DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on November 24, 2006, 12:35:38 AM
-
Before - and After - Iraq
By Victor Davis Hanson
"Our own successful three-week war, but their failed three-year peace."
Such a self-serving disclaimer might best sum up the change of heart of several neoconservative former supporters of the Iraq war - at least according to interviews that appear in the current issues of Vanity Fair and the New Yorker magazines.
Some of these pundits and policy gurus now having second and third thoughts had called for the American ouster of Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. These days, apparently in hindsight, they question whether the present plagued occupation even justified the effective three-week war of 2003.
Americans themselves have made the same dramatic about-face. They once approved of the war by a 70 percent majority. Three years later, they think it was a mistake by almost the same wide margin. Like the pundits, the public follows the pulse of the battlefield - which now seems to be reported solely as a story of improvised explosive devices and sectarian suicide bombing.
But forget that "gotcha" Beltway buzz. Instead, let's re-examine the now-orphaned policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East - not the fickle parents who abandoned it. How, in other words, did we get to Iraq?
Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up - as is sometimes alleged - by sneaky supporters of Israel. Nor did oil-hungry CEOs or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction: The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists.
George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.
First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East. And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy - and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.
Second, at key moments in the 1980s and '90s, the United States signaled that it would appease its terrorist enemies rather than engage in the difficult work of uprooting them. We did little other than file an indictment or shoot a missile at the killers who murdered American citizens, diplomats and soldiers in East Africa, Lebanon, New York City, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Leaving Lebanon, scurrying out of Somalia, and continually flying through Saddam's skies for 12 long years without removing him only cemented the image of an uncertain America.
Third, September 11 changed the way the U.S. looked at the status quo in the Middle East. That attack was the work of terrorists who were enabled by our autocratic clients in the Middle East, and emboldened by our previous inaction. In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past - and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets - hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish that the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay - because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
(C) 2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/before_and_after_iraq.html at November 23, 2006 - 10:34:32 PM CST
-
Good Bush propaganda. First couple of paragraphs - - ridicule neocons who baled on the war. They're an easy target, 'cause everybody hates 'em now: the liberals always hated them and the conservatives hate 'em for not singing the "stay the course" hymn any more. Make 'em sound like fickle, feather-brained idiots - - "second and third thoughts" and to make sure everyone understands just how perfidious these guys really are, throw in (a) that they backed the overthrow of Saddam as far back as 1998, (b) their present doubts are "apparently in hindsight" (hindsight is always a BAD thing to conservatives, who, once having formed an opinion are expected to hold it to their dying day,) and of course (c) that they are "self-serving" (critics of the government always have an agenda - - it is only the Bush administration whose motives are pure and above reproach.)
Classic example of "attack the messenger." Notice, class, not a single word so far about how things are going in Iraq, whether America was "lied into" the war or not, how the killing of over half a million Iraqis can possibly be a good thing for Iraq. No - - just the perfidy, the frivolity, the selfishness of the doubting neo-cons. What little bastards they are. Why we should hate them.
But it's even worse than we thought:
<<Americans themselves have made the same dramatic about-face. They once approved of the war by a 70 percent majority. Three years later, they think it was a mistake by almost the same wide margin. >>
Holy shit! It's not just the doubting neo-cons. It's the American people themselves!!! Those ungrateful bastards!!! They're just as fickle and volatile as those fucking neo-cons. How DARE they? Just because their tax money and their children's life-blood runs down the tubes, WHAT on God's green earth gives them the God-damn fucking right to change their minds after three years of lies, broken promises, empty boasts, bullshit and still more lies???
The explanation, apparently, is quite simple. It seems that the American people (and their "pundits") - - have been "following the pulse of the battlefield." In other words, they have been watching the news instead of listening to their Leader's version of it. But the news is focused on unimportant trivialities like bombing and killing and torturing and disappearing and human bodies turning up in grotesquely tortured and mutilated condition all over Baghdad and Baqouba and Basra and all those other places starting with a "B" and you never get any really, really serious news out of Iraq like, I mean the TomKat wedding and the new crop of Christmas blockbusters.
But then - - SUDDENLY - - just as the writer gets to this crucial point about how the fickle and capricious American people in their unfathomable stupidity are obsessing over "the pulse of the battlefield" - - - WHOOOOSH! the guy loses interest in the subject and as capriciously as any fucking neocon, turns on a dime:
<<But forget that "gotcha" Beltway buzz. >>
In other words, having administered a severe thrashing to not only the doubting neo-cons but to the American people themselves AND "their" pundits - - basically for having changed their minds about Iraq after listening to three years of government lies and bullshit about it - - we're not gonna talk about THAT any more.
In other words, "I finished trashing the messengers. Why do we need to talk about their message now?"
So the guy, basically, having turned up nothing (except a lot of venomous ad hominem innuendo) against the doubting neo-cons and the 70% of Americans who don't support their (the author's and Bush's) war, now has broached a new subject: "bringing democracy to Iraq."
And here's where I knock it off and turn in for the night.
-
I don't think that was the point of his column at all.
But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
What mess? The same mess we have had a hand in maintaining for many decades.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets - hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
And you, like the majority American people are quite content to put the problem off until another day.
That was the point. You chose to miss it.
Sweet dreams.
-
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay - because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
We will not achieve that idealism until we stop trying to make it happen by military force. And stopping that is the right and smart thing to do.
-
We will not achieve that idealism until we stop trying to make it happen by military force. And stopping that is the right and smart thing to do.
You present your opinion as if it were fact.
Can you not point to one instance where conflicts in ideology were solved at the point of a bayonet?
I can.
-
Great article Bt. Blows the mindsets of folks like Tee, Brass, Dowd, Krugman, etc., right out of the water with 1 big common sense salvo. 8)
-
<<Great article Bt. Blows the mindsets of folks like Tee, Brass, Dowd, Krugman, etc., right out of the water with 1 big common sense salvo. >>
It was actually a very silly article. I read it through and it's just recirculated mishmash of Bernard Lewis, stay-the-course propaganda to perpetuate the fruits of an illegal invasion and occupation.
Unfortunately, I only had time enough to demolish the first few paras, relatively easy work because they contained no substance at all and consisted of nothing more than purely ad hominem attacks on different types of critics of the Bush administration.
It has just enough skill to masquerade as "deep thinking," which is why shallow minds like yours embrace it with such enthusiasm. "1 big common sense salvo" LMFAO. Common sense tells you that these people are not going to live together in peace unless one of them establishes a dictatorship over all of them, which brings you right back to Saddam Hussein or the next Saddam Hussein. Meaning that 600,000 Iraqis died for nothing, thanks to Bush.
-
It was actually a very silly article. ..... Common sense tells you that these people are not going to live together in peace unless one of them establishes a dictatorship over all of them, which brings you right back to Saddam Hussein or the next Saddam Hussein. Meaning that 600,000 Iraqis died for nothing, thanks to Bush.
This coming from the fella that believes Bush would have sat on 911 if he knew, that our Militatry is 1 big muderous thug militia, minus any widespread facts to prove it, that the vast majority Iraqi deaths are currently at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents, and that polling of Iraqis demonstrated how taking out Saddam was crucial, regardless the cost. I think we all know where the "silliness" is coming from, I'm afraid
-
Crap.
The fact is that the US has done all it could. It removed Saddam and his followers and it has established that there were no WM D's.
The US cannot install, implant or otherwise impose any sort of political system on Iraq. In Japan and Germany in 1945, there had been a parliamentary system previously. Iraq was a corrupt monarchy and a poorly run colony prior to the conquest by the Juniorbushies and the imposition of some really silly Neocon ideas by some totally incompetent neocom flakes.
Powell said, "You break it, you own it". But it's a lot worse than that. The US did break Iraq, but has neither the knowhow not the people to fix it. It is as though Iraq was a broken refrigerator with the directions printed in Arabic, and the US was a crew of loggers, armed with axes, hammers and chocker cables and instructions in English.
Only Iraqis can rectify the ghastly mess that exists now. All an extended US permanence can do is to get themselves killed and win the jeers of the rest of the planet.
The People's Republic has a far better chance of reforming Tibet to the approval of all than the US could reform Iraq to the approval of even a few.
Juniorbush has turned the fishtank into bouillabaisse and no one will be able to resurrect the mess, certainly not him.
That asshole James Baker came down here to FL to FL and stole the election for Juniorbush and put his utterly incompetent useless ass on the throne. I find it entirely ironic that now the same Family Fakir Baker has now been appointed to pull Juniorbush's gonads out of the vise.
-
Crap.
The fact is that the US has done all it could. It removed Saddam and his followers and it has established that there were no WMD's.
You may be right Hoof. There may me no more we can do. "May" being the operable word, since it also implies maybe not. And given your track record on what you're right about vs what you're not, leads me to believe you're wrong on this one as well. It remains a moral obligation, especially in light of the successes that have occured (and of coure go largely un-reported), and for those who have lost their lives in this battle, that we make the best effort we can at helping to bring about the freedom, that Humans are inheirently entitled to, now that we are there. NOT that that was the reason we went into Iraq (In case prince glances over this), simply that we do need to help fix it, now that we're there.
-
With the advantage of hindsight, any politician who says our invasion of Iraq was "worth it" would not live in fear of losing votes but rather of when he would be released from the mental institution. The matter is that clear. Yet, to his eternal discredit, Bush will not admit a mistake but does instead bumble from shifting rationale to shifting rationale to shield himself and his advisers from anything close to a day of reckoning.
