The task of winning hearts and minds
By on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.” Ouch–that hurts. Now we just have to wait a few minutes for our loyal “conservative” bloggers to log in and explain to us how this is the fault of the New York Times, Cindy Sheehan, and “liberals.”
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 pm\”Vulgar\”? Who the f*** do they think they are?
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pmWayne–when the VP asks a fellow politician to “Go fuck himself” on the floor of the Senate–that might be a bit vulgar. As far as being “led by an incompetent president” I’m afraid I have to yield the floor.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pmHERES THE FULL TEXT FROM THE TIMES
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:38 pmI don’t want to be rude, but it’s not only the people in Britain…
And if they need to “win hearts and minds”, it’s because they are being lost…
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm“Britons have never had such a low opinion of the leadership of the United State” I thought it was the French we were supposed to hate? Aren’t the Brits our allies in this “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists deal?”
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pmIn Vietnam, we said, “when you got ‘em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:45 pmWe Know there are good americans out there mostly enlightened liberals with a brain
Its a shame for the world, the rest of Americans are like ANVILHEAD, BUSH and Raping Murdering troops
Thats why the world is boycotting your products right now
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pm5% of the worlds population spitting out 45% of the worlds pollution
were not so stupid as to buy your products
Ho, but when you stretch too hard, they become useless…
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:47 pm#8; Speaking of Dick(anvil)head, I haven’t read any of his nazi rantings lately. Do you suppose he grew some balls and joined the army?
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:53 pmBRITON IS OUR LAPDOG… THEYVE GONE ALONG WITH WHATEVER WE SAID TO DO IN IRAQ….
IN THE MOST VIOLENT AND “UNCULTURED WAY’
AS AN AMERICAN I CANT RESPECT BRITAIN ANYMORE … BECAUSE THAT COUNTRY SOLD ITS SOUL TO US IN 5 MINUTES AND THEN GOT DOWN ON ITS KNEES AND THREW IN 4 YEARS OF FELLATIO .
BRITAIN IS LIKE THAT GIRL IN YOUR DORM IN COLLEGE WHO WOULD ALWAYS LET YOU DO WHATEVER YOU WANTED ON ANY NIGHT OF THE WEEK –
HOW CAN AMERICANS HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR BRITAIN OR HER OPINIONS AFTER WE PEED IN HER MOUTH AND SLAPPED HER IN THE FACE WITH IT.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pmit seems to me cause America is already fucked – America its hell bent on destroying everyone else with it
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:59 pmComment by Doodle Bug — July 3, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
WOW DOODLEBUG… MENTIONING ME BEFORE I EVEN WRITE ANYTHING…
YOURE OK IN MY BOOK
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:00 pmANVILHEAD
Maybe, once. Right up until Iraq in fact. When Bush went to Blair over getting English soldiers to help with Iran however, Blair said no.
That is how successful Bush’s foreign policy of “Screw you all, you didn’t get attacked on 9/11,” has been.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pmhttp://www.yougov.com
than press PUBLISHED RECORDS to get a real taste of what we think
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:04 pmOops. Spoke too soon, Dickhead came on 5 minutes after I did. No balls has he, did NOT join the army after all. Dick(anvil)head, go give yourself an emergency enema……. with a hand grenade.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:08 pmBRITAIN IS LIKE THAT GIRL IN YOUR DORM IN COLLEGE WHO WOULD ALWAYS LET YOU DO WHATEVER YOU WANTED ON ANY NIGHT OF THE WEEK –
Comment by ANVILHEAD — July 3, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
And just where might we find this girl to whom you refer?
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:09 pmThey hate us for our freedoms.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:14 pmheres good one
America was doing fine at the begining of Invading Iraq welcomed with Flowers (TRUE)
THEN one day an army unit went into a school and asked to take over a classroom as an observation point, The teacher said No you cannot have this classroom, So the troops left the classroom throwing in a grenade , killing seven school children and the teacher. FROM that point on there has been an insurgency that have now seen 2538 troops killed and 225 American civillian contractors killed and America spend 300 billion at least
And the moral of this story is your troops lost you the war in Iraq the moment they did that
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmBritish troops knock on doors and ask to enter and had respect UNTIL american became gung ho – Now british troops have turned their backs on American troops
ANVIL must have been told about this TP thread in advance, so he came into it prepared with Karl Rove bullcrap > lol.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:30 pmheres americas real threat
N. Korea threatens U.S. with ‘nuclear war’
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an “annihilating strike and a nuclear war,” the state-run media said Monday, heightening anti-U.S. rhetoric amid close scrutiny of its missile program.
Heres the real threat come on america scared or something HA HA HA
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:36 pmNorth Korea isn’t a threat. There are no “a-rabs” there…. Just some guy who has an operational nucular program.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:40 pmAnd let’s not forget their booming film industry. Kim is N Korea’s Kurosawa.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:42 pmHOW CAN AMERICANS HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR BRITAIN OR HER OPINIONS AFTER WE PEED IN HER MOUTH AND SLAPPED HER IN THE FACE WITH IT.
Thats bound to win them over ….. Jesus:-)
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:48 pmCan I also note that the “The Telegraph” is a conservative rag? If you have lost these “minds”, such as they are (they have no hearts) you are comprehensivley screwed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:52 pmI’m certain there’s a place for Anvilhead in the Diplomatic Corps……oy.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:15 pm#26 – Zoo, that’s a good idea, somewhere remote. No place for him at the UN, Bolten and Anvilhead would be redundant.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pm– this is gonna get interesting, the pundits will now accuse the brits of being traitors, and ask for the names of the people who took the poll an get the names and photos and addresses and then malkin can print it and and,,,um coulter could paste together a new book, “Godless Fish and Chip Eating Drunken Traitor’s”
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 pm1% of british respect Bush as a leader WOW
independence day tommorro 230 years eh
and to think the first country to acknowledge your independence was a muslim country ( Morocco)
If only we had known what we know now , there would have been a major invasion 230 years ago America versus every country in the world .
