Maureen Dowd: law-and-order fan? And here I thought liberals like to pose as champions of human rights . . .
But consider Dowd's idea of an Iraq solution: find brutal dictators to whom we can surrender and who will impose "law and order." Working model: the US capitulation to the Communist dicators of Hanoi.
The title of her subscription-required column of this morning, No One to Lose To, says it all. Dowd's biggest regret is, yes, that there's no obvious thug, or thugocracy, to whom to surrender. Dowd approvingly quotes Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote “A Bright Shining Lie” as saying:
“In Vietnam, there were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with a structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would obey what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately after the war ended. In Iraq, there’s no one like that for us to lose to and then do business with.”
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Lose to and "do business with"? That is certainly not the lesson of Vietnam. When the Communists took over in the wake of our withdrawal, their only "business" was subjecting the Vietnamese people to a dictatorship so brutal that 1-2 million people risked - and often lost -their lives to flee as boat people. Not to mention the millions slaughtered in the killing fields of Cambodia. The "domino effect," so derided as an illusion by the left, became a deadly reality.
So, Maureen longs for a dictator who will impose "law and order"? Wasn't she part of the same crowd condemning various administrations for doing just that with strong men from Batista to the Shah to Pinochet? But hey, a lady's always entitled to change her mind. Should we look for Dowd to pop up in Baghdad sometime soon, leading a "Bring Back Saddam" movement?
Finkelstein recently returned from a trip to Iraq. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Ms. Dowd would have the Iraqi
November 25, 2006 - 06:23 ET by Andrew H.Ms. Dowd would have the Iraqi people suffer through civil war between two main Muslim groups, fed by al qaeda and financed by Iran. The Kurds can forget it and get out now--else be slaughtered. Forget the schools, churches, freedom of movement, freedom of any kind... let's watch them descend into a chaos far more severe than it is presently. Let's see the slaughter and the establishment of Sharia law--let's see a country born out of violence to birth in the sixteenth century.
Never relent.
I am really tired of the left
November 25, 2006 - 08:18 ET by ChemicalOperatorI am really tired of the left telling us to "lose" in Iraq. The only way we could ever lose there is if we choose too. They are so paranoid about how the world will see us, that they would rather Americans die than anyone else in the world. Its disgusting.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
They are indeed, Chem--part o
November 25, 2006 - 09:34 ET by Andrew H.They are indeed, Chem--part of the reason the NY Times isn't doing so well in the marketplace. At some point more people begin to see that what they're buying when the buy rags like this, isn't very good and not worth the dollar fifty. One gets more value for a dollar fifty by giving it to a guy standing on an exit ramp off the interstate. I do.
Never relent.
The American public has been
November 25, 2006 - 09:48 ET by ChemicalOperatorThe American public has been force fed this information for so long. Now with the smash hit of Fox News and right wing blogs I can only assume it means Americans are getting tired of liberal propaganda. I see big changes coming for our country, and I believe they are going to be for the best. The republican party is as united as it has ever been, while the democrats are destroying themselves. Even this last election, more and more moderate/conservatives are being elected while the candidates leaning to the left are being forced out.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Ms. Dowd would have the Iraqi
November 25, 2006 - 12:45 ET by mattmMs. Dowd would have the Iraqi people suffer through civil war between two main Muslim groups....
You're so right on. But why would she have that? It's because she's safe in her little liberal East Coast bubble with the rest her childish colleagues. These people have a Junior High mentality. They're short-sighted elitist fools who think that American military action is the cause of all the unrest in the world when the opposite is actually the case. It's tragic that people like this dominate the media.
"But why would she have
November 26, 2006 - 04:33 ET by Indiana Joe"But why would she have that? It's because she's safe in her little liberal East Coast bubble with the rest her childish colleagues."
Mattm, I think the REAL reason people like Dowd would "have that" is even worse and scarier. It's simple, really, to my mind.
This is "Bush's War." They will do or say ANYTHING against Bush. Therefore, they are willing to say "black" when he says "white," "up" when he says "down," and "get out" when he says "stay in."
THEY are the ones who truly "don't care," and have no "compassion" for other peoples. They are entirely focused on being against our current President and anything and everything he stands for. Ergo, they are MORE than willing to sacrivice a few million of "those people," people who obviously "don't count" to them, just to be able to point at Bush and say "we told you so."
That's the same mentality that has gotten us the infamous "body count," where "milestone numbers" are trumpeted each time they are reached. !000 dead, 2000 dead, 100 killed in one month. You just KNOW they were waiting with bated breath to post those numbers. No thoughts for the soldiers, no thoughts for their familys. Just the constant, "see we were right" back-slapping and high-fives of a bunch of sophomoric, insensitive fools. Worse than fools, actually, but a better word escapes me at the moment....
AND you can just bet that if this war were being run by a John Kerry, or an Al Gore (God forbid!!!), the only comparison they'd be making to Viet Nam is that it is PROOF we must "stay the course." They'd have no problem advocating exactly what they refuse to acknowledge now: that Iraq would quickly descend into total barbarism if we were to leave before the job is done.
