NYT Editorial Demands Immediate Withdrawal Decision

[Universe Prince]

The blood of innocent Iraqi's will be on their hands.

Adult male bovine excrement.

If you really want to play this sort of game about who is responsible for people getting killed, Osama bin Laden claimed, as I recall, that you were responsible for all the deaths caused by aggressive American foreign policy. He blames all Americans for having and supporting a government that pursued such policy. I doubt very much you consider that blood to be on your hands. But if your statement is true, then so is his. I don't believe either is true.

You mentioned Iraqi on Iraqi violence. At least a portion of that involves attacks on Iraqis who support the presence of American troops in Iraq. So if your statement is true, then one could just as easily claim you have the blood of innocent Iraqis on your hands for supporting the continued American presence in Iraq. Again, I doubt very much you consider that blood to be on your hands, and I don't believe it is.

The New York Times editorial department did not start the war, didn't tell anyone to kill innocent Iraqi people, and they are not responsible for the killings that have and/or will go on in Iraq. If there is a troop pull out from Iraq, the New York Times editorial department will not be responsible for the deaths of any Iraqi. That responsibility rests with those ordering and doing the killing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When we decided to be uninvolved the result cost us the dontown New York skyline.

=========================================================
Whether the US should have tried a bit harder to prevent the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan is not the same issue as 9-11. 9-11 was the result of incompetent security measures taken here in the US to assure that the airliners were not hijacked. It was well known that Al Qaeda had it in the for WTC, as they tried to blow it up in 1993.

It might have been leftover residual incompetence of the Clinton Administration, or fresh incompetence of the Juniorbushies, but it was caused by incompetence HERE, in the US.

At one point the Taliban was welcomed because they were doing away with the opium trade.
 

[Michael Tee]

<<After two million die in a war what is a few hunded thousand dieing in prison count for?

<<I don't absolutely trust these numbers, to me they seem low.

<<Vietnam fought the west for a whole generation just for the right to mistreat its own people and starve them.


<<But that is so much better than haveing individual freedom and prosperity that they are admired for it.


<<As they slowly become less Communist their condition s improving .>>

I don't trust those numbers either - - I looked at the article you found in Wikipedia and the first thing it (Wikipedia) says is that the article is "insufficiently sourced."  As you get into the article, you find it's by two unknown reporters apparently of Vietnamese origin, no indication of their families' political affiliation, but since the DART organization they wrote for is run by people fairly high up in the U.S. MSM establishment, it's obvious that both reporters must be from anti-communist refugee families.  In the article itself are numerous admissions of the "there are no figures on this, there are no records on that" variety.  Various unnamed sources, professors, etc., "estimate" that "one million" were imprisoned, etc.  All estimates, all nice round figures, all (presumably) anticommunist.  Not even a token attempt to ask the government of Viet Nam one token question about all of this.

Then, as "proof" of the atrocity charges, they take the personal account of one "innocent victim" of the process.  ooops, real bad choice of "innocent victim" here - - the guy, a father of seven (GOTTA be an innocent victim, right, he's the "Father" of "Father Knows Best") was actually a Lt. - Colonel of the treasonous, collaborationist South Vietnamese Army.  A guy who, IMHO, ought to have been shot as a traitor to his own people, but the "inhumane" new Vietnamese government decides to reeducate him and give him a second chance.  Go figure.

So this Lt. Col. ends up in a re-education camp.  They make the prisoners build their own barracks, erect the guard towers, etc. and  - - are you ready for this?  THEY DON'T FEED THEM VERY WELL>  (a fuller explanation of the poor prison diet is contained in the article, for those who are interested in fully documenting the inhumanity of Communist Vietnam.)  After working all day, the exhausted prisoners are forced to LISTEN TO READINGS OF COMMUNIST AUTHORS and even ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM.

From the prisoner's interview:

<<Guards use bamboo canes and rods to beat prisoners who fall asleep or refuse to answer questions. They tie up men and women. Corner them against a wall. Shove them to the ground. Trample their bodies. Kick their heads.>>

Oh, the humanity!!  The suffering.  Even I gotta admit, sounds . . . not good.  Till I think back to Col. John Vann's account of his days in Viet Nam, "A Bright Shining Lie" and its listing of the various tortures inflicted on captured VC prisoners.  Truly stomach-turning.  These "re-education camps" sound almost like Red Cross rehab hospitals when compared with what their "victims" had done to prisoners in their custody.

This crap continues endlessly.  Maybe plane didn't bother to read it all.  Maybe plane forgot about the "Tiger Cages" in which South Vietnamese political prisoners were kept by the South Vietnamese government in such cramped conditions that when finally released from years of captivity, their bodies were mis-shapen and permanently deformed, and rickety from years of poor nutrition.