To be sure, the task of "rehabilitating Iraq" was implied in the very decision to invade: one cannot overturn a totalitarian government without being morally and politically obligated to get the country up and running again, preferably in the "right" direction. Yet, this aspect of the MANDATES OF INVASION were either virtually ignored and/or horribly mangled in execution, such that, beyond our and the "free Iraqis'" reach, there is now not only an insurgency, which lamentably was never foreseen, but also a raging civil war of a virulence and degree the observer can judge for him- or herself.
This brings us to our present moment. The WMD that didn't exist have been neutralized. The menace Saddm represented has been replaced with the menace that Iran has become, for, historically, Iraq countered Iran's influence in the region when a strong, functioning (if brutal and rebellious) regime held sway in Baghdad. Machiavelli, the prophet of realpolitik, perhaps, would swoon at the geo-political ineptitude of Bush's gambit.
That brings us to the question of democracy in Iraq, which supplanted our original goals. It goes beyond rebuilding a war-torn nation and the impulse to leave a better situation, a better government, in our wake (which could be something considerably less than democracy; see Jordan, for example). It graduates the military exercise into a grand, geo-political scheme -- the spread of democracy -- which, unfortunately, decoupled from the necessary task of reconstruction after a war, that is, standing alone as an aim in itself, is unprecedented in the annals of world "diplomacy." How do we Find the "will of the people," ignoring "conventional" means of expression such as civil war, in the "fabricated" (under US direction) elan of a plebiscite, which rightly or wrongly does not represent the balance of power in the country, as evidenced by the blood in the streets and the reigning chaos?
That is our present situation, and it is horrendous. As Obama says, there are no good options. NOW WE CAN BEGIN OUR ANALYSIS.
-
With the advantage of hindsight, any politician who says our invasion of Iraq was "worth it" would not live in fear of losing votes but rather of when he would be released from the mental institution. The matter is that clear.
Another opinion masked as fact. And i disagree.
Is a peaceful Middle Eastern Region worth the price we are currently paying in blood and treasure?
I would think so. Probably worth it at twice the price.
The alternative of allowing Israeli's to be driven into the sea and the country driven from existence seems to be the price we are unwilling to pay. and i opine rightfully so.
-
Rather than issuing a blind call, accurate or not, about the need to save Israel, why not address the morality and justice of the situation from a nonpartisan perspective? Can Israel make a compelling case that its vision for the future in that region should proceed undisturbed, or, obversely, can the Palestinians demonstrate a true moral and "legal" injury that is now redressable in face of years of open "adverse possession" of the coveted land by the Israelis?
-
<<This coming from the fella that believes Bush would have sat on 911 if he knew . . . >>
Yes, particularly since the PNAC lay out the need to invade a major Middle Eastern nation, and speculated that "only a new Pearl Harbor" could provide the justification, it's not unthinkable that Bush would have let the WTC attacks proceed had he been given advance knowledge. You have produced no evidence at all to the contrary and since we're both speculating on a hypothetical, but I with the advantage that Bush's past actions, mainly lying whenever it suits him, prove that he is unscrupulous, amoral and unethical, I would say that my speculation is just as valid as yours. Although since Bush is also a world-class coward, he'd have to be pretty damn sure that his advance knowledge would never surface before he dared to ignore a predicted attack. It's a reasonable hypothetical, although it's also open to argue that his cowardice would have prevented him from taking the Big Risk for PNAC.
<<that our Militatry is 1 big muderous thug militia . . .>>
rape, torture, murder, cover-up . . . what are they, the acts of a small band of Christian saints? Oh no! I forgot! They're the acts of "a few bad apples" who happen to surface just about anywhere the U.S. conducts its military operations and who somehow enjoy miraculous immunity from any kind of prosecution except for a few unfortunate scapegoats at the very lowest levels of the chain of command.
<< . . . minus any widespread facts to prove it>>
"widespread" in this context means that they aren't an army of thugs unless every soldier in every unit in every theatre of operations has personally committed at least one act of torture, murder or rape
<< . . . that the vast majority Iraqi deaths are currently at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents . . .>>
who by some sheer coincidence having nothing at all to do with the American invasion somehow mysteriously appeared in its wake;
<< and that polling of Iraqis demonstrated how taking out Saddam was crucial, regardless the cost. >>
The fact that you can't point to one such poll is of course immaterial. It's sufficient that you can imagine such a poll, and (in conservative minds at least) your point is irrefutably proven.
<<I think we all know where the "silliness" is coming from, I'm afraid>>
Believe me, sirs, it was never in doubt. But thank you for opening your mouth again and again so that none of us can forget.
-
Rather than issuing a blind call, accurate or not, about the need to save Israel, why not address the morality and justice of the situation from a nonpartisan perspective?
Define nonpartisan.
If you are alluding to a dem-rep split i would submit that support for Israel is bi-partisan.
Ensuring the existense of Israel is the line in the sand.
-
Returning to the absolutely asinine Victor Davis Hanson article at the head of this thread and addressing its various idiocies from the point where I last left off:
<<Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up - as is sometimes alleged - by sneaky supporters of Israel. >>
Actually, it was. Read the PNAC founding documents, most of which were written by fervent Zionists quite a few years before the invasion. In fact, they tried unsuccessfully to foist this insanity on the Clinton administration, which wasn't buying it.
<<Nor did oil-hungry CEOs or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. >>
Uh, and you know this because of your night-vision goggles that permit you to peer into those shadows and see exactly which strings were or were not being pulled by the oil industry? Come on!!!! Did these guys suddenly become averse to the kind of profits they could realize if the U.S. government were suddenly in control of the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world? Or is it that they felt they could not ethically exploit any family or business connections to the executive branch and cheapen them with the taint of commercial doings?
<<And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction . . . >>
No of course not. Weapons of mass destruction were never even mentioned in the same breath as invading Iraq. No senior executive of the U.S. government EVER indicated the slightest reason to be afraid of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion.
<< The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists.>>
Every single one of them exceedingly trivial and/or phony and/or trumped up and/or totally hypocritical. Not one of them in itself even remotely capable of justifying an invasion of one sovereign state by another. But I must admit, that "23" is a very impressive number. A propagandist work of genius.
<<George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.>>
WHOAAA THERE cowboy. Couldja back that up just a little bit? George W. Bush chose to WHAT Iraq? Democratize? Did I miss something here? Was there some speech that George W. Bush gave where he told the country, "Folks, things er BAD in Eye-rak today. Man can't even vote fer prezdunt there wifout some men with guns thretnin himniz famlee ifn Saddam Hoosain ain't relected. People er tole howda vote n'Gawd helpum ifn they don't vote how there tole. So I think we should invade Eye-rak rat naow so weecun bringem summa that fahn dimockracy.
Now I'm sure I missed that speech. I did, however, hear quite a few that seemed to promise people the horrors and the hell of nuclear war if Iraq wasn't invaded immediately.
-
Actually, it was. Read the PNAC founding documents, most of which were written by fervent Zionists quite a few years before the invasion. In fact, they tried unsuccessfully to foist this insanity on the Clinton administration, which wasn't buying it.
Actually the Congress passed a resolution - overwhelmingly and with bi-partisan support- callling for regime change in Iraq. Independent of the PNAC letter which came later.
-
You present your opinion as if it were fact.
Yes. Mr. Hanson believes his opinion is the truth, and I believe my opinion is the truth. So what?
Can you not point to one instance where conflicts in ideology were solved at the point of a bayonet?
Sure I can. So? Are you suggesting that because some conflicts seem to have been solved by military force then military force is the best way to handle such conflicts always? I once had a conflict of ideology/interest with a bully. I solved it by throwing my shoes at his head and making it clear in no uncertain terms that I was not going to take his bullying anymore. He left me alone. But that hardly seems like a proper pattern for all or even most conflicts of ideology/interest that I may have with other people. Seems to me if I settled all or most conflicts in such a manner, I would become the bully and end up with few if any friends. Seems to me, I am better off finding peaceful solutions. If I use force, I do so rare instances, not as a standard mode of operation. I attempt as a standard mode of operation getting along with others, acting non-aggressively toward others, letting others peacefully disagree with me, even those who would use government to enforce their preferences. Speaking of which, I do not advocate armed and/or violent revolution against the government or against those who promote policies with which I could be said to in ideological conflict. I doubt seriously that a more militant and/or more aggressive approach would achieve much good. Do you have some reason why I should think otherwise?
-
We will not achieve that idealism until we stop trying to make it happen by military force. And stopping that is the right and smart thing to do.
That is what you said. Not that you believed it to be the truth.
You act as if other means of achieving the same goals were not tried, and that is also not the truth.
But i am glad you admitted that sometimes force is necessary even if it means pinging shoes off of someones head in order to achieve an ideal goal.
-
" As Obama says, there are no good options. NOW WE CAN BEGIN OUR ANALYSIS."
I posit that the options availible set the standard for what options are "good".
Of all the options that we have which one is best?
Can this question be answered without examinition of the potential results of each choice.
-
The alternative of allowing Israeli's to be driven into the sea and the country driven from existence seems to be the price we are unwilling to pay.
Who's "we"? (http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm)
Whatever the views of Congress, eventually they have to answer to the American people. And when support for Israel heats up as an issue, which it obviously will eventually, either the congresscritters will comply with the wishes of the American people, or they'll be replaced with congresscritters who will.
And if the purpose of this war is the defense of Israel, why doesn't President Bush simply say so? You know why he doesn't - there's no way in hell the American people would ever support such a war.
and i opine rightfully so.
Then feel free to jump on an airplane and put up your own blood and treasure to defend it. But to me as an American citizen, and I suspect to most American citizens, it's a matter of small consequence whether Israel gets driven into the sea, or builds settlements all the way to China.