Such is the nature of a lawyer, you know. He argues whichever side of a case he's paid to represent, regardless of his personal feelings. In law, that's admirable and necessary. In war, however, it's dangerous and sometimes even treasonous. And in politics and the MSM, it's called "spin."
But as Shakespeare said, "What's in a name?"
I can't even wrap my mind aro
November 25, 2006 - 09:11 ET by msh1973I can't even wrap my mind around such thought. It boggles the mind. Who are these people and where did they get such self defeating attitudes?
They must attend a liberal se
November 25, 2006 - 09:39 ET by Andrew H.They must attend a liberal seminar twice a year to get the workbook and latest taking points... Happily sponsored by the Socialist workers of America with advice and consent from the American Communist Party. Guest speakers include baby killers, drug importers, welfare queens who got rich using the system, criminals, Fascists, and fanatical Mullahs.
Never relent.
These people
November 25, 2006 - 10:39 ET by gjgil82These "people" you speak of are intelligent, and care very much about the direction their country has taken under the Bush administration. How can I wrap my brain around such thought? How can I not. If this admiistration had bothered to read the history books they would see that every time we meddle in the Middle East, the dictator du jour comes back to bite us in the rear. Iraq does not even exist anymore. It is three separate enclaves, and will forever remain like that. Modern Iraq is a creation of the British Empire after WWI. And the Iraq we are creating now will have a Shiite controlled military that will align with Iran and later bite us in the rear.
So the next time you label me and others who share my views as self-defeatist, think again.....We never agreed with this "war on terror" in the first place, with the exception of finding and capturing/killing bin Laden. As far as I am concerned, we lost in Iraq the very moment "shock and awe" began. So, self-defeatist, no... realist, yes.
We never agreed with this &
November 25, 2006 - 11:32 ET by ckc1227We never agreed with this "war on terror" in the first place, with the exception of finding and capturing/killing bin Laden.
Like only killing OBL would end or even slow the islamofascists goal one bit. And you call yourself a realist. Un-realist maybe.
You don't have to agree with the war on terror, it's happening whether we agree to participate or not. Burying your head in the sand won't make it go away.
Completely wrong. You despe
November 25, 2006 - 13:10 ET by UnsaneCompletely wrong. You desperately want the United States to fail militarily so that you and your Leftist friends can turn the government into The Great Big Nanny of your dreams. You see the government as a massive babysitter, not as a necessary evil that, among other things, protects its citizenry by engaging terrorists on the streets of Baghdad rather than on the streets of, say, St. Louis. You cry about history and understanding the Outside World, when in truth you care not a whit about those things.
I have yet to hear ONE of you Leftists tell me what good capturing binLaden would do. I certainly don't remember the Left advocating that we end the Cold War in the 1980s unilaterally and focus our military on finding and capturing Abu Nidal. Besides, last I checked, other terrorists took his place long before he was found dead - in BAGHDAD! - in 2003.
The reason the Left wants OBL captured is so that the can declare WORLD PEACE the next day and dissolve the military and focus on those they consider the REAL terrorists: the successful, and anyone who believes capitalism to be a good thing.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
bin Laden
November 25, 2006 - 14:46 ET by gjgil82The reason I wanted him captured/killed is that he was responsible for 9-11. Saddam was not. Don't tell me either that I don't care a whit about the outside world. I have many friends all over this great big world; in Africa, Germany, England, Ireland, and Japan. I care very deeply and that is why I will continue to criticise this president. His administration has been nothing but poison for our country and others and I am quite frankly getting sick and tired of mindless sheep such as yourself who would be happy to follow this bastard blindly over a cliff wall. You know who you and your ilk remind me of? Suicide bombers who blindly follow their leaders who promise them 70 virgins when they reach paradise. Bush keeps saying history will be his judge. He is, unfortunately correct, although I doubt history will be as kind and forgiving as he may be deluded into believing.
History is writen by the vict
November 25, 2006 - 14:49 ET by NL207History is writen by the victors. If you and your ilk are allowed to have their way, the only way YOU will be reading history is in Arabic.
ass
November 25, 2006 - 14:51 ET by gjgil82And if you believe that then there is absolutely no hope for you and your ilk!
I believe that our ilk, will
November 25, 2006 - 14:58 ET by ChemicalOperatorI believe that our ilk, will always keep your ilk safe. We will keep fighting for your freedoms, so you can keep spewing this trash.
