and the legacies of our history and are NOT indicative of the failings of a communist ideology. Possibly you are right when you point to an eventual SA collapse. An eventual collapse of a CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY.
Care to do more of my work for me, or are you done undermining your premises?
On OIL
You: "Never staked a claim of ownership of foreign oil. I staked a claim for the free market access to it.
in response to my:
"...you have no right to it whatsoever, except as an uncoerced, willing, commercial exchange of goods for cash"
Uh, OK, how is it that you don't see the contradiction in what you are saying? I thought *you* were a little better at the 'discourse thing' than this. If you "stake a claim for the free market access to oil" you ARE effectively laying a claim of ownership to that commodity. You are saying "you WILL sell to me or else ..." How hard is it to understand this?
It is the same as the US deciding it does not want to sell MS products to SA anymore. We however, have "staked a claim " to our free market access to it. So, what are we going to do to ensure the delivery of these vital commodities? Send troops and bombs? You would support this? Or is this another case of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Your 'ensuring an oil flow' is simply staking a claim to their property, in violation of property rights which YOU claim to hold as important. Hypocrisy, again? You tell me.
Oh, and regarding the oil for free claim ... I never claimed that you were getting it for free. The nature of proxy control is that you pull the strings of those who control the country where the oil is situated. Note for example, Saudi Arabia's efforts to ramp production to keep prices down. Naturally these proxies must be remunerated for their efforts; carrots are cheaper than sticks in this case.
Secondly, it is quite possible to keep prices and suchlike secret or obscure. Really, there is nothing to it. Accounting scandals erupt daily over the prices people say they buy stuff at and the real price of acquisition. For example, a few years ago I was speaking to a techie who works at SASOL, and he told me about a new process devised to quarter the price of turpentine derivatives from the process, while increasing volumes. I exhulted, using the stuff quite often in my oil paintings, thinking that this would naturally result in cheaper turps. The techie just laughed at my naivety that the price cut would be passed down to consumers, when it could be pocketed as profit. Sure enough, the turpentine price went UP a month later, and not a word was heard about the decreased cost of production, anywhere.
"Other countries don't have over 100,000 troops in teh reason because they didn't hve a jihad decalred against them and a history of terroist attacks against their interests."
Really?
That there is an interesting statement, because it shows your ignorance of the laws of cause and effect. Pray, do tell, how many Muslim / Islamic 'terrorist' attacks were conducted against America BEFORE you sent troops there? I'm speaking about attacks on the American homeland specifically. Reality: You send troops to the Middle East and engineer coups in the region. (cause) Then pissed off Muslims bomb you back (effect) and you somehow manage to portray YOURSELF as the victim. And, in the process, managed to invade a country unrelated to the whole wretched affair.
What was that word you used, again? Ah, yes, deranged. Lead in the water. Etc ...
Gee, good thing I stopped the name calling, huh? It might just detract from my arguments, you think?
Nixon --
My dear fellow, you said this
" We don't know yet if the money was going to weapons, but given the fraud of the oil for food deal, we are almost assured that some of the money was used to pay palestinians to blow themselves up in Israel, and is probably being used now to fund the insurgency."
after I posted this:
" U.S. officials routinely claimed "dual-use'' (having both civilian and military applications) items needed to be "held'' and contracts reviewed to ensure the Saddam Hussein regime could not use imports for weapons programmes..."
Please, I don't want to go off on a tangent here, but your poor reading skills are hampering our modest discussion. What was withheld was ITEMS and SUPPLIES *not* money. These were concrete goods that were approved by the UNMOVIC as being benign goods needed for the vital infrastructure of Iraq that the US/Britain blocked. We are not talking about liquid assets that could be disposed of any which way.
"Fallujah was warned, in fact it was so well publicized that a good few of the terrorist probably escaped."
I'm sorry my friend, but this does not change the fact that the operation was designed not only at crushing rebels, but also serving as a warning as to what towns might expect in future if they continue to resist occupation. In other words to intimidate and coerce them into obedience.