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:38 pmWhat if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:51 pmhttp://www.betavote.com/
Who cares what England thinks?? Didn’t we save their sorry asses from Hilter awhile back or something. Yeah GB should talk. Their crime rate is actually higher in London than in NY. In their looniness they have made almost all personal ownership of firearms illegal and people actually go to jail for defending themselves. Thats right, in Jolly Old you can go to jail for defending yourself agianst some scumbag. In Englan they even took their nuttines one step further. They are now trying to outlaw all KNIVES , even friggin kitchen knives!! Whats’ next englan outlaw rocks and bottles and require everybody to go i public handcuffed?
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:02 pmIn England you even need a permit to watch TV! Taxes are outrageous and the Brits are losing their heritage and culture because they have allowed the muslims to immigrate in vast numbers. I am sure they will want us to help them with the muslim invasion soon too.
yeah England should talk about America! Thank GOD that religious fanatics with (gasp) guns kicked their sorry asses out of here.. and we celebrate this holiday . TOMORROW — it’s called the fourth of july.
31#You only entered the war cause germany had V2 rockets and was worried over your own safety
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:05 pmwhy nothing about Joe Lieberman leaving the Democratic Party? He now belongs to a yet unknown, unnamed party. He should call it the “Me” party. Since that is all he serves…himself! What a douche!
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 pm#31 moonbut petrol
We should care what the rest of the world thinks, yes including England. Once they stop buying what little left me manufacture, or invest in the dollar, or travel here, well we’ll be the next thrid world country with 68% unemployment. Cuz trust me moonbut unless you got billions, when the dollar loses all it’s value, you won’t have enough to re-invest in something else.
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:53 pmDoes anyone else think that if the majority of the world supported Bush, the Cons would be flaunting it all over?
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:58 pm#33 Adrian, the only thing a new party will get him is 1 vote…No one wan’t a turn coat..Good by Joe and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out…Try sucking up to bull shit bush he rewards undieing loyalty…….
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm#31-moonbat,
Besides being the embodiment of the “ugly americanâ€, you also display a considerable ignorance when it comes to your own revolution. To quote:
In England you even need a permit to watch TV! Taxes are outrageous and the Brits are losing their heritage and culture because they have allowed the muslims to immigrate in vast numbers. I am sure they will want us to help them with the muslim invasion soon too.
yeah England should talk about America! Thank GOD that religious fanatics with (gasp) guns kicked their sorry asses out of here.. and we celebrate this holiday . TOMORROW — it’s called the fourth of july.
Comment by moonbat patrol — July 3, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Actually, the revolutionaries were not “religious fanatics†nor did they “kick their sorry asses out of hereâ€, at least not without the necessary aide of the French (yes, one of the many foreign “friends†that you do everything in your power to alienate).
Also, the 4th of July is actually celebrating the event of the Declaration of Independence, and not the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War. An event memorialized with one of the most elegant and beautifully written documents ever. I strongly recommend that you read it thoroughly. What you will see is that virtually everything that you said in your post is in direct contradiction to the spirit and philosophy that is embedded in that document.
Lay off the beer and hot dogs and allow some of your brain cells (remaining few?) to sober up so that you quit sounding like a monumental idiot and providing justification for the horrible reputation that Americans currently have throughout the world.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:44 pmDidn’t we save their sorry asses from Hilter
Comment by moonbat patrol
If this were 1941, the US would enter the war on the side of the Axis.
So would the British government. Thank God the British people aren’t buying that. shit.
Americans are distracted by flags, firecrackers and videoi games…but hopefully we’ll wake up before it’s too late. Hopefully.
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:14 pmLook … certainly, much of the scorn that’s heaped our way IS the result of US unilateralism (or the perceptions of such) but, be that as it may, European “smugness” toward the “stupid yanks” is hardly new. Often, these beliefs are out of ignorance and hollywood caricatures of America as much as they are about our actions (e.g. “a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business”). Are some of these accurate … would all of us say we as a people are uncaring (ahem, WWII), are we awash in crime (not me), is the dollar all that drives us (it may be what drives our economy, but does it drive us … I’d say no). Again, these are caricatures of the US … an inflation of our societal ills to the societal norm. The poll does ask some loaded questions, but I believe an alarming level of sanctimony is implicit in those answers (Is the US more divided by class than Europe, I think not … are our racial tensions more acute, not even close).
In addition, while it’s nice to be liked, no country makes decisions based solely upon the popularity of said decisions with the rest of the world … France doesn’t, Britain doesn’t, Russia sure as hell doesn’t, and neither do we. Are we perfect, hardly … but neither are we ignorant mouth breathing neanderthals only here to provide contrast to the enlightenment of the cultured Europeans (who, themselves, seem to have a remarkable proclivity to kill one another).