Anyway, plane, suffice to say I am impressed NOT.  These tales of woe from Viet Nam sound more and more like an ex post facto attempt to justify the horrendous, illegal, murderous reign of torture and terror imposed by the U.S. and its puppets on South Viet Nam and are just completely unbelievable when they are not being boring and inconsequential.  Your facts and numbers about South Viet Nam's "suffering" under communism are just garbage.  Bullshit.  The "boat people" proof of the horrors of communism proves nothing more than the Cuban boat people prove - - that people are desperate to get out of poor countries and when guaranteed unconditional admission to anyplace they can boat over to, they are prepared to risk their lives at sea for that shot at the gold ring.

[Michael Tee]

<<The New York Times editorial department did not start the war, didn't tell anyone to kill innocent Iraqi people, and they are not responsible for the killings that have and/or will go on in Iraq. If there is a troop pull out from Iraq, the New York Times editorial department will not be responsible for the deaths of any Iraqi. That responsibility rests with those ordering and doing the killing.>>

Very true.  I find it fascinating that conservative Americans, while refusing categorically to accept ANY responsibility at all for the health-care of 45 million uninsured Americans, are nevertheless adamant that they, the American people as a whole, or in part (the "liberal" part) will be responsible for Iraqis killing Iraqis if the U.S. Army pulls out.

It is truly amazing.   One might almost say, hypocritical. 

[Lanya]

For our government, there is no honor, no glory in caring for the poor and the sick.   It's cheaper if we die.

[Michael Tee]

It's amazing how their attentions are forced on people thousands of miles away, and with lethal effect.  "Here, you look like you are STARVED for democracy, let me give you some."  "no, no, thank you , we're all right here just muddling along in our own way." 

"Nonsense, my dear fellow, I insist!  Here, have some of THIS democracy and some of THAT democracy"

"owww!  help!  please mister back off.  Pleeeze!!!"

But the generous, big-hearted American presses ahead with his project - - even if hundreds of thousands must die.

MEANWHILE, back home in America - - 45 million Americans without health insurance.  "Our government must help us."  "Yeah, help them"  Gov't:  "Nope.  Not our job.  Not up to us.  They gotta look after their own health insurance."

Absolutely and positively AMAZING.   But there it is.

[BT]

For our government, there is no honor, no glory in caring for the poor and the sick.   It's cheaper if we die.

What is this medicaid program i hear about. Is that not for the poor and sick?

[Amianthus]

When you point a finger four point back at you.

ROFL

She can't even count!

[Michael Tee]

I wanted to see if there was any intelligent rebuttal of the points in this thread that basically deal with the hypocrisy of fascists who claim that they have to stay in Iraq to prevent some possible future bloodbath which no one knows will happen or not.  Apparently, it is America's responsibility to see that Iraqis don't kill each other.  If after an American pull-out, Iraqis kill other Iraqis, somehow this will all be America's responsibility.  Somehow.

Meantime, if 18,000 Americans DIE every year because they have no health insurance, being among the 45 MILLION Americans who don't have health insurance, this is in no way, shape or form ANY responsibility of Americans or their government.  Oooops, sorry for your loss, now get outta my way, I'm headed for Iraq to bring those bastards a taste of our democracy.

The lunacy and hypocrisy of the far-right Bush administration and the dwindling band of fruit-bats who still support it.

Of course, the detailed, intelligent and highly-thought-out rebuttals consisted of (1) analysing how many fingers actually point back at you when one finger is pointed at someone else and (2) that medicaid is helping some Americans to get health-care (just not the 45  million who have none.)  Ludicrous.  I guess the Bush administration no longer has any viable defence against well-reasoned charges of hypocrisy and lunacy.

[sirs]

With the unfortunate and ignorant non-grasping of what are Fed Responsibilities, and what are not. Providing for the common defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic is job #1 of the Fed.  So, one can argue until they turn blue, that the U.S military shouldn't be in a number of places that they are, Iraq being one of them, but the use of the military is mandated by the Fed, and to be used in defense of this country (which also means they're not supposed to be used as a humanitarian body, yet they frequently are, and that apparently gets a pass from the same folks who apparently don't pay any attention to the Constitution)

No where (did I mention NO WHERE?) in the orignal documents that founded this great country was there ever "a job" by the Fed to provide health insurance to everyone who breathes.  That gaping ommission is what continues to cling to the left like wet saran wrap       

[Michael Tee]

<<With the unfortunate and ignorant non-grasping of what are Fed Responsibilities, and what are not.  Providing for the common defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic is job #1 of the Fed. >>