Your definition of terror?
"US Dept of Defense
The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Well well, what do we do about this little pickle? The fact that Fallujah was warned means nothing, quite frankly. Reality: NGO's were warned to exit Iraq. They did not. They got their heads sliced off. The same way as your logic does not absolve Az Zarqawi of his crimes, it does not absolve the US Army of similarily using terror tactics in order to achieve their goals. Perhaps you ought to rethink your (US Dept Defenses) definition of terror.
Your comparision of communism to ants is amusing in many ways, including the not- sarcastic way. Ants are indeed a fat problem at the coast. However, let us be serious here. Communism as a revolutionary ideology is finished, and thank God for that. The scampering remnants can in no way really be deemed a serious threat to America militarily, except for as a guerrilla (lob a bomb every now and again) way. Which has failed to materialise I may add. And ... while guerrilla war might work very well in defending a country, as an offensive tactic it is a bust.
What you are actually complaining about is that people are reading the stuff and discussing the merits of Communist/Marxist ideologies (and yes, it does have merits) and that these people (many of them) are quite influential. I do not see the problem with that. I do not see the problem of even Americans as a mass migrating to a Socialist form of government, so long as it is done through discourse and not intimidation. You should not fear this process.
Rather, learn about these commies and what they believe in, decide for yourself if they are smoking crack or not, and base your views and decisions on that. A knee jerk "let's get 'em" is the way of ignorance and the lowest common denominator, because everybody can play at that game. It profits nobody. To kow *why* you are against a system is better. The problem is, for people to shift in their long held viewpoints is a painful process, which is why one tends to run into individuals like out gracious host rather often. Believe me, other than by words, commies pose no threat to the US.
And they are often wrong, anyway.
Kender --
I am aware of the emperor link already, thanks.
The "carpet of bombs" quote has not been either categorically dismissed, either. At worst it can be described as hinging on the honesty of Brisault and the other chap, which the emperor site feels is questionable. (Although it has no real bearing on the validity of *this* claim, I cannot resist pointing out that the heroic country that you defend made even more outrageous claims based on even more dodgy sources than these Frenchies to justify the invasion of Iraq.)
The fact is: the US was discussing the pipeline project with the Taliban for quite some time. At that time the Taliban was described in terms that might even be called flattering. Once the whole deal broke down, they went back to being brutal scum. Strange how these dodgy quotes seem to pan out in the end, hmm?
"Oh wait, you have already seen, and felt, that shredding haven't you?"
Um, not really. On which points do you feel I have conclusively proven wrong? Be my guest to point them out. The only shredding going on here is of your Guru's logic. And the constant whirring of the shredding blades are keeping me nice and refreshed, thank you.
James --
Nice going, I'm enjoying your posts. A good battle, 'eh'?
PS Nixon -- I'll get back to you on the WHAM (Winning hearts and minds for the acronymically challenged - ie - guru) aspect of the Fallujah operation and how that seriously clashes with the entire concept. Later, of course, because:
PS ALL --
My weekends are politics free. Feel free to grab a cold one, relax, I'll be back on Monday to continue the battle.
Bruno, yes it is an interesting battle. I appreciate the reasoned arguments of some, Mr. Nixon, SIR!, in particular, and the relatively little name calling going on (oops self criticism) but I do detest the dismissal of arguments based on an assumed mindset based on one's place of abode or assumed political ideology.
Mr. Nixon, SIR! you wrote:
"Now if I were to write this again with the word terrorist instead of guerilla it would still be accurate."
The tendenacy of the Bush administration to portray all whom fight against it as terrorists is diluting the meaning of that term and leads many to simply write off any statement from the administration as being pure propoganda. The War on Terror is now simply a slogan. The notion that Iraq was a source of terrorism against the US has been thouroughly debunked.
There does appear to be an insurgent war taking place in Iraq. The US military forces are being targeted as are the Iraqi Militry and police forces. To simply state that these are 'terrorists' understates the problem and the amount of popular support they enjoy. Sure there are terrorist acts taking place as well.