Cheers
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm“AS AN AMERICAN I CANT RESPECT BRITAIN ANYMORE … BECAUSE THAT COUNTRY SOLD ITS SOUL TO US IN 5 MINUTES AND THEN GOT DOWN ON ITS KNEES AND THREW IN 4 YEARS OF FELLATIO … etc etc
Comment by ANVILHEAD — July 3, 2006 @ 3:58 pm”
But… but… Anvilhead, I thought the Iraq war was a great, noble war to free freedom from freedom-hating freedom-haters!How could you therefore have no respect for Britain for joining you so willingly in so noble a cause? …or was your post an acknowledgement that the war is in fact an unjust one based on a butt-load of lies, and you have no respect for Britain for being so easily misled?
So, either you respect Britain because we rushed to the aid of the president whom you love so dearly as he began his righteous and noble crusade, or you have no respect for Britain because you acknowledge that George W. Bush has misled both Britain and the US into a war that has no justification.
Which is it? Do you support the troops or do you hate freedom?
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:16 pm#39 Giacomo. you blew all credibility by adding that little (or the perceptions of such). You know it was unilateral but you can’t help yourself. You NEED to defend the Bushies. drop the paranthetical phrase and maybe people will take you seriously.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm#39 Giacomo. you blew all credibility by adding that little (or the perceptions of such). You know it was unilateral but you can’t help yourself. You NEED to defend the Bushies. drop the paranthetical phrase and maybe people will take you seriously.
There are certainly situations where the US is blamed for unilateralism where the definition does not fit … surely you see that. In these cases, lazy minds accept perception for reality because it fits into what they already believe. Are you suggesting this isn’t the case? One must regard htese situations in a balanced manner, and the argument that “The US acts unilaterally far to often” loses nothing by admitting as much.
As for motivations, suggesting I NEED to defend Bush while simultaneously expressing the need for all statements regarding US unilateralism adhere to your absolute definition of such …. well that’s just silly. Attaching nefarious motives to a comment is bad form. I would hope that your prerequisite for “taking others seriously” wouldn’t only include those who already agree with you …
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:29 pmSurely I see that the US is accused of unilateralism without basis? Ok, I suppose if someone said the US shouldn’t have been in WWII (like Lindbergh) then I would agree with you but that was a far right attitude.
Your motivations are obvious, you NEED to defend Bush because it is what you have always done and though it becomes more difficult by the day you still do it. If you don’t you have to admit you ate it all up like the Germans in the 30’s. I attach no nefarious motives to it. I attach ignorant motives to it. You cannot possibly believe there was any decent reason to attack Iraq unless you were incredibly ignorant. I feel so sorry for you.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 pmAgain … the nefarious motives you attach ARE the supposed histrionics and blithe acceptances of Bush mantra. It’s not enought to disagree with my points or debate my conclusions … you must attack my motivations. Thus, I’m an ignorant enabler unable to rise above the mire that are my own delusions … and I’m thereby worthy of your pity (you being of the judgmental yet sentimental variety).
I would hope that you could substantively argue a counter point or, perhaps, build upon the thesis but, no … the mere presence of my counter-opinion causes a launch into my motivations for holding said opinions. You seem offended by the idea that I may not agree … almost as if the presence of my opinion is an anathema to yours. Is it somehow offensive to differ … what about that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” that keeps getting trotted out … is the certainty of your convition somehow cheapened by the presence of mine, or are you just acting churlish?
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 pmGiacomo, you have no point to counter. You have nothing but righty talking points. You used to have points worth discussing. You have become nothing but Roves little clone.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:17 pmI guess that’s as substantive an answer as I should expect … but, I’m curious … do I have no point to counter OR are my points only of “righty” descent and, thus, CLEARLY unworthy of counter … it certainly can’t be both (if it’s the latter, how fortunate for you to never encounter an occasion where you need to substantiate your opinion … declare the opposite opinion “righty” and smugly retreat to the comfort of your own certitude).
I’ll take the backhanded compliment though ……….
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 pmI don’t want to be rude, but it’s not only the people in Britain…
Comment by Evil Spaniard — July 3, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
or in Spain, Portugal, France, Rwanda, East Timor, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Panama, Zaire, Congo, Russia, South Korea (yeah, South), Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Italy, the seven countries formerly known as Yugoslavia, Iraq (I wonder why), Iran, Syria…and the list goes on.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 pmEver so hard to win the hearts and minds of the world when a self loathing alcoholic Drag Queen fancies himself a King. In the future people will read about this time period and be told “You have to be high to fully get it”, kinda like watching Pink Floyd’s The Wall.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:44 pmDidn’t we save their sorry asses from Hilter awhile back or something.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:47 pmComment by Moonbat patrol
Jesus, you just kept becoming more idiot each post. But I have to admit you are funny. Hitler was defeated in several fronts but the most important and the decider of the war was certainly the campaign from Russia all way down to Berlin. You just got there to seize some part of the country to your own benefit. IGNORANT.
but neither are we ignorant mouth breathing neanderthals only here to provide contrast to the enlightenment of the cultured Europeans (who, themselves, seem to have a remarkable proclivity to kill one another).
This last comment exposes the nasty seam of superior thinking which has become an unconcious american pathology. Yes europeans killed each other in large numbers some 60 years ago. However it is an act of stupendous denial to suggest that Americans are somehow immune to this human condition. Have you never heard of a little fraca called the American Civil War?
A war between the only two parties on an entire continent, both democratic and capitalist? Good grief man, have some sense of introspection and self analysis.
All modern wars are automatically wars against civilians–against women and children. A declaration of war today is a statement of intent to commit atrocities.
Besides the proclivity for war has long since migrated from Europe to America, when was the last time a European country had millions of dead civilians on it’s tab, or even 100,000? Eventually like us, you too will pay for it. Unless you wise up as we have done.