Well, it seems you're not keeping up with the latest lies from your government.  When the WMD lie was the operating excuse for them being in Iraq, they could conceivably have argued that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq to root out and destroy WMD was a "defence against enemies."  But then that lie was exposed and a new lie took its place - - that the U.S. was there to "bring democracy" to Iraq, even though it had never shown the slightest interest in "bringing democracy" to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Georgia, Uzbekistan, etc. , let alone to the West Bank.   And then that lie was pretty much given up because what was the point?  it was pretty obvious that a new democratic government was not going to happen in Iraq, even if the U.S. goverhment was in favour of such a development, which itself is a ludicrous idea.  So the latest lie they cooked up was this:  that the U.S. is in Iraq because there will be a "horrible bloodbath" if they leave.  This they all know.  (Like they knew they'd be "welcomed as liberators.")

Now it seems like a bloodbath of Iraqi against Iraqi is not a bloodbath against America - - not at all.  So there CAN'T be any "defence against enemies" if the only victims of the bloodbath are going to be Iraqis.  In fact, since the U.S. will in all probability continue to arm its favourites in the Iraqi civil strife, the odds are that the ultimate winners will be the pro-Americans.  So they can't - - by their own proclaimed ends - - possibly be defending the U.S. against enemies.

[sirs]

<<With the unfortunate and ignorant non-grasping of what are Fed Responsibilities, and what are not.  Providing for the common defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic is job #1 of the Fed. >>

Well, it seems you're not keeping up with the latest lies from your government. 

Actually, you mean I'm still not buying into your lies about our "latest Government lies".  Yes, in that realm, I'm guilty as charged.  And that still doesn't dent the point I was referring to regarding the constitutionally mandated obligations of the Fed vs those who wish to use the Fed to push feel good yet fatally flawed social programs, that aren't found anywhere in the Fed's mandate of responsibilities

I'll leave the rest of your OINIONATED rant to the papertowels necessary in cleaning up the foam from the floor

[Michael Tee]

<<And that still doesn't dent the point I was referring to regarding the constitutionally mandated obligations of the Fed vs those who wish to use the Fed to push feel good yet fatally flawed social programs, that aren't found anywhere in the Fed's mandate of responsibilities>>

Yeah, but where's the Constitutionally  mandated obligation to prevent Iraqis from killing Iraqis?

How come the "President" can get thousands of Americans killed and over 25,000 wounded, allegedly to stop an Iraqi-on-Iraqi killing spree, and do it without a Constitutional mandate, at the very same time as "lack of Constitutional mandate" is preventing him from providing health care insurance for the 45 million Americans who don't have it?

[sirs]

<<And that still doesn't dent the point I was referring to regarding the constitutionally mandated obligations of the Fed vs those who wish to use the Fed to push feel good yet fatally flawed social programs, that aren't found anywhere in the Fed's mandate of responsibilities>>

Yeah, but where's the Constitutionally  mandated obligation to prevent Iraqis from killing Iraqis?

You're actually on a tangent that's close to reasonable, which is impressive given your standard tact.  You're right in that there really is not one.  Never has been in any of the other post-war acts of our military placements.  There is simply the moral obligation that became necessary when there was no longer a Governing power in Iraq, and it would have been morally reprehensible for us to have left the Iraqi people in such a position of complete and utter vulnerability, to the likes of Iran, Syria, and other components of Islamofascists, who would have acted much like the Taliban did in taking over Afghanistan.  Which would have made things even worse, than had we done nothing at all.

But I commend you for acknowledging that the vast majority of death to Iraqis are by other Iraqis, and not U.S. forces

How come the "President" can get thousands of Americans killed and over 25,000 wounded, allegedly to stop an Iraqi-on-Iraqi killing spree, and do it without a Constitutional mandate, at the very same time as "lack of Constitutional mandate" is preventing him from providing health care insurance for the 45 million Americans who don't have it?

Asked and answered already.  Which of course your follow-up would be well....it's morally reprehensible that 45million American's don't have Health Insurance.   The problem with that, is that there is an intended end with Iraq.  There is an intended end to our military involvement.  There is an intended plan to withdraw troops as the Iraqi Government and security forces take up the brunt of it.  The providing of Health Insurance to everyone is an entitlement, which will only grow.  It'll never get less, it'll never have the intention of coming to an end.  It'll simply have the continued cries of "more"

But as I've said all along, amend the damn Constitution, and be done with it.  Make it a mandate if "so many are wanting it".  Don't hinde behind lawyer speak and semantic gymnastics.  The Constitution is particularly clear & concise in what it's mandated to do, and more so NOT DO.  And what it's not to do, is left to the States to decide if they want to or not.