A person strapping a bomb around their waist and detonating it on a civilian bus is terrorism. A person stapping a bomb around their waist and detonating it at a military check point more closely resembles 'warfare'. The Japanese had Kamikazee's
Similarily the initial "Shock and Awe" operation was essentially a US terroist operation. The stated intention was to "Shock and Awe" (read terrorize) them into surrender.
Nixon also wrote:
"Regardless of what he says I think he is just upset to be away from home for along time and away from a potentially high wage job. He is in Civil Affairs, his job is to WIN THE HEARTS AND MIND OF THE POPULATION! So I think he should quit bitching and start working. Yo uknow build a school, get the power on, all the things the Marines are doing in Fallujah right now."
Who knows why he said what he said (homesick or whatever) to dismiss his arguments based on background information you do not know, is unhelpful. Which brings us to winning the hearts and minds. This is where the US is failing and failing miserably. The deteriorating situation is evidence of this failure.
In Fallujah, it is almost laughable that they think they will win their hearts and minds. First they decimate the place, and now they are:
"To prevent looting, the head of every household will be asked to wear an identification badge,"
Identification badges! Are they serious? They wouldn't be so silly as to use the Star of David would they? Can you imagine, if you were one of these folks, that when you are allowed to return to your home you have to wear a visible identification tag? How would you feel toward that 'authority'?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/international/middleeast/01reconstruct.html?oref=login
A couple other quotes from that article:
"American officials say they cannot afford to let this former insurgent bastion become a microcosm of the broader struggle in Iraq - a rapid military victory followed by a lapse into violence and chaos.
Yet even some American officers here are skeptical about their ability to bring back safely more than a small number of residents in time for the national and provincial elections in January - a central goal of the offensive."
"They need help," said Dr. Mohamed, the Health Ministry official whose own parents are waiting to return, speaking of Falluja's scattered residents. "They are suffering. But when they return, they will suffer even more."
Will suffering even more win their hearts and minds? Methinks not!
James
Bruno, Bruno, Bruno....
You brought up these countries "Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Pakistan are just a few, off the top of my head, just a few countries that the US is so eager to prop up and support that are neither democratic nor free."
Now where were these countries 100 years ago? 50? We support them because the process is slow and we want them to achieve it on their own, hence your arguement about us being oppressive is rendered false in your own arguement. We support them and try to influence them to take the path of democracy, and some of them are moving that way.
Nice anology "A simple analogy, yet again, for those who do not understand: I tell you I'm a nice guy. Then I punch you on the nose. You tell me "Hey, but that's not nice! You are not a nice guy!" I respond by saying "No, of course I am nice. I just *told* you so, didn't I? " Makes sense? Of course not."
Severely flawed, but cute. Go back to my anthill anology, that is more fitting.
Bruno "By declaring your own morals / values superior, you automatically give yourself the right to barge in and take over"
Look to Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, and Pakistan as you so eloquently pointed out.
Bruno "why am *I* anti-US"
Jealousy of course. You can always immigrate here and experience a concept we obviously have not been able to get you to understand.
Bruno "Opinion of U.S. Abroad Is Falling, Survey Finds - By Dana Milbank"
One last time *WE DON'T CARE!*
Bruno "There have been no unpaid expropriations of land. There has been no mass liquidation of the bourgoise class."
Really? look at RG's post again...
"1,650+ White commercial farmers were murdered & the food production is being threatened by "Land Reform"
There are farms in South Africa, which were prosperous when run by whites, which were handed over to blacks. These farms then collapsed after 2+ years of black management and are now derelict",
You just said it was basically true..."Yes, what you have stated there in your statistics is pretty much true. Roughly.
SO WHAT ?"
Bruno on oil..."You are saying "you WILL sell to me or else ..." How hard is it to understand this?"
Actually disregarding your " US deciding it does not want to sell MS products to SA anymore. We however, have "staked a claim " to our free market access to it."