Let's remember the current inhabitants of Israel are in a large part, if not mostly, immigrants. They are there by choice, nobody forced them there at gunpoint. Fine and dandy, but if they wish to establish a nation out in the middle of where they aren't welcome, I submit the onus is on the Israelis to defend it. Not on America.
Americans themselves have made the same dramatic about-face. They once approved of the war by a 70 percent majority.
And this here is one big steaming crock of bullshit. You might get 70% if you took the outlier results of the most optimistic polls, but there has never been anything like a sustained 70% support for this war, with the exception of a.) immediately following 9/11, and b.) immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when there was a predictable Rally-Round-the-Flag effect. Check the polling data yourself:
http://pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq9.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq8.htm
In fact, the Time/CNN poll from the week of Feb. 19-20 2003 showed only 54% of Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq. That's after nearly a year of the Administration ginning up war propaganda. What do you think the results would have been otherwise?
-
Then feel free to jump on an airplane and put up your own blood and treasure to defend it.
Been there, done that. '71-73 active duty. Not much blood expended but i wouldn't mind getting two years added to whatever time i have left.
And it is true that eventually the representatives in DC take their marching orders from the people, though they haven't changed direction in 50 odd years. Think the pollong data for support of Israel is flawed? Not sure if a "fuck the jews" plank is a winning platform. Perhaps a focus group study will clarify the issue.
-
<< It is as though Iraq was a broken refrigerator with the directions printed in Arabic, and the US was a crew of loggers, armed with axes, hammers and chocker cables and instructions in English.>>
Very well put, XO.
-
Been there, done that. '71-73 active duty. Not much blood expended but i wouldn't mind getting two years added to whatever time i have left.
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?
And it is true that eventually the representatives in DC take their marching orders from the people, though they haven't changed direction in 50 odd years. Think the pollong data for support of Israel is flawed?
No, I do not. Up to this point, merely providing arms and cash to Israel hasn't been sufficient cause to make support a significant issue for the typical voter. If they're going to be sending their sons and daughters off to fight a war on Israel's behalf, I'm willing to bet the issue moves up on their list of priorities right quick.
Not sure if a "fuck the jews" plank is a winning platform. Perhaps a focus group study will clarify the issue.
Considering that as a demographic, Jews are among the most likely to oppose the Iraq war, and support of Israel is hardly unanimous among Jews, I'm not sure a policy of non-intervention would be construed as "fuck the Jews", even among Jews.
-
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?
Do you feel the same way about Social Security? If not, why not?
-
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?
Do you feel the same way about Social Security? If not, why not?
As a matter of fact, I do. Why?
-
As a matter of fact, I do. Why?
Just wondering how consistant you were. Many who are against using taxpayer funding for the war in Iraq are very protective of using taxpayer funding to support Social Security.
-
<<Actually the Congress passed a resolution - overwhelmingly and with bi-partisan support- callling for regime change in Iraq. Independent of the PNAC letter which came later. >>
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Congress "called for regime change" in Iraq "with bi-partisan support" before the PNAC letter urging Clinton to invade. I'd like to know what particular resolution you are referring to - - date and text.
Even if you are correct, this is just typical of the bullshit used to obscure PNAC/Zionist involvment in this debacle.
Firstly because AIPAC and its associated agencies, PNAC and/or others are and have been tireless in lobbying the U.S. government for assistance to Israel and neutralization of any country that is seen as threatening Israel's interests. The fact that a particular Congressional resolution preceded an overtly Zionist attempt to promote an invasion of Iraq does not mean that the resolution itself was in any way spontaneous or devoid of Zionist influence. Quite the contrary. The intense lobbying efforts of PNAC, AIPAC and others did not spring into existence sometime after the Congressional resolution you refer to and before the PNAC letter to Clinton, but were present all along. Why would the U.S. Congress concern itself with regime change in Iraq of all places? Obviously external forces were at work to procure the resolution, and obviously those promoting the resolution knew that AIPAC, PNAC and similar agencies would have an interest in seeing it pushed through. It would have been insane for those promoters NOT to have enlisted Zionist support for the "bi-partisan" resolution, whether the original promoters were (as seems highly likely) Zionists or not.
Secondly because there is all the difference in the world between enacting some bullshit resolution calling for "regime change" in Iraq or "democracy" in Cuba or "independence" for Tibet or whatever flavour-of-the-month special interest pork barrel needs attention at the moment and actually invading the country. Try to focus on the issue here: Victor Davis Hanson claimed the INVASION was not the result of Zionist pressure. He didn't claim the Congressional resolution was not the result of Zionist pressure. In my response, I did not concern myself with ineffectual, pure-bullshit Congressional resolutions but with the invasion itself. Contrary to what that bullshit artist Hanson claims, the invasion definitely was for reasons which included the satisfaction of Zionist objectives.
-
Even if you are correct, this is just typical of the bullshit used to obscure PNAC/Zionist involvment in this debacle.
Sorry , don't see how a congressional resolutional before the PNAC letters is an attempt by the jew bastard neo-cons to obscure the issue. Firstly because the PNAC signers were not all jew bastards and secondly because the PNAC letters were basically a me too statement. It's that pesky timeline thing again.
-
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?
Gladly, once we get a checkbox designating where our tax dollars go.
Considering that as a demographic, Jews are among the most likely to oppose the Iraq war, and support of Israel is hardly unanimous among Jews, I'm not sure a policy of non-intervention would be construed as "fuck the Jews", even among Jews.
Perhaps that is the wrong question to ask them in a poll. Perhaps asking whether the road to middle east peace goes through, baghdad, damascus, cairo and tehran and the answer might be quite different.
-
Back to the Victor Davis Hanson article - -
<<George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.>>
Let's be clear about this from the outset: it is extremely unlikely that Bush EVER resolved to "democratize" Iraq prior to his invasion of it. He gave no indication to the American people that this was his main reason for the invasion, which was sold to the whole world as a NECESSITY forced upon the American people by the "deadly threat" of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction." Democratization, when mentioned at all, was presented as an incidental benefit that would flow from the invasion, a special treat for the Iraqis which would neutralize any hostility towards the invaders. The REAL reasons for the invasion are what they obviously appear to be: control of an important resource in the face of growing international competition for energy and service to the interests of the State of Israel. The publicly stated reason - - weapons of mass destruction - - was obviously a lie from the beginning and fooled virtually none of the major European powers or Canada. Did not even fool half of the American public themselves.
<<First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East.>>
Well, that's true enough. But there is not a single instance in all of American history when America invaded a country and replaced its leadership because its regime was "atrocious." It's a helluva stretch to ask anyone to believe that this is why the U.S. invaded. Besides, many regimes (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) are equally or almost equally "atrocious." Not only does the U.S. not invade them, it does not even call for sanctions against them. It does not refuse all of them foreign aid. It does not refuse to sell all of them weapons. It is clear that although the U.S. may claim to have been upset enough to invade Iraq because of Iraq's "atrocious" governments, this is impossible to reconcile with America's failure to take ANY steps against other regimes which are equally atrocious, even steps which fall far short of invasion.
<<And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy - and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.>>
It's kind of interesting that in this entire litany of American foreign-policy "errors" - - moral failures actually - - none of them even mention U.S. support for Israel, which has to be a major factor in inflaming Muslim and Middle Eastern opinion against America - - and none of them can in even the remotest way justify the invasion of Iraq, which Hanson doesn't even try.
What was the point of even mentioning all these "errors" of past judgment? Hanson's piece isn't aimed at the true believers, the already-committed; he's aiming at the liberals, the uncommitted. Conceding failures of past U.S. policies in matters that don't directly relate to the invasion and its possible reasons, Hanson is trying to get his targets onboard by saying things he knows they will agree with. At the same time, ANY mention of Israel at this point, particuarly in the context of failed or "erroneous" past American policies would run directly counter to the interests of the patron which Hanson is being paid to protect at all costs. No way can America's problems in the Middle East be related back to Israel - - those problems are and have to remain tied solely to the "Clash of Civilizations" "Islamofascist" nonsense popularized by Bernard Lewis and other Zionist propagandists.
-
<<Sorry , don't see how a congressional resolutional before the PNAC letters is an attempt by the jew bastard neo-cons to obscure the issue. Firstly because the PNAC signers were not all jew bastards . . . >>
Most of the PNAC founding members were in fact Jewish and Zionist and all of them were Zionists. That fact remained constant from the founding of PNAC until now. It was certainly the case when the letter was signed, and at that time I believe that Cheney was the only prominent non-Jewish member of PNAC.
<<and secondly because the PNAC letters were basically a me too statement. It's that pesky timeline thing again. >>
I'm afraid that unless you can produce a date and a text for this alleged resolution, nobody is going to be able to comment meaningfully on any timeline, yourself included.
-
I ask this in all sincerity, Michael: How does Israel inflame the whole Muslim world? And what do you suggest be done about it now?
-
<<I ask this in all sincerity, Michael: How does Israel inflame the whole Muslim world? And what do you suggest be done about it now?>>
domer, you just don't grasp the enormity of what's going on in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank or how long it's been going on. If I said "Nazi occupation," it'd be an exaggeration, but not by all that much. But what's hidden from your eyes - - or shown in tiny snippets maybe once or twice a week on your MSM - - is front-page news all day every day all over the Arab world. This, incidentally, is why it's an outrage that the Arabs have no voice here, that al-Jazeera can't show its news alongside Fox and CNN. America has no idea, America has no clue. Murders, assassinations, bulldozings, women giving birth waiting in line at checkpoints, ambulances turned back, crops destroyed, fruit trees cut down, beatings . . . once in awhile a shell hits a home and 19 family members die, but the killings go on day after day in smaller numbers - - killings, maimings, cripplings. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are living hells - - intentionally so, because the Israelis want them, want the Palestinians out, one at a time if necessary.