Perhaps the reason Americans seem so comfortable about bombing and invading little countries around the world is that the United States, unlike Europe, has never experienced “collateral damage”. If you had ever been bombed and invaded yourselves, had your infrastructure demolished, been subject to foreign soldiers breaking into your homes at night, seen your children slaughtered and your houses destroyed, you would be, I suspect, less gung-ho about war and less cavalier about inflicting these horrors on other people.
Wake up to the reality. All modern wars are automatically wars against civilians–against women and children. A declaration of war today is a statement of intent to commit atrocities.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:46 amSen. Joe Lieberman was never a real Democrat > he has always been a Trojan-Horse Republican who masqueraded as a Dem to undermine the party for his GOP masters! He is 100% slime, so anyone in the state of CT who votes for him is a traitor to our nation!
July 4th, 2006 at 12:59 amJoseph “Benedict Arnold” Lieberman is his real name > he even stabbed Gore in the back in 2000 to help the Bush Mafia get Dubya Dunce Decider into the presidency!
July 4th, 2006 at 1:13 amI remember being in Cambridge (the real one, not that fake one you guys have, hehe) on election day 2004 and meeting a guy from Illinois who was proudly wearing his “Obama for US Senate” T-shirt for all to see. I remember wanting to give him a big hug, but the most I managed was a ‘thank you’. Trust me, that piece on what we think of you is an extreme generalisation.
For everyone working hard to take back their country, hope you get the Independence Day you deserve.
July 4th, 2006 at 1:26 amFor everyone working hard to take back their country, hope you get the Independence Day you deserve.
Comment by Chris in UK — July 4, 2006 @ 1:26 am
awww… that comment is a real heart warmer… thank you!
July 4th, 2006 at 1:34 amobama is my senator… high hopes for that one…
keep sending those good vibes this way – can’t hurt!
Eleven score and ten years ago today…
July 4th, 2006 at 2:39 amLook, this is what this story translates too:
You had a country willing to go to war at your side in Iraq, based solely on the fact that they trusted you. In other words, they were such good friends that they were willing to send their citizens to die for you.
Now, that same country wants nothing to do with you.
Some may call that one a resounding foreign policy failure.
July 4th, 2006 at 6:56 amDidn’t we save their sorry asses from Hilter awhile back or something.
Comment by Moonbat patrol
Erm, no. Read your history books moonbat and don’t take History from Hollywood – it might shock you but Ben Affleck didn’t fight in the Battle of Britain. This was the battle that decided the fate of England in 1940. When did America enter the war Moonbat? Go on, indulge me with the exact date.
To everyone else, happy Independence day!
July 4th, 2006 at 7:21 amlisten you liberal idiot-morons stop trying twist everything to suit your socialist ideals. Who cares what date we entered the European theater? We lost hundreds of thousands of men fighting to help England and Europe from hitler . Without American intervention Europe would now be half Nazia and maybe half commie ( I’ll bet you “progressives” are just salivating over THAT concept) Don’t give me the ben affleck -ww2 hollweird crap and v-2 rockets barely hit England . and, gasp ,guess what? Hitler was like saddam- no threat to us . according to the liberal-progressive parameters our involvement in the European theater of ww2 was an illegal action ( read THAT helen thomas!) and and illegal war.
July 4th, 2006 at 8:19 amI just love the way liberal-progressives try to change and re-interpet history for thier own socialist gains. The thing that makes me want to puke even more is when some liberal moonbat tells ME to read the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution. Now there is a laugh. Humanist the French were NOT major contributers to the Revolution until almost the end of the war and their contribution while important was not critical. And we DID kick their british asse out of America, HELLO what was the war about?? What did you read the liberal version of American history where we had tea and crumpets with the British and then politely asked them to leave ?? you idiot
It looks like we need another American revolution. We are faced with the same problems our forefathers were faced with. Taxation without representation, libs just LOVE more taxes , the second ammendment is now void where prohibited by liberal law and the left wing in America has absconded with the entire Constitution for their own evil desires. Yup time for another Revolution to rid America of the snooty, nasty. anti- freedom , anti – American liberals all you need is the red coats to make better targets.
Happy fourth of july you traitorous anti- American liberals get ready for the new Fourth of July and the battle to rid America of your tyranny!
well if any American realized how GW stole the elections with burned votes in Florida and started a war by burning down towers to corner the market. We might agree with the Britains. But no one sees the smirk on his face when told about the “bombing” as he sits in a Tampa Classroom, or how the plane into the Pentigon never existed. No plane there in any of the News clips moments after the “crash,” but the reporter says a plane did it so all the fools believe it… lol… America land of the free, free to be fools! But not much else. Floridians always burned votes, dumpers full, we could never let a yankee in office… but GW has gone a bit too far…
July 4th, 2006 at 8:20 amActually a good portion of the credit for WWII should also go to the Greeks, has they not managed to hold of the Italians, Hitler would have invaded Russia a month earlier.
The technology which beat Hitler, BTB, was also English. It wasn’t the nuke that ended Nazi Germany, it was Radar, which was invented by England.
The fact is that you Yanks try to take all the credit for WWII, when in fact it was WORLD War 2, is basically just American arrogance. You think you saved the world where in fact it was a group effort, hell even China was fairly instrumental in the win.
July 4th, 2006 at 8:29 amThe reason America entered the war, germany had surrounded America with submarines which scared the yanks BUT was to do with the German V2 Rockets raining down on london , America realised they could be blown to none existence IF germany had invented an inter continental ballistic weapon, the next version of the V2, so running scared they came into the war , and took back the rocket scientists to America, therefore if germany had not used the V2 rocket , we would all be speaking german now
July 4th, 2006 at 9:54 amActually, come to think of it, why are we discussing WWII?