Apples and Oranges my friend, oil is vital to a nations survival, computers are not.
Bruno "Your 'ensuring an oil flow' is simply staking a claim to their property, in violation of property rights which YOU claim to hold as important. Hypocrisy, again? You tell me."
We are ensuring that the oil flows, and it will help EVERYBODY! We are not taking it for ourselves, we will pay for it just like SA does.
Bruno "Pray, do tell, how many Muslim / Islamic 'terrorist' attacks were conducted against America BEFORE you sent troops there? " World trade center 93', USS Cole 00', US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya 98', World trade center 01', and Khobar towers 98'. We went over there in late 01'.
Bruno "but your poor reading skills are hampering our modest discussion. What was withheld was ITEMS and SUPPLIES *not* money."
We know how *honest* the UN is.....we obviously felt the UN was once again being weak when dealing with Iraq at the time.
The definition of terrorism is used in regard to *other than government operations*, hence we say that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, not terrorists themselves, as an example.
Bruno "US Army of similarily using terror tactics in order to achieve their goals"
Sorry Bruno, this is called WAR. If we followed your logic then every nation that has ever gone to war is a terrorist nation.
Bruno on communism " The scampering remnants can in no way really be deemed a serious threat to America militarily, except for as a guerrilla (lob a bomb every now and again) way. "
Actually if Vladimir Putin has his way and *influences* the Ukrainian elections the way he would like he is well on the way to reestablishing the USSR. He has already suppressed the press nad annointed governors and the like instead of allowing elections...and they have nukes.
Lets not forget China and North Korea.
Bruno "I do not see the problem of even Americans as a mass migrating to a Socialist form of government, so long as it is done through discourse and not intimidation. You should not fear this process."
Well as a prominant American once said...
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson
and...
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."- George Orwell -
Lastly....
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. –Ronald Reagan--Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987
James "The notion that Iraq was a source of terrorism against the US has been thouroughly debunked."
Actually, the insurgents are terrorists, and Iraq is the source of some and the target of many more.
James "There does appear to be an insurgent war taking place in Iraq"
One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Please indulge me as a member of the military if I do not see them as insurgets or freedom fighters and instead as terrorists. This is a point we may as well drop, I will not budge on this point.
Bruno, enjoy your beverage. I for one will return to my own musing on my own blog, this arguement is a seesaw without end.
Nixon wrote:
"One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Please indulge me as a member of the military if I do not see them as insurgets or freedom fighters and instead as terrorists. This is a point we may as well drop, I will not budge on this point."
Why is it so important to you to view them as terrorists rather then insurgents? If they are 'insurgents' are your views then not supportable? Will you then have trouble 'sleeping at night'?
I agreee with what Nixon said. I've addressed you on every point you've tried to make. When I prove you wrong you squirm around and twist the point a bit and present it as a different point. There are things we disagree on and obviously we can't come to any consensus.
That is why I asked earlier what it is you hope to accomplish. There is no one here that you will convince of your point of view. Obviously we are not having any success convincing you either. This seesaw could indeed go on forever.
Unfortunelty this is not an example of why I blog. So if you care to comment on future posts you are more than welcome. At some point though we have to agree to disagree and move on.
If you see an article on the NET you want to discuss, email it to me and I'll blog it and we can discuss it. This Blog engine doesn't lend itself to "am not! Are too!" "discussions" like this one and the comments are becoming redundant. Of course if you guys want to keep going at it, you are more than welcome to do so.
Thanks!
To comment on comments most recent to oldest, point by point.
James...
"The Japanese had Kamikazee's"...a last ditch and wrongheaded move by a country that knew defeat was flying at them like a 'divine wind'.
"The notion that Iraq was a source of terrorism against the US has been thouroughly debunked." No it has not. There is evidence emerging that saddam took OFF monies and deposited them in an account in Jordan, where they were transferred to another account that an Iraqi Ambassador had access to, and that same ambassador then cut checks to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. I have no links for that story yet, as all teh paper trail has not been made public, but when it does, and it will, I will post that story. Saddam giving money, through a proxy, to the families of suicide bombers that attacked our ally is still attacking us. An attack on an ally IS an attack on us.