You said it yourself, your more focused on what your friends in other countries think of us, then of the American peoples well being. That kind of thinking will end this country. Hope you like wearing a veil.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
end
November 25, 2006 - 15:10 ET by gjgil82You contradicted yourself, jerk. Previous post you say I don't give a whit for people elsewhere in the world, then when I say I do and give reasons for it, you accuse me of worrying about their opinion of America than I do about Americas well being. Typical conservative bull. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As for you protecting my right to freedom, did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to protect American freedoms and values than through the barrel of a gun, especially a gun pointed towards a country that NEVER attacked us? Of course you didn't, you poor confused sheep. It is perfectly OK with you that we are losing our freedoms one by one because the terrorist boogeyman is going to attack the mall. Not me pal. You want that kind of America, you must be messed up in the head. You know what is funny? You conservatives all talk about small government. Wait until all our freedoms are gone in this country. You will all see how big government can become.
gigil82 freedoms
November 25, 2006 - 15:16 ET by misterbill"Wait until all our freedoms are gone in this country. You will all see how big government can become."
I know what you mean, now that the Dems are in. Take my money and give it to someone else?? Is that a loss of freedom?? Having a political party determine that thsoe THEY consider underprivileged will get benefits my children and grandchildren will not?
Silk bindings may not be chains, but they restrict freedom every bit as much!
s
November 25, 2006 - 15:27 ET by gjgil82I know what you mean, now that the Dems are in. Take my money and give it to someone else?? Is that a loss of freedom??
And George Bush is not taking our money?? $320,000,000,000 and counting for his little desert escapade. Spending bill after spending bill comes across this man's desk and he signs away; the only time the veto pen came out was to "protect" embryos slated for destruction anyway. No, no, no, my man, you are totally missing the point about the kind of big goverment Bush and his followers want to usher in. Read your Orwell.
He was doing what the majorit
November 25, 2006 - 15:33 ET by Andrew H.He was doing what the majority of people wanted. Now the dems have a chance.
Never relent.
orwell
November 25, 2006 - 15:35 ET by misterbillRead some--- great writer. Quite outdated for this time in history. I do not believe that GW etal are interested in big gov't. I do readily admit that Iraq has turned into a big bag of problems not anticipated and that we have not resolved the newer issues well. What will the dems do for us? What is their solution???
I look forward to their great resolution. I am equally sure that you know the answer.
I've read all of Eric Blair
November 25, 2006 - 15:38 ET by Jack BauerI've read all of Eric Blair's fiction. And most of his non-fiction essays. And I've even been to Wigan Pier.
Which of his writings are you referring to?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Oh, my... some do like to res
November 25, 2006 - 15:32 ET by Andrew H.Oh, my... some do like to resort to name calling. Pretty well turns me off in regards to reading any views expressed by someone who does this. Some people feel like it's okay for Sadam to have thumbed his nose at UN resolutions calling for inspections without barriers--what good is the UN if no one will enforce that which the world has determined to be against mankind.
Since every intelligence community indicated he had and was storing WMD, what is it we were supposed to do--knowing any of that could (and would) be given over to al qaeda? I don't know what alternative we had and I hate war as much as anyone.
But the Iraqi people were mighty happy to see those Abrams tanks, the Airborne, the Rangers and the Marines coming their way. It worked too. Last time I heard, Sadam's killer sons were still dead and Sadam is in jail where he belongs.
To his credit, the left has viewed the war in Iraq as something we shouldn't be doing almost from day one if I remember correctly. That is at least a consistent position for a while. And an honest disagreement should always be respected. However, the hyperbole, the disingenuous reporting on the part of the MSM, outright lies and the propoganda pieces such as we've seen from CNN galls me and makes me yearn for their defeat in the marketplace and next time we have a chance--their defeat at the ballot box.
Never relent.
gigirl
November 25, 2006 - 15:57 ET by ChemicalOperatorNo, there is no way to protect America besides with a military. Research your history. There has never been a country to remain number 1 without military force. There is a time for diplomacy and a time for action, unfortunately we are at war with an enemy who hates our core beliefs. This kind of enemy you can not negotiate with, unless you compromise yourself. I for one am unwilling to compromise my core beliefs. When you are number 1, the rest of the world is willing to do what it takes to knock you off the pedestal. Its why throughout history civilizations have battled, to determine who can be the greatest empire. From the Egyptians, to the romans to the english and to the spanish empires, they have all fallen.
USS cole, WTC bombing, 9/11, Embasy bombings, Yes I see what you means, Terrorism does not exist. We are worrying for no reason. Bottom line is, Islamo-fascists hate the US. Mohammed called for muslims, to convert, to kill or to enslave any none believers. I dont know about you, but im not planning on converting to islam. If you believe the US will be safe if we just play nice with these people, then I hope your ready to wear a veil.
As for losing freedoms, what freedoms have you lost? In the last 6 years I keep hearing this, but no one can tell me what freedoms they are now doing without. So please explain to me what freedoms you lost.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
unfortunately we are at wa
November 26, 2006 - 16:36 ET by BlameTheMediaunfortunately we are at war with an enemy who hates our core beliefs.
I think they also hate that we keep messing with them. We topple Sadam under the guise of... wait, was it freedom? 9/11? WMD? Anyway, we did that and that is okay, but no other country can do it. Pretty arogant of us.
Listen to the generals these days. It's not only the liberals feeling despair that we cannot win, it's the military admitting we can't win a military victory. Dang, maybe we should have tried diplomacy with the region before we called them the axis of evil. Dang. I hate when that happens.