I mean, frankly no matter how Moontard tries to spin it, the fact is that Bush’s foreign policy has flunked. He can shout WWII until he is blue in the face, but that doesn’t change the story posted right up top there.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:13 amHey … a substantive argument … hoooray !
This last comment exposes the nasty seam of superior thinking which has become an unconcious american pathology. Yes europeans killed each other in large numbers some 60 years ago. However it is an act of stupendous denial to suggest that Americans are somehow immune to this human condition.
Perhaps my comment was a tad spiky, but be aware that it was made out of indignance not arrogance. Americans posses no such pathology toward Europeans, in fact quite the opposite … Americans know we’re largely less informed geo-politically than other developed nations. Some mistake this ignorance for indifference or, worse, stupidity … not so … it’s largely due to lack of need. Americans only speak English because evryone else does to … Americans don’t understand the intracacies of European nations because the general public seldom needs that knowledge to engage daily life. Imagine driving from Madrid to Athens without changing currency, language, etc. … that is still less than the distance from Wilmington, NC to Barstow, California …
Have you never heard of a little fraca called the American Civil War? A war between the only two parties on an entire continent, both democratic and capitalist? Good grief man, have some sense of introspection and self analysis.
All modern wars are automatically wars against civilians–against women and children. A declaration of war today is a statement of intent to commit atrocities.
Besides the proclivity for war has long since migrated from Europe to America, when was the last time a European country had millions of dead civilians on it’s tab, or even 100,000? Eventually like us, you too will pay for it. Unless you wise up as we have done.
Certainly I’ve heard of the civil war … my thesis was not about American perfection, but, rather, European (in this case Brittish) sentiments of superiority. America has plenty of violence within it’s history, but European attitudes seem to puroport that Europeans have somehow risen above the ugliness that is war … they then look down their nose at the uncivil yanks. Conveniently, this ignores 1) The two worst wars in modern history (as I mentioned) and 2) the fact that a US vs. USSR standoff kept Europe relatively peaceful from the late 40s through the 90s.
Did the USA save Europe from itself in WWI and WWII? Not single handidly … but we certainly saved Britain and France in WWII, largely contributed to the defeat of the Germans, and ended the Pacific war with technological horrors previously unknown. The question is not if the US “saved Europe’s ass” as some boorish people have stated … the question is would Europe look different without the USA’s entrance in the war and did that entrance prove to be decisive to how Europe appears today … few would argue to the contrary.
Perhaps the reason Americans seem so comfortable about bombing and invading little countries around the world is that the United States, unlike Europe, has never experienced “collateral damageâ€. If you had ever been bombed and invaded yourselves, had your infrastructure demolished, been subject to foreign soldiers breaking into your homes at night, seen your children slaughtered and your houses destroyed, you would be, I suspect, less gung-ho about war and less cavalier about inflicting these horrors on other people.
I cannot disagree with this point … it’s also safe to say that were your nation the one who lost some 3000 people in a terrorist attack you might also have a slightly different perspective.
Wake up to the reality. All modern wars are automatically wars against civilians–against women and children. A declaration of war today is a statement of intent to commit atrocities.
I cannot concur with you on this … all wars (modern or not) effect, damage, injur, maim, etc. citizens (and thus women and children) … this fact doesn’t mean that all wars are, thus, against women and children … an important distinction, in my opinion. The universal nature (e.g. war always evil, bad) you assign is certainly not how 1940s Britain and France would’ve perceived war … there are wars fought for principles greater than the, admittedly, great principal of “preservation of life” … as a European, I think you’d understand this distinction.
Cheers.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:27 amLets not forget the russians, they lost about 6 million men fighting WWII. As for Hitler “not a threat” to the US, I beg to differ. A Nazi Europe and Asia, with all the resources of both continents at it’s disposal would have been a very serious threat.
US involvement in WWII was not altruisim. It was however, a good example of a war waged because of a genuine existential threat to the nation, as opposed to the current weak excuse for killing tens of thousands. The entire muslim world acting in concert, couldn’t present a 100th of the threat that Hitler did.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:33 amWhat if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?
http://www.betavote.com/
Comment by Doodle Bug — July 3, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Hey Doodle Bug – thanks for the link. Kerry was correct when he said that he had the world with him.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:39 amAmerica has plenty of violence within it’s history, but European attitudes seem to puroport that Europeans have somehow risen above the ugliness that is war
To some degree I think that is in fact true, not out of an intrinsic moral superiority, but because European history is replete with examples of war that was not only pointless, but came back to bite the original aggressor firmly in the ass.
Europeans are of the view that war should be engaged in when the threat is existential, and although Iraq presented some small threat to the US, it is impossible to argue that it was a truly existential threat. Given that context, from this remove Iraq was a war of choice, which has predictably gone horribly wrong. That is what wars generally do. Just ask the Germans. Things looked top of the world in 1940, but a mere 5 years later their entire country was in ruins, and 50 million people were dead.
Wars should not be fought unless there is no other choice, and it is clear there were and are many instruments which can be brought to bear. A serious shot at drafting real international law might also be an idea.
fact doesn’t mean that all wars are, thus, against women and children … an important distinction, in my opinion. The
I’m afraid we will have to disagree:-( I have over the course of the last 3 years come to the conclusion that there is little difference between terrorists who plot atrocities, and those who wring their hands about inevitable civilian losses.