Bruno? Why the weekend off?
"the US was discussing the pipeline project with the Taliban for quite some time."
Yes, and if they had let that go through perhaps they would still be in power. Again, the U.S. Government looking out for the U.S. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
And we warned Falluja because we were going in to fight 'insurgents'. We warned them on the thinking, I believe, that anyone that would hang around in a city after hearing that the U.S. was coming in to wipe up the insurgency was an insurgent themselves, bent on their own marty..., um death. Why would any peaceful people warn an NGO to leave? Only someone bent on evil would warn others that are helping out to leave or else.
Now with this comment Bruno you are smoking crack..
"Uh, OK, how is it that you don't see the contradiction in what you are saying? I thought *you* were a little better at the 'discourse thing' than this. If you "stake a claim for the free market access to oil" you ARE effectively laying a claim of ownership to that commodity. You are saying "you WILL sell to me or else ..." How hard is it to understand this?"
Free market access menas that the fellow willing to pay for it gets it. How the fuck you didn't understand THAT is beyond me and probably anyone else reading this page.
And the U.S. doesn't decide if it wants to sell MS products...MS does. Unless that product can be used to manufature weapons parts, such as some computer game systems that can be used to create missile guidance systems. Do you really not understand capitalism and free markets? By staking a claim you are saying you want to be able to buy that product, not that it can only be sold to you.
That is enough here. I have to go to work and ther are better points to argue, as you bruno, obviously cant grasp simple things.
RG I will be in Union County in February, up New Salem way. We ought to find a way to e-mail/contact each other and maybe meet at Quincys in Monroe for dinner. The problem is if we put e-mail addresses or phone #'s up here anyone can see them. Suggestions?
Nixon, email me at redneckguru@gmail.com.
The email address is published in my profile FYI.
Thanks!
Kender wrote
"Free market access menas that the fellow willing to pay for it gets it."
Kender, tell me how you feel about the the following scenario playing out:
The election is held on Jan. 30th
The Shites win.
They nationalize the oil fields.
They sell the oil into the free market.
They use the oil profits to fund their and Iran's theocracy.
That would be just fine with you folks, right?
Nixon --
Your assertion that the US is supporting Egypt, Pakistan etc because it wants them to achieve democracy is, um, amusing to say the least. Firstly, there is no contradiction in the terms of my argument, merely a divergence of view between you and I as to what the purpouse of the US's support for these regimes is. Now, your post smacks of condecension towards the highly intelligent people of many of these countries; in reality you are saying that they are unable to grasp the simple concept of one man one vote ... this is a rather strange, almost bigoted attitude to have.
Secondly. You say that the process is a slow one and that they must achieve it on their own. Don't you find it somewhat dissonant to your argument the fact that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are being targeted for extremely drastic and rapid alterations in their system of government? Why is it so urgent to "democratize" these lands by force when you are willing to suffer the peoples of the aforementioned countries to slowly grope their way to their own demoracy. Why is Iraq / n also not allowed to achieve its own form of popular representation? Because - their governments are not legitimate unless they are pro US, perhaps?
Thirdly, and to completely discredit your argument of "USA - for - democracy -rah rah rah" - consider the fact that both Chile and Iran, to name just two, had their perfectly legitimate and democratic governmental systems undermined and overthrown with CIA-driven coups. Dictatorships were duly installed, the same way as Chalabi was earmarked for ascension by virtue of being bussed in with a bunch of armed thugs to support him in Iraq. This blatant disregard for the democratic choices of other peoples makes your assumptions ring just a little hollow, no?
Finally, how about you really beat the crap out of me (heh) , and point me to some concrete steps that the US has taken in order to promote true democracy in those countries? Perhaps promoting electoral freedom in Egypt, and illustrating to me how the US is really, really mad at the annulled elections that the Islamic parties won so handily. I'll wait.