You don't get the same news the Arabs get, domer - - you get a very sanitized version. They see this shit day in, day out and they can't do a God-damned fucking thing about it. THAT'S what enrages them - - not just the atrocities but their own powerlessness in the face of them. That no Arab government will step forward and take up the cause. That the one who came closest - - Saddam - - was destroyed for it. Sure, Saddam was a thug and a torturer - - who isn't? Their own governments are as bad or worse, but you don't see America "regime-changing" them. The Israeli government's almost as bad - - you don't see the U.S. government regime-changing it.
In one word, domer, INJUSTICE. Injustice is inflaming them. It's driving them crazy. I'm just a dumb fucking Jew living in Canada and it's driving ME nuts, what do you think it is doing to people who are the same flesh and blood and race and religion and speak the same language and come from the same culture? Living under some fucking U.S.-backed dictatorship that's been bought and sold and won't lift a finger to stop the Israeli slaughter of Muslims? This is a back-story in America, domer, but it's front-page news all day every day in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
I think it could have gotten to the point where it can't be turned back. Too much hatred built up. But that shouldn't matter. The Jews have got to stop oppressing the Arabs and the Americans have got to stop supporting the Jews. Or the Israelis, technically. They need a new broom in Jerusalem. Somebody who comes in brand new and says Holy Shit! We have been fucking up and doing wrong and it's stopping here and now. We are deadly sorry for what we have done and we are going to offer massive reparations to the extent of our ability to repay but for right now this is going to happen: All Jewish forces out of Gaza and West Bank over the next thirty days. Period. We are not going to evacuate any settlements. All settlers who wish to stay will have to accept that they will live under Palestinian law. We will not protect them. Stay or leave, that is YOUR problem, settlers, it is not our problem any more. Your property will become subject to Palestinian law. If they seize it, the seizure will be accounted for as down payment on the reparations we owe to the Palestinians but in any event we are levying a tax of $1,000 U.S. on every living Israeli, to be paid as a FIRST INSTALMENT ONLY on a reparations fund. Our army will defend ourselves against any and all attacks. We have apologized and we will make reparations regardless of whether you attack us within our new borders or not, but we will defend ourselves against all attacks regardless of our guilt for past atrocities.
As I see it, that's what they have to do. The present course will just build ever-escalating hatred. Sooner or later the U.S. will abandon them and by that time they will be truly fucked. This way is the only way - - stop doing the shit that feeds the hatred, try to the outer limits of what you can to make amends, defend yourself vigilantly in the interim and hope that gradually with the passage of time the hatred will slowly ebb. And hold on to those nuclear weapons just in case.
-
I'm afraid that unless you can produce a date and a text for this alleged resolution
It's been posted before, several times. Must be that pesky memory thing again.
HR 4655, submitted January 27th, 1998. Became Public Law No: 105-338 when Clinton signed it on August 14th, 1998.
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105)
-
Thank you, Michael. Further questions: Why does the larger Arab-Muslim world, served by al-Jazeera et al., identify so strongly with the Palestinians? Why is harm to a Palestinian harm to oneself? This seems like primitive thinking, that is, thinking without normal psychological boundaries. And, in truth, despite what the Arab-Muslim world is fed, is not the situation more tragic than barbaric, as you characterize it? As far as the steps you think need to be taken posthaste, is Israel's continued existence as a nation (which I will separate from the safety of its people, which I would suggest the US has a role in protecting) a primary feature of this tableau, or is it expendable?
-
Thank you, Michael. Further questions: Why does the larger Arab-Muslim world, served by al-Jazeera et al., identify so strongly with the Palestinians? Why is harm to a Palestinian harm to oneself? This seems like primitive thinking, that is, thinking without normal psychological boundaries. And, in truth, despite what the Arab-Muslim world is fed, is not the situation more tragic than barbaric, as you characterize it? As far as the steps you think need to be taken posthaste, is Israel's continued existence as a nation (which I will separate from the safety of its people, which I would suggest the US has a role in protecting) a primary feature of this tableau, or is it expendable?
It is not hard to understand in the light of our own behavior.
Consider the news coverage of the Indian Ocean Tsunami , the casualtys included many thousand Asains but we were interviewing the few hundred European and American survivors much more than the local survivors.
-
<<This coming from the fella that believes Bush would have sat on 911 if he knew . . . >>
Yes, particularly since the PNAC lay out the need to invade a major Middle Eastern nation, and speculated that "only a new Pearl Harbor" could provide the justification, it's not unthinkable that Bush would have let the WTC attacks proceed had he been given advance knowledge. You have produced no evidence at all to the contrary and since we're both speculating on a hypothetical, but I with the advantage that Bush's past actions, mainly lying whenever it suits him, prove that he is unscrupulous, amoral and unethical, I would say that my speculation is just as valid as yours.
Where as I see the absolute opposite as my advantage, in that to embrace the mindset you're requiring would mandate a madman, an evil, egregiously hateful person. And from nearly EVERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE, we see just the opposite. The WORST thing you could apply to Bush is a potentially fatal naivity, of the world, and towards those that will do absolutely anything in bringing both him and this country down.
rape, torture, murder, cover-up . . . what are they, the acts of a small band of Christian saints? Oh no! I forgot! They're the acts of "a few bad apples"
Who are both condemned by the vast majority of those who support the war, and Prosecuted by those very same Government & military folk
"widespread" in this context means that they aren't an army of thugs unless every soldier in every unit in every theatre of operations has personally committed at least one act of torture, murder or rape
No, that it's common place, public, and condoned by folks like myself and by the military
who by some sheer coincidence having nothing at all to do with the American invasion somehow mysteriously appeared in its wake
Better there than on these shores
<< and that polling of Iraqis demonstrated how taking out Saddam was crucial, regardless the cost. >>
The fact that you can't point to one such poll is of course immaterial. It's sufficient that you can imagine such a poll, and (in conservative minds at least) your point is irrefutably proven.
61% currently http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf At one time it was 77%
-
<<Where as I see the absolute opposite as my advantage, in that to embrace the mindset you're requiring would mandate a madman, an evil, egregiously hateful person. And from nearly EVERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE, we see just the opposite. >>
sirs, I'm sorry I don't have the time right now to deal with all of your post, but the above words just kind of leapt off the screen for me and demanded a response. I really think you ought to read Hannah Arendt's book, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil." I'm sure you'd find it very interesting.
-
Thank you, Ami.
BT, your timeline argument is totally bogus. Not only did the PNAC letter precede the Congressional Resolution you refer to, the same people who produced the PNAC letter were, as I suspected, the very people who promoted the resolution. Read this, my friend:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610462/U_S_-Iraq_War.html
U.S.-Iraq War
<<Long before President George W. Bush took office in 2001, elements in or close to the Republican Party had called repeatedly for firmer U.S. steps against Iraq, including a war if necessary to force a regime change. One such group authored a white paper in 1996 called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, which was later sent to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel’s Likud Party. It advocated a war against Iraq as a way of undermining Syria and of moderating the Shia Hezbollah of southern Lebanon, arguing that these actions would pave the way for peace and stability in a notoriously unstable part of the world. The paper came out of discussions among foreign policy experts, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, many of whom later occupied important positions in the Bush administration. [every single one of them Jewish and every single one of them a supporter of the State of Israel - MT]
<<The PNAC wrote a letter to President Clinton in January 1998 calling for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime†from power and urging Clinton to use “a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts†to accomplish this.
<<A month later the same signatories joined a broader group of foreign policy and defense experts known as the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in another open letter to President Clinton. This letter was more explicit in calling for the use of military force, including a “systematic air campaign†to destroy Iraq’s Republican Guard divisions. Their efforts helped lead to the Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton in 1998, which made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.>>
The website for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm -
indicates that this legislation was introduced well after the PNAC letter, sent in January of that same year.
-
Thank you, Michael. Further questions: Why does the larger Arab-Muslim world, served by al-Jazeera et al., identify so strongly with the Palestinians? >>
That's a good question. I'd say it's kinship of various kinds, multi-level mutually reinforcing kinships - - first just human-to-human. The same reason why I, or Rachael Corrie or virtually any thinking, feeling human being is going to be shocked by what happens to a Palestinian or a Rwandan or a Vietnamese or a Jew: we're all humans, and who wants to see that kind of suffering endured by another human being who could be one's mother or sister or uncle. The identification is sharpened by a higher levels of kinship - - these aren't just randomized human beings picked off anywhere on the face of the earth - - they're Muslims, Arabs, Arabic speakers - - there's a kinship factor there which makes it even more personal.
<<Why is harm to a Palestinian harm to oneself? This seems like primitive thinking, that is, thinking without normal psychological boundaries.>>
I think, domer, you are opening up a huge can of worms when you talk about normal psychological boundaries. "Normal psychological boundaries," as you call them, are what let the U.S.A. and Canada slam the door in the face of Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Hitler in the last years leading up to WWII. I choose to call it what it is - - a stunning and callous indifference to the fate of others. How "normal" those "psychological boundaries" are can be seen from the fact that Great Britain, with a tiny fraction of the land mass and natural resources of either Canada or the U.S.A. and facing an imminent life-and-death struggle with Nazi Germany, was able to open its doors to approximately 100,000 of the same refugees during the same time period, and France and the Netherlands were capable of more or less the same acts of generosity and compassion.
-
BT, your timeline argument is totally bogus
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_1-30.html
The move to oust Saddam was going on well before the PNAC letter.