The case for war against Iraq
November 26, 2006 - 16:57 ET by ChemicalOperatorThe case for war against Iraq was larger than WMD's, which were found in Iraq anyways. There were 17 UN resolutions that were placed in effect after our Cease fire in iraq. Saddam violated 16 of them, including shooting at and tracking US planes flying in the No fly zone. All he had to do was obey the cease fire agreement and he didnt. Pretty arogant of him.
You talk in matters you know nothing of. The generals have not said we cannot win, they said we cannot win with our current strategy. There is a big difference, only the left wants to believe that the war is hopeless. The only way we will lose is if we allow it. 90% of the Iraq is safe and prosperous, talk to anyone who has actually been to Iraq since the regime change. There is a 50 mile radius that encompasses Baghdad that is not safe and is full of violence. I am not sure if anyone has told you, but acting hopeless all the time only leaves you open for being a victim. If we leave Iraq now thats what will happen, in the near future we will become a victim.
Diplomacy? We tried Diplomacy, The UN tried diplomacy, they sanctioned saddam and he violated all the agreements he said he would follow. There is no negotiating with people who hate us.
They are very much part of the Axis of Evil, They murdered thousands and thousands of Kurds with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam built palaces while his people were hurting, under Saddam's reign one can only guess how many people died. Saddam is one of the largest murderers in this century but according to you he is not evil. What is he BTM, just misunderstood?
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
You talk in matters you kno
November 26, 2006 - 17:26 ET by BlameTheMediaYou talk in matters you know nothing of.
Let's start here. That is pretty arrogant of you.
There were 17 UN resolutions that were placed in effect after our Cease fire in iraq.
That is not the reason we were given for going to war. If that were the case, then the UN and other countries should have been involved. But our cowboy president didn't want anyone else to steal his thunder. He wanted some texas justice for sadam trying to kill his father. Why else were we chomping at the bit even before 9/11 to get into iraq and topple sadam?
only the left wants to believe that the war is hopeless. You see, this is just rhetoric. I wish the war weren't going so poorly. I wish I didn't volunteer to sponsor soldiers in Iraq--I wish the need weren't there. I wish we could feel proud that we fought a just war in a smart way. We didn't. And now, there is little we can do to save the Iraqis from themselves. Shall we go big? go long? get out? I am very against the premis for this war and how it was conducted. I want those poor people to have peace and stability. That to me is winning.
It's not about the U.S. winning, it's about the Iraqi people winning.
It's about their stability.
If we were really fighting our WOT then we'd be focused on Afganistan. But now we have no choice.
Saddam built palaces while his people were hurting,... that sounds like every liberals argument to help the people in the Darfur region. Very bleeding heart of you if you are professing that that is one of the reasons we went into Iraq. You just can't have it both ways.
That is not the reason we wer
November 26, 2006 - 18:05 ET by UnsaneThat is not the reason we were given for going to war. That is not the reason THE MEDIA gave you for going to war, so now you blame everyone else for your failure to think critically, or to at least watch the 2003 State of the Union Address where Bush presented his case for war, only ONE of the reasons were the WMDs the media kept crowing about? If that were the case, then the UN and other countries should have been involved. Well, I guess the Poles, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians and the Brits, among others, just aren't good enough for you, are they? He wanted some texas justice for sadam trying to kill his father. Then why is Saddam Hussein still alive? Why is he not in Marion, IL, sharing cell space with Manuel Noriega? Well? Why else were we chomping at the bit even before 9/11 to get into iraq and topple sadam? I would argue that the reason for that was the sagging support for the sanctions. The rotting EU nations desperately needed more markets to invest in, especially France, so France would flagrantly break the sanctions and sanctimoniously cry that it was for "the children", never mind that if Saddam had taken care of his children first BEFORE his military, it wouldn't be a problem.
I wish the war weren't going so poorly. I wish I didn't volunteer to sponsor soldiers in Iraq--I wish the need weren't there. In a perfect world, I'd wave my magic wand and your wishes would be granted. But the world isn't perfect and I am NOT Merlin. I wish we could feel proud that we fought a just war in a smart way. We didn't. Really? What battles did we lose? What centers of gravity have been lost? I lament our losses - if/when I switch to the Reserves I'll be on the hook as well - but the cause is just. Where is Saddam and his Baath party these days? And now, there is little we can do to save the Iraqis from themselves. Shall we go big? go long? get out Sure we can. Keep doing what we have been doing and continue to equip the Iraqis to fight off sectarian violence. I am very against the premis for this war and how it was conducted. I want those poor people to have peace and stability. That to me is winning. How nice. I want them to have peace, stability and rose garden too. Guess what? That REQUIRES HEAVY LIFTING by our military. Are you with us or not??? You cannot get peace just by wishing for it.
It's not about the U.S. winning, it's about the Iraqi people winning. It is ALL about the U.S. winning and the WORLD winning with a democratic Iraq.