(A loooong time.)
On my analogy. As per usual, you lot have not bothered to point out in what way it is flawed, nor to provide a counter argument. There is no point in comparing your ants to my punches, so to speak, because we are talking about two totally different analogies and hence situations. The only possible way to compare them is in a measurement of their literary qualities. Good stuff, man! You are really using logic and intelligence to knock the stuffing out of my position. (Sarcasm there, in case you never noticed).
On the morality angle : Much of the rest of the world feels that your society is depraved, rightly or wrongly. Does that give us a license to invade? No! Yet you feel the reverse is acceptable. Odd.
My opinion poll was to show support for the fact that in reality your country is the aberration from the norm, and that current policies are contrary to the will of the international community.
(OR that your 'values' and your actions are dissonant with respect to each other.)
Hello, any body in there? Remember the idea of majority rule? You know, the "democracy" spiel you guys have been pumping away at?
Your answer? Well : "One last time *WE DON'T CARE!*"
Ah! An honest expression of sentiment from you regarding what about your 5% of the global population thinks of the concept of the will of the majority, unless of course, the majority wants what you want.
Then majority rule is OK, huh?
Guru --
You said: "When I prove you wrong you squirm around and twist the point a bit and present it as a different point."
Um, which point for example? If I have done this, illustrate it with an example. I'd hate to be accused of intellectual dishonesty, now. *yawn* I'll wait, as per usual.
"That is why I asked earlier what it is you hope to accomplish. There is no one here that you will convince of your point of view. Obviously we are not having any success convincing you either. This seesaw could indeed go on forever."
Sheesh!
Is *this* all the staying power you have?
Hell, I'm not even out of gum yet. The discussion was just getting warmed up, man. This is just a small exploration of the introductory topics related to the Iraqi war and your neocon government's wet dreams of a benevolent hegemony. You rednecks sure don't like thinking too much, huh?
I'm thinking that we have established :
(a) The US's primary concern in the Middle East is not Democracy.
(b) The US's primary concern there is access / control of the oil flow.
Now, my argument regarding this topic is that market economics of regular supply and demand will most likely ensure constant oil flow. You feel Arabs are screwed up and would starve just to stiff your economy. Here we obviously disagree. As we disagree about the reason for the huge US troop presence in the ME. You feel it is necessary in order to ensure the free market access to this commodity. I say it is to control the oil flow and to have pliant governments in place that can turn the spigots on and off like obedient little puppets, providing immense US energy leverage over future competitors.
Your free market access defence has hinged on "we have a right to oil".
Again. For. Your. Benefit. Nobody has a right to declare one or other commodity as being of a vital interest to their country, and thus essentially staking a claim to be backed up by military force on it. You obviously do not believe in this view. Nixon said the following, which you agreed with:
"Apples and Oranges my friend, oil is vital to a nations survival, computers are not.
We are ensuring that the oil flows, and it will help EVERYBODY! We are not taking it for ourselves, we will pay for it just like SA does."
Uh, OK, so if you get no more oil then what. Are you going to all suddenly starve? No. There are countries in Africa that make do with a fraction of the oil you use, and this does not affect their ability to survive. What you are saying in effect is, "we need this much oil to continue living in the style we are accustomed to". Because your economy would collapse for sure. But, there are many goods that might cause a collapse of an economy. Are these *all* vital? Examples?
Well now, let's see ... Microsoft, as a company based in the US, would be obliged to obey US laws and decisions, right? And, if the US decided to embargo, say, South Africa, and prevented the sale of computer parts and software to our land, Microsoft would be obliged to obey, right? So ... in effect the final control of who Microsoft decides to sell to is vested with the governement of the United States, right? As the US has done many times with countries on its shit list, like Cuba ... right?
Right.
So I guess that puts paid to Kender's assertion that : "And the U.S. doesn't decide if it wants to sell MS products...MS does"
(A statement made more in ignorance than malice, I'm sure.)