Both know in advance that roughly x civilians will be killed. This is considered acceptable in the context of the objective. Both proceed. The civilians are dead in both cases. From the perspective of “results”, the actions are indistinguishable from each other.
The Iraq disaster has cured me of any approval “just in case” killing.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:56 amNice one Moonbat, totally missed the point of my post.
Incidentally, you do know Germany declared war on America, not the other way round?
July 4th, 2006 at 11:25 amMoonbat does not notice that the only tyranny in the United States is from the Bush Regime! He needs to look at himself in a mirror > the enemy he fears is him and the GOP!
July 4th, 2006 at 11:36 amTo some degree I think that is in fact true, not out of an intrinsic moral superiority, but because European history is replete with examples of war that was not only pointless, but came back to bite the original aggressor firmly in the ass.
That’s certainly a fair point … where it seems to break down, however, was actually quite well explained by Eddie Izzard, of all people. I’m sure you know what I speak of, but for those who don’t (and a very loose paraphrase) he posed tht “if you invade other countries, the world outcry and action will be fierce and absolute, but if you kill your own people … well, we’re sort of fine with that”. History is equally replete with these examples … Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. The world is extremely squemish about enforcing their own deeply held convictions upon other countries, because, I guess, who are we to judge. Yet we have no problem judging should that same tyrant seek to extend their borders physically. Yet, borders are not only extended physically, but also psychologically, technologically, economically. This extension is where the USA saw Iraq’s (and to be perfectly honest, the country we were REALLY trying to check was Iran) danger. It seems that the world can perfectly see that the USA is capable of such “extension” (largely economic) but claims Iraq could not have a similar effect (terrorism, psychological, etc.)
There are those who will trumpet the lack of WMDs, or will give a snarky reply to the idea that the US is “extending freedom” to the Iraqi people, but I think what’s clearly overlooked is that the US government (mostly Republicans) looked at Iraq, saw 1) a tyrant who really was a grade A douche bag, 2) oil, 3) a largely unstable region. Placing a free democracy there would keep the other theocracies in check … or so the thought went. This is neither illogical or innacurate …
I guess what all free nations must decide is if there ARE standards that the world should impose … standards of freedom or liberty. The UN was set up to be such a guide, but its impotence is its shame. The USA decided to go into Iraq … it is fair to say that a part of this was in a self serving manner, but it’s also fair to add altruistic intentions, or WMDs (of the, unfortunately, non-existant kind), etc. There are those who ONLY accept the self-serving reasons … this isn’t historically in keeping with how the USA operates, especially when we send our children to die. In addition, should the democracy take root in Iraq, the world will be a better place … and not just for the USA.
Wars should not be fought unless there is no other choice, and it is clear there were and are many instruments which can be brought to bear. A serious shot at drafting real international law might also be an idea.
I agree with you in principle, but I also think that Iraq had plenty of “instruments to bear” with regard to Saddam’s behavior. The UN basically said, “stop, or else I’ll ask you to stop again”. France and Russia decided that Iraq was a good place to make money. Perhaps if ALL the nations of Europe stared down Saddam we could’ve ousted him sans war, but just like the USA looks out for their own, Russia, France, Germany, etc. did the same. Saddam didn’t blink because the UN had zero unity. A truthful person would also recognize such as a cause for the war.
I’m afraid we will have to disagree:-( I have over the course of the last 3 years come to the conclusion that there is little difference between terrorists who plot atrocities, and those who wring their hands about inevitable civilian losses.
Both know in advance that roughly x civilians will be killed. This is considered acceptable in the context of the objective. Both proceed. The civilians are dead in both cases. From the perspective of “resultsâ€, the actions are indistinguishable from each other.
Again, I believe history is a valid guide here. Was it important enough to bomb Japanese and German cities to end the war. Are allied lives more precious than axis lives … in an esoteric sense, no, but in a historical/actual sense yes. Responsibility for the horrible truths of war must also be placed at the feet of the agressors of history … it was they who brought fire down upon themselves. Nations who struggle with the loss of their own and others lives are the standard to emulate, but these nations cannot allow their aversion to the horrors of war be their only guide and standard to engage in such … for if they did, those who hold no standards would annihalate them. The “results” of war ARE always the same … the causes are not, and the intentions of nations are not. Saddam is not the same as Germany, but, again, we’re back to the “standards” issue again. If Hiter never invaded Poland, etc. and only killed “his” jews, should history be altered?
Again, I guess what must be asked is if free nations are willing to act if a tyrant is butchering their own people … weighing the fact that acting will cause suffering in the short term and opportunity in the latter. Certainly, modern Japan and Germany bear this out, do they not? How can there be legitimate calls for action in Darfur but calls of illegitimacy for similar ramifications in Iraq? Should the world accept tyrants of their own people? I’d say no … many Americans say no … GWB said no. Iraq was most certainly a “two-fer” … gain a pro-USA democracy in the middle east (with, then, stable oil) AND oust muderous Saddam … emphasizing one “part” of this story is wrong (and both political persuasions paint the direction they want) We should ALL hope and pray it works … and should it work, the USA will retire back to our borders and let the Iraqis run the show, just like we did in Japan and just like we did in Germany.
I guess the point of my diatribe is this … there ARE legitmate reasons for action in Iraq (and I hoped that the entire world would’ve seen this) … the USA has a right to protect its interests (everyone seems to be, mostly, OK with our action in Afghanistan) … the world should never suffer those that butcher their own people (and the fact that a nation also has oil shouldn’t change this) … GWB is no facist (anyone see NYT reporters in shackles … how about beheaded … anyone?) and those who claim such are ignorant about real facism and real tyrants (just like a lack of war on the homefront softens us to the reality of war, myriad freedoms make us moronic about true facism) …
Cheers -
July 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pmHey, Giacomo, you’re right! We must override the UN ineffectiveness!