If we were really fighting our WOT then we'd be focused on Afganistan. But now we have no choice. Why? To capture OBL? What is with you Leftists? Do you truly believe that the INSTANT we capture him, that WORLD PEACE will be universally declared and the world will turn into a massive rose garden, and all shall live happily ever after? Were you this adamant that we chase after Abu Nidal in the 1980s?
,... that sounds like every liberals argument to help the people in the Darfur region. Wrong. You want to go into Darfur because in your mind, the government is a Big Fat Charity. IT ISN'T A CHARITY. It is a necessary evil, no mroe, no less. If you want to help the people of Darfur so damn much, why not join an NGO and go there on your own???
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
gjgil82 Says: The reason I
November 25, 2006 - 15:20 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsgjgil82 Says: The reason I wanted him captured/killed is that he was responsible for
9-11. Saddam was not. Don't tell me either that I don't care a whit
about the outside world. I have many friends all over this great big
world; in Africa, Germany, England, Ireland, and Japan.
Do you care so deeply that you want the people who committed and supported the terrorist acts in Africa, Germany, England, Ireland and Japan brought to justice? People like Saddam ($$ for suicide bombers)? All these acts commited both before and after 9-11. Do you care enough about the 'great big world' that you see the need for someone, someone, to hunt these people down? Or is it that you really don't care about anything but your own skin?
DSG
s
November 25, 2006 - 15:31 ET by gjgil82Actually, I would like for us to do something in Darfur, and in Chad, and put pressure on Mugabe in Zimbabwe. If we are hunting down the bad guys we need to hunt them all, not just the ones in oil rich countries. There are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we invaded. We are breeding terrorism, not defeating it. You will never admit to that or realise it.
Actually, I would like for
November 25, 2006 - 15:35 ET by Jack BauerActually, I would like for us to do something in Darfur, and in Chad,
Why? They never attacked America.
Why don't you write Mugabe a stiff letter?
That should help usurp that tyranical socialist dicatator. Go for it.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
g
November 25, 2006 - 15:43 ET by gjgil82Why? They never attacked America.
NEITHER DID IRAQ YOU ASS!
Your democrats will have a ch
November 25, 2006 - 15:46 ET by Andrew H.Your democrats will have a chance to impact that which you think was wrong. How do you think they'll do?
Never relent.
Funny how the double standard
November 25, 2006 - 15:48 ET by ChemicalOperatorFunny how the double standard exists. Its not alright to go into Iraq, but its alright to go into Darfur and Chad.
Oh, and we are not breeding terrorism, we are just bringing them to the surface. Fighting them over there before we have to fight them here.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
You are forgetting that our
November 26, 2006 - 17:31 ET by BlameTheMediaYou are forgetting that our government was not straight with us about why we went in there. There story kept changing. That is a major problem to many Americans (as evidenced by the last election). And in hindsight, they really didn't have a very good plan after the "mission accomplished" of toppling the government.
Actually, if you kept informe
November 26, 2006 - 17:45 ET by UnsaneActually, if you kept informed, you would know that we had a reason to go in the moment our jets patrolling the "no-fly zone", sanctioned by the UN I might add, were "illuminated" by Iraqi SAM radars. That was alll that was needed.
By the way, can you name a single thing that went right with any reconstruction plan? In June 1948, for instance, it was determined that the Germans in the French, British and American zones of occupation (what eventually would become West Germany) was were ready for a economic union, so they were permitted to establish the West German Mark as currency. Was this a failure because the Soviet Union responded by cutting off West Berlin by all road, rail and water routes, necessitating Operation Vittles? That was not anticipated by anyone, after all. (But then, the Soviets didn't anticipate Vittles either. Touche.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Its not alright to go into
November 26, 2006 - 17:33 ET by BlameTheMediaIts not alright to go into Iraq, but its alright to go into Darfur and Chad.
These are two different situations. Are you saying that what sadam did to his people is worse than what the janjawee (sp?) are doing to the Africans?
We dont have a standing cease
November 26, 2006 - 17:52 ET by ChemicalOperatorWe dont have a standing cease fire that has been broken via broken resolutions with Darfur. We had that with Saddam.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
gjgil82 - Were you asleap through out the 1990's ?
November 25, 2006 - 16:03 ET by Free Stinkergjgil82 Says:November 25, 2006 - 15:43
Why? They never attacked America.
NEITHER DID IRAQ YOU ASS!
Excuse me genius, were you asleap when Iraq was RADAR tracking & firing missles at our planes in the "No Fly" zones? Also know as "Violation of Gulf War surrender terms".
How about an assasination attempt on a former President? Even if it was Failed Ex-President Carter or Disgraced ex-President Clinton, that seems like pretty good cassus belli to me.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The MSM supports the troops. The enemy's troops!
Free Stinker, those are facts
November 25, 2006 - 16:10 ET by ChemicalOperatorFree Stinker, those are facts, your going to confuse her. You know better.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Facts = Rhayesbat Repellant
November 25, 2006 - 16:13 ET by Free StinkerI know, I know.