So, I ask you again. Is it fair for South Africa to send troops to protect ITS business interests in Silicon Valley (because WE think it is vital to our country's survival) the same as you are doing in the Middle East? Can Russia also send troops to secure Middle Eastern oil? Hey, can Japan invade the Phillipines and South East Asia to ensure a supply of Rubber? Can Germany invade Poland for more Lebensraum?
Or, have you suddenly lost your appetite for discourse?
The "Defender of the Free market" crap is more ... crap, I guess. You will pay for it, huh? How much? $50 a barrel? $70 a barrel? $100 a barrel? I'm guessing that unlike normal companies which can set whatever price they please for their product, this plan for paying for the oil includes actually setting a cap on the price that the Arabs might ask for their commodity. Because, of course, if the oil price is too high, it would fuck up your precious economy. (And, smashing OPEC has long been a US dream.) This undoubted consequence would give you more in common with the Socialists, don't you think?
Strange how you guys complain about Socialists and their concepts for common good when it affects salary caps in Canada, but rush (out of complete magnanimity, of course) to protect the common good in Arabian countries. James, do you see Americans paying for their oil at $100 a barrel voluntarily?
I sure as hell don't.
I will post more on the many unfinished topics that we have not completed the discussion on, like your "universal" values and whether they are universal, Iraq's support for 'terrorism' and your own such support for 'terrorism' and where that leaves the moral standing of your "superior" country. And lots of other amusing little unfinished odds and ends.
Feel free to tune in for more beatings later...
;)
OK Bruno, for the learning impaired I will repeat the OBVIOUS;
Bruno after drinking all weekend said; "You say that the process is a slow one and that they must achieve it on their own. Don't you find it somewhat dissonant to your argument the fact that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are being targeted for extremely drastic and rapid alterations in their system of government? Why is it so urgent to "democratize" these lands by force when you are willing to suffer the peoples of the aforementioned countries to slowly grope their way to their own demoracy."
Bruno, now for the obvious part....none of the aforementioned countries are a threat to us....
Now as I said before, since you wont change my mind, and I wont change your, I am moving on to other topics.....feel free to rant here all you want, but you'll be alone.
hmm. I hope that this is not going to double post.
Nixon --
Your assertion that the US is supporting Egypt, Pakistan etc because it wants them to achieve democracy is, um, amusing to say the least. Firstly, there is no contradiction in the terms of my argument, merely a divergence of view between you and I as to what the purpouse of the US's support for these regimes is. Now, your post smacks of condecension towards the highly intelligent people of many of these countries; in reality you are saying that they are unable to grasp the simple concept of one man one vote ... this is a rather strange, almost bigoted attitude to have.
Secondly. You say that the process is a slow one and that they must achieve it on their own. Don't you find it somewhat dissonant to your argument the fact that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are being targeted for extremely drastic and rapid alterations in their system of government? Why is it so urgent to "democratize" these lands by force when you are willing to suffer the peoples of the aforementioned countries to slowly grope their way to their own demoracy. Why is Iraq / n also not allowed to achieve its own form of popular representation? Because - their governments are not legitimate unless they are pro US, perhaps?
Thirdly, and to completely discredit your argument of "USA - for - democracy -rah rah rah" - consider the fact that both Chile and Iran, to name just two, had their perfectly legitimate and democratic governmental systems undermined and overthrown with CIA-driven coups. Dictatorships were duly installed, the same way as Chalabi was earmarked for ascension by virtue of being bussed in with a bunch of armed thugs to support him in Iraq. This blatant disregard for the democratic choices of other peoples makes your assumptions ring just a little hollow, no?
Finally, how about you really beat the crap out of me (heh) , and point me to some concrete steps that the US has taken in order to promote true democracy in those countries? Perhaps promoting electoral freedom in Egypt, and illustrating to me how the US is really, really mad at the annulled elections that the Islamic parties won so handily. I'll wait.
(A loooong time.)