And taking in account that the first cause for ineffectiveness are the constant veto threats of the Security Council (where, casually the USA is one of the members, and, casually, too, the one with the bigger military, and casually, the USA is one of the countries, who has issued more veto threats, specially when dealing with resolutions concerning Israel), let’s throw down the barriers to democracy in the UN and therefore in the world. Let’s abolish the power of veto of the Security Council, and let’s take decissions based in true democracy, both having the 2/3 of countries and the 2/3 of the population on Earth in favor.
Are you yet for Democracy, or if the decissions of the UN aren’t rigged unilaterally in favor of the USA you’re against? Hmmm? Be brief, please.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:38 pm“if you invade other countries, the world outcry and action will be fierce and absolute, but if you kill your own people … well, we’re sort of fine with thatâ€.
I often find this charge levelled subtely or otherwise, and it never fails to annoy me. The people that protest Iraq are the same core that protest other atrocities going on in the world when the right wing masses are oblivious. When the US is on the receiving end of criticisim, this irrational response is trotted out. I object to human rights abuses across the world, but I most especially despise the hijack of human rights to commit atrocity, which is what we see here.
Placing a free democracy there would keep the other theocracies in check … or so the thought went. This is neither illogical or innacurate
This is the root of the problem. You don’t conciously gear up to kill thousands of strangers because the potential outcome sounds like it “good idea”. The monstrous calculation of it!!! Plus these people were wrong, and many very wise people warned them will in advance.
I guess what all free nations must decide is if there ARE standards that the world should impose … standards of freedom or liberty. The UN was set up to be such a guide, but its impotence is its shame.
This I largely agree with. The UN organisation though is not the problem, the decision making mechanisims are what are at fault, the option to change these lies with the individual countries, especially the 5 permanent veto wielding members of the security council. We need new structures that are democratic, and that are binding, and no country should have a veto. The UN is a completely hamstrung organisation, put the blame where it belongs the biggest and richest permanent security council members.
Was it important enough to bomb Japanese and German cities to end the war. Are allied lives more precious than axis lives … in an esoteric sense, no, but in a historical/actual sense yes.
in an existential struggle for survival the question is hardly relevant. In this case however, the richest most powerful country in the world, attacking some third world basket case? Yes its especially relevant. Perhaps the US President could explain to numerous Iraqis that “We’re sorry we killed your entire family with a 500lb bomb based on faulty intelligence, but the alternative was to send in our troops and any of their deaths would be politically damaging for me. I hope you understand that we have to put the lives of our soldiers above those of civilians.” Of course, he’d never show such disregard for the lives of US civilians. If we did I would almost certainly be impeached.
I have a big fat visceral heart stopping reaction that kind of nationalism. It’s obviously wrong.
the world should never suffer those that butcher their own people (and the fact that a nation also has oil shouldn’t change this)
Agreed, but you don’t get to change the rules and do your own thing. Not least because a fraction of global polity violently forcing it’s will on the rest of us is a kind of terrorism in itself, but also because it’s dangerous. No one knows where this stuff can lead. Remember those Germans.
GWB is no facist (anyone see NYT reporters in shackles … how about beheaded … anyone?)
I agree he is not a fascist, and the excellent constitution will shortly force him off the stage, but he is a rabid nationalist of the worst stripe, and at least a potential fascist. If not for the checks and balances of the system, we’d see more camps than just Guantanamo.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:39 pmThere are those who ONLY accept the self-serving reasons … this isn’t historically in keeping with how the USA operates, especially when we send our children to die. In addition, should the democracy take root in Iraq, the world will be a better place … and not just for the USA.
Look … your heart is in the right place, but I do not buy for a second that GWB did this for any of the right reasons, and I’m puzzled that you do.
For 50 years the west faced off against the Soviet Union, until we won the argument of ideas. In the EU, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey have all gradually moved from extreme totalitarian systems to full blown democracy. Not a shot fired. Why can’t we spend the next 50 years gradually massaging the remaining 40% of the global population that are not democrats into the fold? We know it works, and we know the war thing utterly sucks.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:58 pm“New York Times, Cindy Sheehan, and “liberals.—
Why do conservatives blame everything on them? Maybe it’s because they have a small penis, and they don’t want to admit it.
July 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pmEvil Spaniard
Are you yet for Democracy, or if the decissions of the UN aren’t rigged unilaterally in favor of the USA you’re against?
1) While veto power can certainly be problematic, equally problematic issues arise for lack thereof. Is the US supposed to act in a manner outside either its interests or its convictions … of course not, and neither should the rest of the security council. However, the US in particular is consistently ridiculed and scorned for following its own best interests, while the likes of France, Russia, Germany covertly do the same. One cannot submit authority over to others who have shown themselves to be duplicitous. At the same time, geo-politics should be enhanced and supported by the USA.
2) I find it odd that the nation the provides some 30to 40% of UN troops and 35% or so of UN funding is the object of the most scorn when it seeks to have its proverbial way. Some here would say, you don’t like our actions, you don’t need our money (I don’t adhere to this idea, but it is annoying none the less). Equal opportunity for scorn, I say. Where’s the outrage over France’s meddling in the Oil for Food fracas … where’s the challenge to the Chinese to rattle North Korea’s cage …. why do the Russians get a pass when they cooly announce they will hunt down and kill the terrorists that killed their citizens? The USA is not perfect … neither is the rest of the world. When we go to Iraq we’re invading meddlers … when another country has an earthquake or tsunami we’re not doing enough. Do you know how much money the USA sends internationally … not just Government money, but private money as well. Cut us some freakin slack people.