But I can't help it. I enjoy teaching the ignorant. ;-)
"I enjoy teaching the ig
November 26, 2006 - 04:45 ET by Indiana Joe"I enjoy teaching the ignorant."
First, they have to BE "teachable," FS.
gjgil82s memory test
November 25, 2006 - 16:15 ET by UnsaneYou may remember the USS Stark from 1987? (Yes, Saddam stated that was an accident.) You may remember their invasion of Kuwait, an American ally who hated and imprisoned terrorists on our behalf?
How about the fact that Abu Nidal, a terrorist who repeatedly attacked American interests, was found dead in Baghdad in March 2003? He was the OBL of the 1980s...interestingly, I didn't hear the Left crying to stop the Cold War to hunt for him in the Middle East the way they cry about OBL now. (Well, they DID want the Cold War to end...because if we unilaterally disarmed, and heck, even promised the Communists that they could have ALL of Europe, it would have showed them that we were REALLY super-nice people, and world peace would have broken out everywhere...)
How about the fact that Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East? Paying $25K a head to families of Palestinian suicide bombers isn't considered state sponsored terrorism in your book?
How about countless pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones over Iraq? They would disagree with you vehemently. Especially when they fired on our planes doing your beloved UN's bidding. Sounds like an attack to me.
Truth be told, we had a casus belli the instant the Iraqis illuminated our jets with SAM radars.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Geez, sarcasm is just wasted
November 26, 2006 - 04:42 ET by Indiana JoeGeez, sarcasm is just wasted on you, huh?
There is ample casus belli fo
November 26, 2006 - 12:55 ET by NL207There is ample casus belli for war with the Saddam Hussein regime even without WMD.
You say Iraq never attacked America? This is more liberal crap. Saddam harbored two specific individual terrorists who DID attack America or Americans. (1) Abdul Rahman Yasin was harbored by Saddam. He was a fugitive sought for helping to construct the car bomb used to attack the WTC in 1993. That attack briefly closed the building and killed 6 Americans. (2) Abu Abbas, who is responsible for the hijacking of the cruise ship, Achille Lauro, and the subsequent murder of American Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam, by harboring these fugitives, became an accessory to both of these crimes. To avoid owning these crimes, Saddam must sieze and turn over these individuals. He did not .... Therefore, casus belli.
Keep talking, gjgil. I enjoy chewing up ignorgant liberals.
harboring after the fact is
November 26, 2006 - 16:52 ET by BlameTheMediaharboring after the fact is different! by that logic we should have invaded saudi arabia, right? I mean, the hijackers came from there!
We should also invade Germany
November 26, 2006 - 17:22 ET by UnsaneWe should also invade Germany, FL, and MA, I suppose.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"by that logic we should
November 26, 2006 - 19:24 ET by NL207"by that logic we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, right?"
What logic? You have no logic. You identify harboring after the fact as the Saddam Hussein offense and then refer to the antecedent residence of some of the 9-11 hijackers in Saudi Arabia as casus belli. This is irrational. They were not wanted men when they lived in Saudi Arabia because they had not yet committed the act of war.
Saudi Arabia did not harbor the 9-11 hijackers after the fact. The 9-11 hijackers and any identified co-conspirators acted in a manner contrary to Saudi law and, had they survived, would have suffered the same fate as the Khobar Towers bombers. Hence, we have no casus belli with Saudi Arabia.
So Blame, which sock puppet are you?
NEITHER DID IRAQ YOU ASS!(I
November 26, 2006 - 16:38 ET by BlameTheMediaNEITHER DID IRAQ YOU ASS!
(I just felt that needed repeating.)
Read the post above yours. Th
November 26, 2006 - 16:43 ET by ChemicalOperatorRead the post above yours.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Neither did Germany, either i
November 26, 2006 - 17:23 ET by UnsaneNeither did Germany, either in WWI or WWII...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
your point? And please dr
November 26, 2006 - 17:28 ET by BlameTheMediayour point? And please draw the complete parallel to WWI and WWII, and Iraq. Be sure to discuss the scope and number of countries, our allies, and the global atrocities when making your point and comparing them to Iraq.
Translation: "Unsane, I
November 26, 2006 - 17:31 ET by UnsaneTranslation: "Unsane, I hate studying history. It's a useless subject, it all happened in the past and doesn't apply to us now. Can you study it for me?"
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Very clever way to avoid ma
November 26, 2006 - 17:38 ET by BlameTheMediaVery clever way to avoid making your point. Well done.
Actually, my point is quite c
November 26, 2006 - 17:49 ET by UnsaneActually, my point is quite clear: something you have demonstrated over and over and over again that you need to do: READ YOUR HISTORY.