On my analogy. As per usual, you lot have not bothered to point out in what way it is flawed, nor to provide a counter argument. There is no point in comparing your ants to my punches, so to speak, because we are talking about two totally different analogies and hence situations. The only possible way to compare them is in a measurement of their literary qualities. Good stuff, man! You are really using logic and intelligence to knock the stuffing out of my position. (Sarcasm there, in case you never noticed).
On the morality angle : Much of the rest of the world feels that your society is depraved, rightly or wrongly. Does that give us a license to invade? No! Yet you feel the reverse is acceptable. Odd.
My opinion poll was to show support for the fact that in reality your country is the aberration from the norm, and that current policies are contrary to the will of the international community.
(OR that your 'values' and your actions are dissonant with respect to each other.)
Hello, any body in there? Remember the idea of majority rule? You know, the "democracy" spiel you guys have been pumping away at?
Your answer? Well : "One last time *WE DON'T CARE!*"
Ah! An honest expression of sentiment from you regarding what about your 5% of the global population thinks of the concept of the will of the majority, unless of course, the majority wants what you want. Then majority rule is OK, huh?
Nixon --
Your assertion that the US is supporting Egypt, Pakistan etc because it wants them to achieve democracy is, um, amusing to say the least. Firstly, there is no contradiction in the terms of my argument, merely a divergence of view between you and I as to what the purpouse of the US's support for these regimes is. Now, your post smacks of condecension towards the highly intelligent people of many of these countries; in reality you are saying that they are unable to grasp the simple concept of one man one vote ... this is a rather strange, almost bigoted attitude to have.
Secondly. You say that the process is a slow one and that they must achieve it on their own. Don't you find it somewhat dissonant to your argument the fact that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are being targeted for extremely drastic and rapid alterations in their system of government? Why is it so urgent to "democratize" these lands by force when you are willing to suffer the peoples of the aforementioned countries to slowly grope their way to their own demoracy. Why is Iraq / n also not allowed to achieve its own form of popular representation? Because - their governments are not legitimate unless they are pro US, perhaps?
Thirdly, and to completely discredit your argument of "USA - for - democracy -rah rah rah" - consider the fact that both Chile and Iran, to name just two, had their perfectly legitimate and democratic governmental systems undermined and overthrown with CIA-driven coups. Dictatorships were duly installed, the same way as Chalabi was earmarked for ascension by virtue of being bussed in with a bunch of armed thugs to support him in Iraq. This blatant disregard for the democratic choices of other peoples makes your assumptions ring just a little hollow, no?
Finally, how about you really beat the crap out of me (heh) , and point me to some concrete steps that the US has taken in order to promote true democracy in those countries? Perhaps promoting electoral freedom in Egypt, and illustrating to me how the US is really, really mad at the annulled elections that the Islamic parties won so handily. I'll wait.
(A loooong time.)
On my analogy. As per usual, you lot have not bothered to point out in what way it is flawed, nor to provide a counter argument. There is no point in comparing your ants to my punches, so to speak, because we are talking about two totally different analogies and hence situations. The only possible way to compare them is in a measurement of their literary qualities. Good stuff, man! You are really using logic and intelligence to knock the stuffing out of my position. (Sarcasm there, in case you never noticed).
On the morality angle : Much of the rest of the world feels that your society is depraved, rightly or wrongly. Does that give us a license to invade? No! Yet you feel the reverse is acceptable. Odd.
My opinion poll was to show support for the fact that in reality your country is the aberration from the norm, and that current policies are contrary to the will of the international community.
(OR that your 'values' and your actions are dissonant with respect to each other.)
Hello, any body in there? Remember the idea of majority rule? You know, the "democracy" spiel you guys have been pumping away at?
Your answer? Well : "One last time *WE DON'T CARE!*"
Ah! An honest expression of sentiment from you regarding what about your 5% of the global population thinks of the concept of the will of the majority, unless of course, the majority wants what you want. Then majority rule is OK, huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home