-
<<And, in truth, despite what the Arab-Muslim world is fed, is not the situation more tragic than barbaric, as you characterize it? >>
Aww, domer, come on. The situation is what it is. When you watch a video of a 12-year-old being shot to death as he cowers in terror against a wall with his father, or Rachael Corrie being crushed by a bulldozer, you don't analyze this thing like a Richard Ouzounian movie review in the Toronto Star as to whether we're seeing pathos or tragedy or hubris or black comedy. These people are experiencing a powerful sense of outrage. You're missing completely the visceral level at which this conflict is being perceived. As far as I'm concerned, at which this conflict should be perceived.
Sure, in the wider historical context, you are 100% right. It IS tragic. I am positive that the more enlightened Arab observers (like the late Edward Said, for example, or even Marwan Barghouti) would see it as tragic. But you asked about hatred. The hatred comes from the masses of people who lack the perspective to see it as tragic.
<<As far as the steps you think need to be taken posthaste, is Israel's continued existence as a nation (which I will separate from the safety of its people, which I would suggest the US has a role in protecting) a primary feature of this tableau, or is it expendable?>>
Well, that's probably the most challenging idea that's been opened up in this whole debate. Usually the safety of the Jewish people in Israel has been tied to the survival of the nation. I never considered that the two issues could be separated. Sloppy thinking, I guess, but it just never seemed realistic or practical to consider the two issues as separate. But I suppose now with the "one-state" solution emerging on the Arab side of the debate, it's probably something that would bear some thought.
I just don't know - - this is all off-the-cuff for me. I'm ambivalent about nationalism. I always mistrusted it, because I felt it played a big role in the Holocaust. At the same time, I was always an enthusiastic supporter of the various national liberation movements - - Algeria, Viet Nam, Cuba, even to the point where I began to appreciate the latter two more as triumphs of national liberation than of my "first love," revolutionary communism. I always related to Zionism (positively) as a kind of Jewish national liberation movement, never as the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. I guess I could say that a single state with equal rights for all might one day be theoretically acceptable to me personally but with huge reservations. My gut instinct is to stick with a Jewish national state for now - - when the other nations abandon their national identities, then maybe the Jews can abandon theirs. Excellent question, though, domer. Sorry I can't answer it any better.
-
<<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_1-30.html
<<The move to oust Saddam was going on well before the PNAC letter. >>
You should pay closer attention to your own time-lines. The panel discussion you referred to occurred on the second-last day of January, 1998. Assuming the most favourable position possible for your point, the first PNAC letter (the one with an ALL-Jewish signing cast) was delivered in "January, 1998," which means that if in fact it was delivered after your panel discussion, could only have been delivered late in the day of January 30 or else delivered on January 31st, 1998. In neither case would that constitute a panel discussion "well before" the PNAC letter and in fact the odds of the panel discussion having been held any time before the PNAC letter are actually something less than two in 31.
-
<<Where as I see the absolute opposite as my advantage, in that to embrace the mindset you're requiring would mandate a madman, an evil, egregiously hateful person. And from nearly EVERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE, we see just the opposite. >>
sirs, I'm sorry I don't have the time right now to deal with all of your post, but the above words just kind of leapt off the screen for me and demanded a response. I really think you ought to read Hannah Arendt's book, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil." I'm sure you'd find it very interesting.
Thanks for the Christmas suggestion, Tee. I'll keep it under advisement. Would I be guessing correctly that it references how what we see is supposed to prove the oppoisite of what is? More of that lack of proof is proof tactic, being employed yet again, perhaps?
-
<<Would I be guessing correctly that it references how what we see is supposed to prove the oppoisite of what is? More of that lack of proof is proof tactic, being employed yet again, perhaps?>>
Why don't you just read the fucking book, sirs? See for yourself what it references.
-
See for yourself what it references.
This from the guy who said that he couldn't be bothered to follow links in articles.
-
<<Would I be guessing correctly that it references how what we see is supposed to prove the oppoisite of what is? More of that lack of proof is proof tactic, being employed yet again, perhaps?>>
Why don't you just read the fucking book, sirs?
well, if it's an "f'ing book", no thanks. I'll just go with the source of the recommendation and their track record, as a barometer for what I could expect
-
You should pay closer attention to your own time-lines.
Well i can certainly see your logic. A name like Kelly certainly sounds Jewish to me.
And you think they just formulated their opinins on the spot, or do you think they had been thinking about them as long as Saddam was beng difficult with the inspections.
-
<<well, if it's an "f'ing book", no thanks. I'll just go with the source of the recommendation and their track record, as a barometer for what I could expect>>
Spoken like a true ignoramus. I suggested the book in view of your pathetically ignorant argument that Bush couldn't be evil enough to do the things people say he does because he doesn't LOOK evil. (Lacks horns and a tail, I guess.) The book was about the kind of evil - - in that case, the Holocaust - - that can be done by ordinary guys like Adolf Eichmann. Guys who look and act just as normal as anyone else.
-
well, if it's an "f'ing book", no thanks. I'll just go with the source of the recommendation and their track record, as a barometer for what I could expect
==============================================================
Could it be that Sirs does not actually READ books? Are books too complex for him?
What form of documentation would Sirs respect?
Faux News? The NY Post? The Geraldo Show? O'Reilly, perhaps?
-
Spoken like a true ignoramus. I suggested the book in view of your pathetically ignorant argument that Bush couldn't be evil enough to do the things people say he does because he doesn't LOOK evil.
Oh no, it goes FAR beyond that. He's not evil enough to do the things you say he does, because he doesn't ACT evil, in any way shape or form. So, unless your privvy to his inner most thoughts, family & friends that say otherwise, the ignorant one here is on the other side of this keyboard. And no "f'ing book" is going to make any headway for you, on that one either, I'm afraid
-
Juniorbush is either evil or hopelessly ignorant and controlled by evil individuals.
The War in Iraq is evil. War is always evil, and only occasionally necessary. The Iraq War was clearly unnecessary, and it has done immense evil. Torture at Abu Graib was evil. The deaths of 600,000 Iraqis is evil. The deaths of 2800 Americans troops is evil. The maiming of 20,500 Americans is also evil.
The fact that the Iraqis have also done a lot of evil to one another does not excuse the evil that occurred as a result of this stupid war.
War is an evil that evokes evil from nearly everyone it touches
-
Juniorbush is either evil or hopelessly ignorant and controlled by evil individuals. The War in Iraq is evil. .....yada, rant, blather
Well, that's 1 "obviously" twisted opinion
-
So it's "twisted" to think war is evil?
So you think the deaths of Iraqis and Americans is a good thing?
You think torture at Abu Graib is some sort of fun thing, like a cotillion?
Now I see you are in favor of illiteracy as well as torture, mayhem and death.
-
Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraq PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061126/ts_nm/iraq_dc_67
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The motorcade of
Iraq's prime minister was pelted with stones on Sunday by fellow Shi'ites in a Baghdad slum when he paid respects to some of the 200 who died there last week in the deadliest attack since the U.S. invasion.
ADVERTISEMENT
The anger in Sadr City, stronghold of the Medhi Army Shi'ite militia, boiled over on the third day of a curfew imposed on the capital by Nuri al-Maliki's U.S.-backed national unity coalition as it scrambled desperately to stop popular passions exploding into all-out civil war between Shi'ites and the Sunni minority.
"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a crowd began to surge around Maliki. Men and youths then jeered and jostled as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony for one of the 202 victims of Thursday's multiple car bomb attack in Sadr City.
Subsequent reprisals against Sunni mosques and homes and three days of sporadic mortar fire among Baghdad neighborhoods have kept the city's 7 million people locked down at home, fearful of what may come when the traffic ban ends on Monday.
"Every time there's a curfew I feel civil war will erupt very soon," said Baghdad housewife Um Hani after three days indoors. "I feel the situation is sliding toward an abyss."
Politicians from all sides issued a new joint appeal for calm. But Maliki, who is to meet
President Bush on Wednesday, accused fellow leaders of fuelling the violence.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani begins a delayed visit to
Iran on Monday, part of a round of regional diplomacy that also includes another U.S. enemy
Syria. Washington accuses Syria of aiding Sunni insurgents and Tehran of backing Shi'ite militias.
King Abdullah of Jordan, who will host a summit in Amman, said "something dramatic" must come out of it because Iraq was "beginning to spiral out of control." He urged an inclusive approach across the Middle East to avert that and two other possible civil wars -- in Lebanon and involving Palestinians.
[.................]
-
So it's "twisted" to think war is evil? So you think the deaths of Iraqis and Americans is a good thing? You think torture at Abu Graib is some sort of fun thing, like a cotillion? Now I see you are in favor of illiteracy as well as torture, mayhem and death.
Not even close, but at least you're consistent. The "twisted opinion" is specific to reference of how much a moron or how evil or both, Bush is supposed to be. Simple as that
-
Evil is as evil does.
As simple as that. ;D
-
Evil is as evil does. As simple as that. ;D
Boy, you got that right. Been watching that oozing out of the Middle East and the mutated version of Islam, for a couple of decades now, growing exponentially. I wouldn't be lauging at it though.
-
sirs: <<Oh no, it goes FAR beyond that. He's [Bush is] not evil enough to do the things you say he does, because he doesn't ACT evil, in any way shape or form. So, unless your privvy to his inner most thoughts, family & friends that say otherwise, the ignorant one here is on the other side of this keyboard. And no "f'ing book" is going to make any headway for you, on that one either, I'm afraid>>
The book is Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil." It's a very well researched work on an "ordinary man," a "good citizen," somebody who never "acted evil," just did his job. Never killed anyone personally, worked at a desk. But millions died because of him. The banality of evil was the sub-title of the book, and its real theme.