I COULD type out the history of WWII for you, but that will give me carpal tunnel and cut into my football viewing, which I am doing as I type these responses. But then, typical Leftist: wanting everyone but you to do the heavy lifting.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
See, typical (I'm not sure
November 26, 2006 - 19:28 ET by BlameTheMediaSee, typical (I'm not sure what you are)... can't clarify what you say because you are too busy spewing rhetoric. This does not require a WWII history lesson, it requires you to make the connection.
But, we'll just accept your last answer as it was... without content.
...just as your posts are all
November 26, 2006 - 20:32 ET by Unsane...just as your posts are all 100% emotion?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
darfur???
November 25, 2006 - 15:40 ET by misterbillI believe that if we were to intervene in Darfur, people like you would cry and moan if suddenly a large band of militia were to appear on the scene and make it more difficult than you anticipate. Why, you may even call it "Bush's little escapade in Africa". Then the Pres. would be under the MSM gun again.
Hey hate to tell you this, but you are not the one who picks our wars or runs this country..
s
November 25, 2006 - 15:46 ET by gjgil82Hey hate to tell you this, but you are not the one who picks our wars or runs this country..
Never once said I was.
which one did I
November 25, 2006 - 15:52 ET by misterbillwhich one did I pick?? Let me know, I am in the dark about that one, Oh, allseeing fool!
gigi82,Care to enlighten us o
November 25, 2006 - 17:38 ET by Svengigi82,
Care to enlighten us on what the Dems strategy will be with regards to the WOT in general, and the War in Iraq specifically?
I mean, the GOP has "screwed this up"...so what will Pelosi, Reid and Schumer do? I'm waiting breathlessly!
The left has told us what the
November 26, 2006 - 09:08 ET by ChemicalOperatorThe left has told us what they want to do. Bring the troops home and pretend the WOT is not happening, lower our troop numbers and use the money to focus on social issues. Basically return to the age of Clinton.
They are blissfully ignorant on what the world looks like today. They believe the world is basically good and if we play nice there can be peace. The forgot that when power is up for grabs there will always be someone there to grab it. Just like Chamberlain and his "Peace for our time", the left have tricked themselves into beleiving peace is possible with the terrorists.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Silly, and overall, naive gjgil82
November 25, 2006 - 15:56 ET by UnsaneActually, I would like for us to do something in Darfur, and in Chad, and put pressure on Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Therefore the military merely exists to be an international arm of "Meals on Wheels" or the International Red Cross. These acts, oh bleeding heart, do not defend our interests. Next. By the way...are YOU volunteering to do anything about those situations, or do you just like talking about them because it makes you seem more loving and compassionate than those next to you?
If we are hunting down the bad guys we need to hunt them all, not just the ones in oil rich countries. Since when have we whacked Hugo Chavez, and since when have we been pursuing bad guys in Mexico and Canada?
There are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we invaded. We are breeding terrorism, not defeating it. You will never admit to that or realise it. So, when we invaded Europe for Operation Overlord, we just made more of Europe hate us?
When we deployed the Pershing 2s and GLCMs to Western Europe, we just made the Communists very very mad at us?
I hate to break your heart, since it is already bleeding profusely, BUT if you want every single person on earth to love the United States, you are 230 years, 4 months, and 22 days late. There are people who hate this country because of our success (like you), our optimism (just like you), or our freedoms and civil liberties (just like you, and regardless of what you say, I have yet to see any proof that Bush is somehow taking our civil liberties...oh, and he will be gone on 20 January 2009.). Tell me, how can you live with that much anguished self-loathing and guilt?
What amuses me is comparing me to the suicide bombers when I simply recognize the reality that in order for the Stars and Stripes to fly, it must be fought for. You refuse to fight for either your freedoms or liberties, and even if America turned into the Nanny States you so want it to be, you won't fight for your free cookies and tall glass of cold milk - even when the enemy levels the guns your way and fire. Sad.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Therefore the military mere
November 26, 2006 - 16:46 ET by BlameTheMediaTherefore the military merely exists to be an international arm of "Meals on Wheels" or the International Red Cross.
Well, I thought bush's position became that we were liberating Iraq from a tyrant that tried to kill a bunch of his people (that is after the world realized there were no ties to 9/11 or al queda). So, what is wrong with using the power and resources of the greatest nation on earth to help those who are the victims of genocide BY ISLAMIC FASCISTS? Maybe, then the world would help us. (And we need a little help in the middle east if you haven't noticed).
HELP! HELP! HELP!!!
November 26, 2006 - 17:12 ET by UnsaneHelp! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help!
Is that ALL government is to you? Is it NOTHING to you but a charity? Why should we go into Darfur? What is in it for the United States? Oh, I know...Blame The Media wants to FEEL better. Well, that is not what the military is there for.
Chad I could make a greater argument for...they have oil. And uranium.
Zimbabwe could do much better if the MDC could be a viable opposition, or even arm itself, and initiate a Romanian-style revolution.
Maybe, then the world would help us. (And we need a little help in the middle east if you haven't noticed). Really, you may want to keep away from foreign policy. I don't care for Zbigniew Brzezinski, but he had the right idea when he called it a "game for grownups". The world is filled with whiny ingrates. I had the opportunity to handle airlift missions that headed to SE Asia in the wake of the tsunami of Christmas 2004, and I don't see those nations lifting their fingers on our behalf anywhere. The Europeans were bailed out by the Marshall Plan and they crap on us at every opportunity (just check kafkakaefer's posts here and elsewhere). But that wasn't pure charity as you envision. It was done primarily to keep the Communists at bay, but even so, not a thank you for pulling their asses out of three very big fires this past century.
We offered to help Iran with their recent earthquakes, it being a very earthquake prone nation; EVEN AFTER they seized our embassy!!! And they crapped on us all the same.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. Stop telling me that we haven't done enough to help the world. Stop thinking that the government is nothing but One Huge Charity. The United States Government is NOT to be confused with United Way.
By the way: if you care so much about these suffering corners of the world, what have YOU done about them personally? Or do you just like to talk about them in a bid to sound more compassionate?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Since when have we whacked
November 26, 2006 - 16:47 ET by BlameTheMediaSince when have we whacked Hugo Chavez,
The coup attempt is up for debate.
If the elections go the right
November 26, 2006 - 17:13 ET by UnsaneIf the elections go the right way, there will be a coup. A LEGAL one, carried out by the Venezuelans themselves.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
So, when we invaded Europe
November 26, 2006 - 16:59 ET by BlameTheMediaSo, when we invaded Europe for Operation Overlord, we just made more of Europe hate us?
Not the point. We're talking about Iraq. Stay on topic.
Teaching certificate revocation recommended!!!
November 26, 2006 - 17:21 ET by UnsaneYou are said to be a schoolteacher (or at least at one time you were), yet you do not know what an analogy is. Or maybe you do and just lack historical perspective. In any case, you need your certificate revoked.
gjgil82's bleeding-heart point is that we are making more terrorists by being in Iraq. So I pointed out: if that is the case, why isn't the planet crawling with Nazis? They were beaten up pretty badly by the United States, after all. Why isn't the world crawling with Communists? We DID wage and win the Cold War after all. Why wasn't I regularly sniped by members of the Korean Worker's Party outside my base when stationed there? Our presence there only makes the North Koreans more mad at us after all.
To take that bleeding-heart's point and run it to its logical conclusion: what is making more terrorists in the Middle East is our military's presence there. Therefore, if we COMPLETELY DISBANDED the United States military, as gjgil82 and much of the Left would dearly love to do, will this usher in thousands of centuries of world peace? Is it that simple? Is it just a matter of us unilaterally disarming, since we are clearly the source of all evil in the world?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
You are said to be a school
November 26, 2006 - 17:44 ET by BlameTheMediaYou are said to be a schoolteacher (or at least at one time you were),
yet you do not know what an analogy is. Or maybe you do and just lack
historical perspective. In any case, you need your certificate
revoked.
It's this arrogant crap that makes you the sorry debator. Can you not have a discussion without a good put-down to make yourself feel better? I notice this a lot from you. Let's talk about needing to do something to lighten your self-loathing. You act like any bully on the playground... berate the person so you can feel better. If that is how you need to live, I feel sorry for you. And it is too bad because you seem to have knowledge.
Not my fault
November 26, 2006 - 18:12 ET by UnsaneIt is not my fault you do not have a grasp of history, nor WANT one. Nor is it my fault you don't know what an analogy is, nor care to find out. Finally, I absolve myself of ANY fault whatsoever of people who refuse to do a shred of critical thinking of their own. If my not accepting responsibility for other poster's shortcomings makes me a poor debater, then I truly suck in the worst way.
Then, this is why I could never be a politician.
And now you cry to me about how mean and hurtful I have been to you? Typical Leftist. Typical schoolteacher; utterly incapable of handling ANY criticism. But then, it is easier to cry about a slight then it is to answer fairly easy questions designed to provoke critical thinking. That, incidentally, is something you have NEVER done. Perhaps it is beneath your dignity. And you say I am the poor debater?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Basically gg, you don't know
November 25, 2006 - 22:02 ET by GritsBasically gg, you don't know diddly squat since you are not privy to intel reports now are you? You don't know what Saddam was involved in for sure do you? Apparently you missed the recently released data from captured computers and from the tons of documents captured from Hussein's palaces. You missed it or ignored it. I suspect the latter. Be that as it may, 25 million Iraqis are quite pleased that Saddam is scheduled to swing soon. History will be the judge and I hardly think removing a malicious dictator and his sociopath sons will be judged as bad on Bush's part. As far as the rest of the world goes, screw 'em. They have lived off America for 50 years. They need to grow a spine. I hardly think stealing from Iraqi citizens in dire need during the Oil for Food Program speaks very highly of their character.
Speaking of attacks, I don't recall Germany attacking us, or Somalia, or even Kosovo where we are still engaged. I hear not a whine from you on those little conflicts. War is hell and I for one want the hell over there and not here although I am a bit sad that I am too old to go over there and would not be all that put out if I had an opportun