I suggested it to you in all good faith because of the mind-boggling naivete of your outlook, which you were good enough to repeat for me as quoted above. How anybody could say anything so stupid, let alone believe it, shook me up. I really figured you could benefit from reading the book, kind of broaden your outlook a little. What I failed to appreciate was the depth of the entrenched ignorance that I was dealing with.
Obviously I can't make you read a book, sirs. And ultimately your wilful ignorance should be your problem not mine, except for the fact that you vote and when you vote the whole world has to deal with the kind of morons who find it so easy to capture your vote. This is sad on one level (the personal) and tragic on another (the political.)
-
<<This ["See for yourself what it references."] from the guy who said that he couldn't be bothered to follow links in articles.>>
If I recall correctly, that was where you posted a link to a page that consisted itself of dozens of other links, the first few of which seemed to have nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Nice attempt to "simplify" (some would say, "distort") a not-so-complex situation."
-
If I recall correctly, that was where you posted a link to a page that consisted itself of dozens of other links, the first few of which seemed to have nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Nice attempt to "simplify" (some would say, "distort") a not-so-complex situation."
You recall incorrectly.
It was an article that then had references linked at the end of the article. You "refuted" my presented evidence by saying you couldn't be bothered to visit the links.
-
<<You recall incorrectly.
<<It was an article that then had references linked at the end of the article. You "refuted" my presented evidence by saying you couldn't be bothered to visit the links.>>
Gotta be a little more to the story than that. Either the links were to bullshit sources or the point was irrelevant or the original article you posted was impossibly verbose and yet managed to say nothing and I had reason to fear more of same . . .
-
Gotta be a little more to the story than that. Either the links were to bullshit sources or the point was irrelevant or the original article you posted was impossibly verbose and yet managed to say nothing and I had reason to fear more of same . . .
It was an article from the Washington Post.
I reposted the link along with a snippet of the article. You finally waved your hands and made the claim that it only covered fund raising for a 6 month period and obviously it was not valid for the entire election cycle.
When I made the point that I had only presented one article in a whole series of them, you dropped the subject.
-
The book is Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil." It's a very well researched work on an "ordinary man," a "good citizen," somebody who never "acted evil," just did his job. Never killed anyone personally, worked at a desk. But millions died because of him. The banality of evil was the sub-title of the book, and its real theme.
Ahh, so its back to a lack of proof is proof positive tactic. Kinda what i thought. In this case how egregiously evil Bush must be, because he comes off & acts as so not evil. Thanks for the recommendation and heads-up Tee. I'll keep it under consideration. As I said however, when you can get back to me with actual family, friends, or perhaps your fantastic ability to read minds, then we can talk about how "evil" Bush really is supposed to be, because otherwise we have to go by his actions, and currently they're nothing even remotely approaching that of Hitleresque "evil". Hell, not even close to Dodgers trading away Pedro Martinez evil
Of course, I do realize to a hard core socialist leftist, your definition of "evil" is quite vast.....pretty much anything to do with capitalism & our military, for 1. Likely any conservative, especially if it's a Black Conservative for another. The frequent jives of Bush being a stupid version of Hitler pretty much paint that picture of what you find "evil" as well. The point being, just like the egregious overuse of calling anyone that disagrees with the "black man" as being a racist & an uncle tom, thus perpetually minimzing what real racism is, the continued attempts to paint Bush as this egregious evil, in human manifestation form, continues to undermine and minimize truely evil folks and acts. But as long as it makes you feel good, I guess :-\
-
First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East. And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy - and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
All of this is very true, but it is also interesting that the focus is solely on the Middle East and that we assume George W. Bush (and the American people) has some moral high ground to impress democracy on an arbitrarily chosen nation. As an example, take the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Like him or loathe him, Chavez was properly elected by the people of Venezuela yet this administration certainly did not respect that democratic authority.
If you dislike that example, then what foreign policy has this administration enacted that has shown any glimpses of changing those past policies of supporting inhumane regimes? We support the regime in Eqypt. Bush continues to petition the EU to include Turkey. We support Uzbekistan, which is certainly not an enlightened democracy. We support Israel. There is a picture of Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty. We support China. I can certainly continue if you like. I have certainly not seen the Bush administration offer any change to that foreign policy standard which mirrors Clinton's efforts. So I ask again, where do we come off as some shining beacon in all of this?
No, point one is weak - very weak.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.
True, but we worry (and rightly so) about the alternative. Kuwait's elected assembly is filled with virulent anti-American sentiment. Luckily for us they have little power. Imagine a Congress of Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells. We don't love Mubarak, but the alternative scares us.
Second, at key moments in the 1980s and '90s, the United States signaled that it would appease its terrorist enemies rather than engage in the difficult work of uprooting them. We did little other than file an indictment or shoot a missile at the killers who murdered American citizens, diplomats and soldiers in East Africa, Lebanon, New York City, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Leaving Lebanon, scurrying out of Somalia, and continually flying through Saddam's skies for 12 long years without removing him only cemented the image of an uncertain America.
Nice try, but Saddam and the religious militants of Islam are not one and the same. It was well known throughout Islam that Saddam was not a practicing Muslim. In fact, Baathists in general are secular (and included Arab Christians) and disliked greatly by the Islamic militants.
The truth is, we really don't know what all was done with the terrorists during the 1980's and 1990's. I imagine that a great deal of it is classified. As a democracy we couldn't be as brash as the Soviets when it came to dealing with the likes of these groups. Killing innocent family members and removing body parts doesn't really work for a western nation that supposedly values human life and an open media.
Third, September 11 changed the way the U.S. looked at the status quo in the Middle East. That attack was the work of terrorists who were enabled by our autocratic clients in the Middle East, and emboldened by our previous inaction. In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past - and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States.
The last part of the last sentence is important. In essence the point of this paragraph is that "we had to do something." Too many ridiculous acts throughout history have been carried out because too many people subscribe to the theory that "we had to do something." Fascist philosophy often ran along the lines that inaction or deep thought and reflection before taking an action were the sings of inadequate manhood. Action, for fascists, must be immediate - thinking can come afterwards to justify the action taken. People, after all, respect quick action and decisive leadership. Of course, maturity should lead us to the conclusion that action is only as useful as the careful planning beforehand.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets - hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
The three "facts" are rather weak points really. Pakistan remains a strong sanctuary for the Taleban because Waziristan isn't going to be "conquered" anytime soon unless we want to fight another protracted guerilla war. As for the "hedging their bets" I really don't see that this author understands terrorism in the Middle East at all.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
Even if the results are Iranian-type theocracies?
We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish that the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
Who is demonizing? They quite clearly failed to see the aftermath of the initial removal of Saddam Hussein. The President even admitted so.
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay - because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
Idealism rarely trumps pragmatism in the real world.
-
JS
Thank God the dems now control both houses of congress and perhaps the whitehouse in 2008.
They will solve all our problems. Won't they?
-
Thank God the dems now control both houses of congress and perhaps the whitehouse in 2008.
They will solve all our problems. Won't they?
Not at all, where did I imply such?
-
The question, of course, is not who can do the job perfectly but who can do it better? Indeed, that's why they have elections.
-
The question, of course, is not who can do the job perfectly but who can do it better? Indeed, that's why they have elections.
By what criteria is it judged as to who can do it better. And elections are speculative, they are predicated on projections of future performance.
Middle East problems have been around since i was born. Through many administrations and congresses.
Let us not act like they just suddenly appeared last year. And let us not assume that they can be solved overnight. History doesn't show that track record.
-
"...take the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela..."
How exactly was the US involved in that?
-
<<Ahh, so its back to a lack of proof is proof positive tactic. Kinda what i thought. In this case how egregiously evil Bush must be, because he comes off & acts as so not evil.>>
sirs, your obsession with this "lack of evidence is proof positive" theme is pathological. In the case of Hannah Arendt's book, "Eichmann in Jerusalem; A Report on the Banality of Evil," the subject of the book, Adolf Eichmann, was a senior bureaucrat charged with implementing the Holocaust, who criss-crossed Europe making arrangements for round-ups, holding camps, transportation to the death camps by road and rail, etc. He left a paper trail a thousand miles long, thirty yards wide and three feet deep. There was no question about lack of evidence. They had more evidence than they needed. Everything meticulously recorded. The book had absolutely nothing to do with an absence of evidence.
The book is a classic. It's quoted by everyone on the political spectrum from right to left. The point was that people who perform monstrous deeds don't necessarily live monstrous lives or look like monsters. They can easily be normal, everyday, unremarkable people. The point was made numerous times with serial killers, for example, in the U.S.A. - - Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, the BTK Killer, etc. It's probably impossible to find one of these cases where some commentator somewhere hasn't quoted Hannah Arendt's phrase "the banality of evil" in relation to any of these criminals.
I really thought you'd (a) find it interesting and (b) learn something, and the only reason I suggested it at all was because of your incredibly stupid comment that Bush couldn't be evil because he didn't appear to be evil. But on second thought, maybe you shouldn't read the book after all - - you'd probably get a brain haemorrhage when you encountered your first three-syllable word. Better stick to reading the cartoons you seem to be so familiar with.
-
"...take the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela..."
How exactly was the US involved in that?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
Brought to you by Google;0)
-
Excellent.
This is about a year old . . . it shows the complicity of the media in the propaganda war waged against Hugo Chavez, and is entitled "The Op-Ed Assassination of Hugo Chavez."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2796
-
<<Ahh, so its back to a lack of proof is proof positive tactic. Kinda what i thought. In this case how egregiously evil Bush must be, because he comes off & acts as so not evil.>>
sirs, your obsession with this "lack of evidence is proof positive" theme is pathological.
No more than your pathological actual use of it
-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
Brought to you by Google;0)
Foreknowledge is different than direct support. DId we put troops on the ground, did the state department fund the opposition? Your link shows no smoking gun. All it shows is the plotters let members of the US govt know what they had up their sleeves.
-
"...take the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela..."
How exactly was the US involved in that?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
Brought to you by Google;0)
I didn't get it , this article didn't say that the US financed , planned , called for the coup.
More like we were aware of it and decided not to stop it.
-
<<DId we put troops on the ground, did the state department fund the opposition?>>
I believe the U.S. funded the operation. They funded the Chilean opposition prior to the overthrow of the Allende government and they funded the Iraqi opposition prior to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It's a common practice. They don't announce it and it doesn't surface in some cases till years afterwards, but you'd have to be very, very naive to think that every dirty trick the U.S. funds is announced at the time for the whole world or to believe that the leopard can change its spots.
<< Your link shows no smoking gun. All it shows is the plotters let members of the US govt know what they had up their sleeves. >>
And why on earth would they do that?
-
I believe the U.S. funded the operation. They funded the Chilean opposition prior to the overthrow of the Allende government and they funded the Iraqi opposition prior to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It's a common practice. They don't announce it and it doesn't surface in some cases till years afterwards, but you'd have to be very, very naive to think that every dirty trick the U.S. funds is announced at the time for the whole world or to believe that the leopard can change its spots.
Yopur belief doesn't make it so. The article Lanya posted was high on speculation and low on fact.
All it shows is some other human being is in agreement with you.
What else is new.
-
The CIA coordinated the attempted coup. Naturally, they won't admit that they did this, because it will make the US unpopular in the region and beyond. They also won';t admit it because they screwed up.
The truth about the Bay of Pigs did not come out until a decade had passed.
-
The CIA coordinated the attempted coup. Naturally, they won't admit that they did this, because it will make the US unpopular in the region and beyond. They also won';t admit it because they screwed up.
Perhaps it was a rogue operation.
Besides the article laid it at the feet of Reich, Negroponte and Abrams.
-
This falls into the theroy that nothing on Earth is done without being instigated by some agency of the USA.
Hugo Chevez is a bafoon , but his people seem to love him .
If he gives up power willingly at the time that his opponents outnumber him at the polls I will change my opinion of him totally .
The peacefull transfer of power is better than any revolution.
-
<<Your belief doesn't make it so. The article Lanya posted was high on speculation and low on fact. >>
Well, my post was high on fact and low on speculation. If your dog killed a next-door neighbour's chicken three times in the past three weeks and today the neighbour loses another chicken to a dog, odds are good you'll know which dog. My belief was based on fact. The fact was the past performance of the principal suspect.
No, my belief doesn't make it so. It just makes it probable. That's all I ask for in a political conclusion. Probability. Reasonable certainty. The guy who holds out for proof positive or the "smoking gun" particularly in matters which are usually conducted under deep cover, is never going to come to any conclusions. He's likely to be wrong more times than he's right. There is no positive proof at all that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. Just a lot of circumstantial evidence. Just a lot of probability.
-
There is no positive proof at all that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.
Hitler proclaimed in a speech near the end of his life: "Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world....I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated."
So, Hitler himself claimed to have ordered it. Unfortunately, many of his underlings destroyed documents near the end of the war, so no written orders have been found. Had Hitler survived to go on trial, more work might have been done linking him directly with orders - that was not needed, so it was never done.
But I would say that a confession would count as "positive proof."
-
It is a standard part of all jury charges to advise the panel that "circumstantial evidence may be as probative and satisfying as direct evidence." The favorite example of circumstantial evidence that many judges use is this: Before you go to bed one night, you look out in the backyard and under a starlit sky see the ground clear and bare. The next morning when you wake up, the ground is covered with a cold, white, powdery substance. That is compelling proof that it snowed overnight although you didn't observe it."
-
[snip]
Only if the white, powdery substance is actually snow.
:D
-
<<Hitler proclaimed in a speech near the end of his life: "Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world....I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated.">>
THAT'S a confession? LMFAO. It doesn't confess to a single act of violence. It was a prediction of what would happen to the Jews. Doesn't say at whose hands. Hitler often referred to the fate inflicted on the Jews by the "spontaneous outrage" of the local populations and in fact a lot of Holocaust massacres were carried out by locals, in Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania, to name just a few.
A first-year law student could make mincemeat out of a "confession" like that. That's total bullshit. "I fought open-eyed and in view of the world" = I caused them to be rounded up and shot or gassed? Nonsense.
As I said, there is NO direct evidence at all linking Hitler to the Holocaust.
-
<<The next morning when you wake up, the ground is covered with a cold, white, powdery substance. That is compelling proof that it snowed overnight although you didn't observe it.">>
I thought it proved the house was moved north overnight while you slept.
-
It's enough of a confession to be admissible in every court in this country for that purpose. To qualify broadly as a "confession," a statement need only be incriminatory, not necessarily conclusive. I have no doubt, as do you in your heart of hearts, that this particular comment, in context (that is, with circumstantial evidence) would have been enough to hang the bastard.
-
As I said, there is NO direct evidence at all linking Hitler to the Holocaust.
Well, there is also loads of evidence, such as reports from Himmler to Hitler (a portion of one reproduced below) which shows that Hitler knew the Jews were being killed. Between his own statements (a number of them) and the documentary evidence that he knew it was going on and didn't stop it, would be enough to convict. And it's also enough to link Hitler to the Holocaust in any reasonable person's mind.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/64/Himmler_report.jpg)
-
As I said, there is NO direct evidence at all linking Hitler to the Holocaust.
Between his own statements (a number of them) and the documentary evidence that he knew it was going on and didn't stop it, would be enough to convict. And it's also enough to link Hitler to the Holocaust in any reasonable person's mind.
You do have to consider who you're responding to, Ami
-
Nice try, Ami. Almost snuck it through. Too bad you don't read German.
The first paragraph, obviously, refers to the killing of "Banditen" (bandits.)
The next paragraph refers to helpers of armed gangs ("Bandenhelfer") or what we might call accessories, and to suspected gang members ("Bandenverdachtige," sorry I can't add the umlaut) which has a high number of Jews included as "executed," and the third paragraph relates to the killing of deserters (Uberlaufer.)
sirs, for once in his life, was right - - you DO have to consider who you're responding to, Ami.
-
<<It's enough of a confession to be admissible in every court in this country for that purpose. To qualify broadly as a "confession," a statement need only be incriminatory, not necessarily conclusive.>>
I don't dispute its admissibility, my point is that on its own, without any circumstantial evidence, it's not a clear-cut confession and does not by itself, standing alone, constitute any kind of proof one way or the other as to what Hitler did.
<< I have no doubt, as do you in your heart of hearts, that this particular comment, in context (that is, with circumstantial evidence) would have been enough to hang the bastard.>>
My point throughout this thread was that the circumstantial evidence alone, including the so-called confession as a very minor part of it, would have been enough to hang the bastard.
My beef is with those who claim - - in the absence of direct evidence - - that the Bush administration did not green-light the attempted coup against Chavez. Provide assurance to the coup plotters, as they had with the plotters against Allende, that they would receive U.S. government recognition if the coup succeeded. There is a mind-set that (where Bush is involved) will not accept circumstantial evidence that he lied, that he approved of torture, that he plotted to overthrow Chavez, etc. That was the only point I was trying to make - - certainly not that Hitler was innocent.
-
Too bad you don't read German.
English is my third language. I learned German at home, from birth (my "mother tongue" - since it's what my parents spoke and continue to speak at home). My second language was Spanish since I was living in Honduras as a child. I also learned some Greek, Italian, and French through the years.
The first paragraph, obviously, refers to the killing of "Banditen" (bandits.)
The next paragraph refers to helpers of armed gangs ("Bandenhelfer") or what we might call accessories, and to suspected gang members ("Bandenverdachtige," sorry I can't add the umlaut) which has a high number of Jews included as "executed," and the third paragraph relates to the killing of deserters (Uberlaufer.)
Since your German is so good, you should know that you represent an umlaut on a standard keyboard by adding an "e" after the vowel.
Category 2 is translated properly as "Bandit accomplices and suspects." This category includes Jews. This report, incidentally, was regarding insurrections in parts of Russia, the Ukraine, and Poland. You should note that the number of Jews "executed" far exceeds the number of "bandit accomplices and suspects" arrested (line 2A). The area that this report covers includes Treblinka.
And category 3 is translated properly as "Turncoats thanks to German propaganda." These are not numbers killed, but people who became Nazi accomplices.
The "Bandits" they talk about here are Russian partisan (resistance) fighters. This is known from the note at the bottom, translated as "[t]he number of casualties are to be considered much higher, because the Russians carry off their fallen or bury them immediately."
sirs, for once in his life, was right - - you DO have to consider who you're responding to, Ami.
So do you.
-
As I said the document makes no reference at all to the massacre of an entire civilian population. You have bandits (their well-known propaganda term for resistance fighters,) suspected bandits and helpers (literally) or "accessories" as they would be known in Canadian criminal jargon ("accessory after the fact") or as you put it best of all, "accomplices" and finally, not a tally of executed German "deserters" as I had assumed, but "deserters" from the other (Russian) side or as you put it, "turncoats" - - converted but not killed.
The basic fact remains - - this document does not refer to any massacre of innocent civilians, rather it purports to be a tally of resistance fighters, suspects and accomplices killed. It is NOT documentary proof of Hitler's knowledge of a Holocaust in progress.
-
The basic fact remains - - this document does not refer to any massacre of innocent civilians, rather it purports to be a tally of resistance fighters, suspects and accomplices killed.
Well, let's see. Bandit accomplices arrested: 3078. Bandits accomplices executed: 3020. Jews executed: 165282.
You claim the "Jews" listed here are part of the "accomplices." How come the "Jews" number is so much larger than the total bandit accomplices arrested? Where did the extra come from? Possibly the civilians?
Oh, I got it. Germans were just bad at math, right?
It is NOT documentary proof of Hitler's knowledge of a Holocaust in progress.
Funny, this was part of the evidence used at Nuremburg. Seems to have helped convince someone.
-
<<Funny, this was part of the evidence used at Nuremburg. Seems to have helped convince someone.>>
As I'm sure you know, Hitler was not one of the Nuremburg defendants, so it didn't help convict him of anything.
<<Well, let's see. Bandit accomplices arrested: 3078. Bandits accomplices executed: 3020. Jews executed: 165282.
<<You claim the "Jews" listed here are part of the "accomplices." >>
They obviously are. They're the third sub-category under the heading "Accomplices and Suspects." First a number arrested, then a number almost equal to the first shown as executed; obviously most of the arrested "accomplices and suspects" were executed, but some escaped execution after arrest; third is "Jews Executed" - - this would be consistent with a policy not to bother arresting Jews accused or suspected of complicity but to shoot them on the spot. Evidence that Jewish "banditry" suspects were treated more harshly than non-Jewish suspects, but still not proof of a generalized massacre of all Jews, whether or not suspected of "banditry."
<<How come the "Jews" number is so much larger than the total bandit accomplices arrested? Where did the extra come from? Possibly the civilians?>>
Sure. Who but a bunch of Jews could possibly object to the benevolent rule of the Master Race? The Jews - - plus the few unfortunate Christian dupes they could find - - were the "bandits." But since the Jews (according to Nazi racial theory) are too cowardly and weak to join in the fighting themselves, they don't appear in the first sub-category ("Bandits") at all. To include the Jews in the actual "Bandits" heading would imply that some German soldiers had actually been killed by them, which would constitute a huge disgrace to a brave Aryan warrior - - killed by an untermensch!
However, it now occurs to me that this whole argument is really a gigantic waste of time - - since the document itself is no proof whatsoever that Hitler either ordered or approved of the Holocaust. Just because the document is entitled "Report to the Fuehrer" is no proof that he got it or read it. It's just more circumstantial evidence. Proving yet again my point that circumstantial evidence can be as damning as direct evidence if there's enough of it.
-
As I'm sure you know, Hitler was not one of the Nuremburg defendants, so it didn't help convict him of anything.
Gee, what did I say early on?
-
However, it now occurs to me that this whole argument is really a gigantic waste of time
Every argument with you is a gigantic waste of time.
You have a preset notion and everything that contradicts your notion is dismissed out of hand, and even a lack of evidence for support of your position is taken as evidence.
Even physics must bend to your preset notions - obviously, if the physical world disagrees with you, it's the world that's wrong, not you.
-
<<You have a preset notion and everything that contradicts your notion is dismissed out of hand, and even a lack of evidence for support of your position is taken as evidence.>>
You mean I'm right most of the time and your bullshit arguments don't fool me? Guilty as charged, your Honour.
-
You mean I'm right most of the time and your bullshit arguments don't fool me?
ROFLMAO
That's just what I needed before I go to bed, a good belly laugh.
You're soooo funny when you act serious.
-
Had a feeling you'd be unable to come up with a decent comeback and you didn't surprise me. "ROTFLMFAO," "I needed a good laugh" and "You're a riot" are about what I've come to expect from you in terms of content.
-
Had a feeling you'd be unable to come up with a decent comeback and you didn't surprise me.
To the claim that you're always right?
There is nothing that could have said it better.
You're wrong so often that hearty belly laugh is about the only response I could make.
Stuff like 190 degree coffee boiling, RAF never made daylight bombing raids, Castro never used torture, things like that.
As a matter of fact, I'd say that you have a visceral knowledge of the fact that you're often wrong; this was expressed when you claimed that you wouldn't take any wagers because you didn't want to go broke paying out. If you're always right (or nearly always right) you wouldn't go broke paying out, you'd take in more than you paid out. So, your subconscious apparently knows that you're wrong quite often.
Hell, I can find 3 errors in one post you've made on this thread alone.
-
umlaut, umlaut, umaut ü,ü,ü Hold down the left ALT key and type 0252 on the keypad. Release the ALT key and voilá!
capital umlaut, ALT 154 Ü, or ALT o220 Ü.
In Spanish we call this a diéresis.
á é à ó ú ñ à É à Ó Ó ¿ ¡ « » €€€€- hah!
I can even do a ¢ (ALT 162)
÷? ~ ALT 0247
-
I didn't say I'm always right, I said I was mostly right. You can't even get a simple quote like that right, it shouldn't surprise me that you misrepresent anything else I might have said too.
<<Stuff like 190 degree coffee boiling . . . >>
Originally, that was a theoretical prediction about what happens when heated liquid undergoes rapid depressurization, as when a lid is removed from a cup. Since the boiling point of a liquid varies with air pressure, theoretically it is possible (depending on the actual boiling point of, in this case, a colloidal solution, the air pressure with the cap on, the air pressure with the cap off, and the speed of removal of the cap, none of which factors were capable of precise measurement at the time) that the cup could boil over with the removal of the cap.
<<RAF never made daylight bombing raids . . . >>
It turns out that a small percentage of RAF bombing raids at the beginning of the war were daylight raids. When I produced the entire operational log of the RAF operations during WWII to prove that your father's claim to have had his school in Austria bombed during a daylight RAF raid had to be bullshit, you had no real answer.
<< Castro never used torture, things like that.>>
Castro didn't use torture. Tad Szulc's biography of Fidel refers to an incident where he appears to laugh at a Commandante using torture to extract confessions from a group of counterrevolutionary guerrillas after another Commandante had had to let them go for lack of evidence. Szulc claims he managed to convince Castro that this wasn't right and that seems to have been the end of it. While Cuban jails might leave something to be desired in terms of prisoner comfort, there's no credible evidence I'm aware of that Castro either practices or condones torture. Certainly nothing on the scale of Abu Ghraib, Baghram base, secret European torture centres maintained by the C.I.A. or other centres of U.S. torture and abuse.
-
umlaut, umlaut, umaut ü,ü,ü Hold down the left ALT key and type 0252 on the keypad. Release the ALT key and voilá!
capital umlaut, ALT 154 Ü, or ALT o220 Ü.
Thank you.
However, no matter the keyboard, you can always type "ü" as "ue". Just like you can always type "ß" as "ss". Just some German standards that all people who have studied German should know.
-
Originally, that was a theoretical prediction about what happens when heated liquid undergoes rapid depressurization, as when a lid is removed from a cup. Since the boiling point of a liquid varies with air pressure, theoretically it is possible (depending on the actual boiling point of, in this case, a colloidal solution, the air pressure with the cap on, the air pressure with the cap off, and the speed of removal of the cap, none of which factors were capable of precise measurement at the time) that the cup could boil over with the removal of the cap.
And I pointed out that the physical constants needed to calculate the pressure differential are known and documented, and can be looked up. And when I provided those, you persisted in declaring that you were right, even though the conditions didn't allow for it to happen. The pressure differential is on the order of the difference in air pressure between sea level and above the height of Mt. Everest (where breathing masks are required for most people). I think that pressure difference would be noticed, even without "precise measurements". "Theoretical predictions" were not your claim - you stated flat out that the coffee "boiled over" when she removed the lid, and I stated it was not possible and why. You persisted in claiming the coffee boiled over, to the point of implying that I was lying. I've even calculated the pressure that the cup would be under - about 88 lbs (40 kgs). All you have to do to prove that your scenario is correct is find a standard styrofoam coffee cup that will support that weight. I'm still waiting.
It turns out that a small percentage of RAF bombing raids at the beginning of the war were daylight raids. When I produced the entire operational log of the RAF operations during WWII to prove that your father's claim to have had his school in Austria bombed during a daylight RAF raid had to be bullshit, you had no real answer.
Actually I did. You might remember that I pointed out that bombing raids have secondary targets along their route. And the routes for the primary targets in the documentation that you provided would, in some cases, be over the town my father lived in. And this town contained a steel mill, so it's highly likely that the town would have been designated as a "secondary target" - which your provided documentation does not provide information on. In addition, RAF nighttime raids would sometimes have the bombers returning in the morning. Secondary targets were hit by bombers that were damaged and had to return early, or by returning bombers that had, for some reason, not loosed all of their ordinance on the primary target. Standard bombing operations shows that you're wrong and it is possible for my father's town to have been hit by the RAF, but you won't hear of it - you're right, and everything to the contrary must be automatically wrong.
Castro didn't use torture. Tad Szulc's biography of Fidel refers to an incident where he appears to laugh at a Commandante using torture to extract confessions from a group of counterrevolutionary guerrillas after another Commandante had had to let them go for lack of evidence. Szulc claims he managed to convince Castro that this wasn't right and that seems to have been the end of it. While Cuban jails might leave something to be desired in terms of prisoner comfort, there's no credible evidence I'm aware of that Castro either practices or condones torture. Certainly nothing on the scale of Abu Ghraib, Baghram base, secret European torture centres maintained by the C.I.A. or other centres of U.S. torture and abuse.
I provided a transcript of testimony given at the UN about the use of torture by Castro's government. You said that it couldn't be believed because the people giving the testimony were dissidents. And scale was not the question, anyway.
Guess it's easy to be right when you don't believe anything that contradicts you.