And please, don’t get me started on Israel … most people are woefully uninformed and just spout relativistic BS.
July 4th, 2006 at 1:22 pmGiacomo, what your post “amounts” to is a plea to be allowed to do as you please because you “pay the bills”. Although one could take issue even with that premise, we’ll hop over it for the moment to the main point.
As democrats, we would not accept a “one dollar one vote” system nationally, why on earth would you expect us to accept that system internationally? Individual Americans are often generous, in fact the world most foremost philantropists are Americans. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Does that mean I should give a borderline criminal gang a free pass? Not on your life!!!!
I don’t hate Americans, in fact I have often considered myself to be something of a wannabe, but the last 4 years have put a very serious strain on my goodwill and patience. Consider that I’m a 40 something white, comfortably well off male. What must the average muslim teenage boy be feeling?
One cannot submit authority over to others who have shown themselves to be duplicitous. At the same time, geo-politics should be enhanced and supported by the USA.
So has said every warlord on the face of the planet when confronted with a check on their power. We need as a minimum step agreed democratic procedures that allow war only when there is broad global agreement. No vetoes, no special treatment. We already have structures in place that force binding agreement on parties in the area of trade, is war less important?
July 4th, 2006 at 1:35 pmBrian … good thoughts. I have to “man” the grill now, but I’d like to add some ideas later …..
July 4th, 2006 at 1:45 pmGiacomo:
1) Fine. They do as they want also. But, again, the USA is one, if not the most eager to use the veto power. Again, let’s throw down the veto power and start democracy in the UN. And democracy means accepting their decissions even when you don’t like them. A thing that the USA rarely does.
2) They all do the same, etc, etc. Well, but they don’t pretend to be the bigger and better democracy in the world, USA does. And your country provides funding to the UN… when your country wants. The excuse of the UN edifice being in New York is the perfect excuse always to not pay every time. China rattling the NK cage? Who was doing discourses about the “Axis of Evil”? Who has stirred the arms run with NK, playing the though guy? About the russians killing in cool blood terrorists and civilians in the school or the theater? There has been also a big outrage around the world, but maybe you weren’t paying attention. But the USA kills civilians in a daily basis, and civilians in a country that had nothing ado with 9/11. And please, the “private money” that sends the USA has sent along the Government money, has been demonstrated again and again that represents a little per capita quantity compared with many other countries. And, generally, rigged to USA economic and political interests, as in the AIDS fight in Africa. Abstinence first. Ha. What a joke. Talk of abstinence to a religious pro-life in your country with eight children, and be prepared to be shot for atheist.
Relativistic on Israel? As on destroying the source for electricity for the water pumps of a whole neighborhood to find a single kidnapped soldier. And destroying the bridges to go to work at Israel? In a moment when Israel is holding the Palestinian money (coming from taxes of palestinians) who serves to pay functionaires and hospitals? Let’s rumble, Giacomo. Relativistic… relativistic is the vision of the USA GOP, thousands of miles away of the wars they wage but not declare.
July 4th, 2006 at 1:47 pmhey dickhead blood #63 I never called for violence asshat read the post you fool before you get your panties in a twist. I called for ridding ths country of liberals like you..I used the redcoat analogy as 4th of July parody. We do need to rid America of the likes of you and I thought you all were going to Canada or France or something after Bush won the second term.
July 4th, 2006 at 3:14 pmas far a law enforcement goes who do you think they are going to go after here, patriotic Americans like me or traitorous commies like you?? I think they will read these posts and see how anti- american you all are and the threats you have made aginst the President and this country and crack your heads first. I have made no threats only hopes and wishes for a liberal -free country.
#70 yeah because we were helping England by supplying them secretly for their war against Germany. Good thing the NY times did not disclose THAT secret but then American papers used to root for America and display patriotism before they all turned communist like they are today.
I have made no threats only hopes and wishes for a liberal -free country.
Yes I too desire only a liberal, free country …
July 4th, 2006 at 3:19 pm81–MP–the lend lease program during WWII wasn’t secret. FDR went to Congress and asked them to pass legislation allowing this, which they did, following 2 months of debate
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page71.htm
Your “point” actually gets at one of the major beefs critics of the admin have with Bush. What happened with lend lease is what we’d like to see Bush do–get authority from Congress before making unilateral extraconstitutional decisions e.g. to bypass FISA and authorize warrantless surveillance
This doesn’t mean we need to openly debate secret tactics used to track down terrorists. But there can be open debate concerning how much power to give the President.
Everyone agrees that we should hunt down terrorists. Let’s do it legally–pursuant to authority granted by Congress, and with the President subject to oversight by Congress (which of course would be done in a classified, protected way)
The reason stories are coming out about warrantless surveillance and financial tracking is precisely because the admin did these things in a unilateral, extra-legal way. And this was not news to the terrorists–what was newsworthy about these programs is that they were done extralegally. Everyone knows we are tracking down terrorists, listening in on conversations etc. We just thought the admin was following the law and getting warrants before it did these things
July 4th, 2006 at 4:08 pm84–DB–apologies for the verbal garbage MP spewed at you. sadly, I have seen much of this from MP. It is ugly, it is ignorant, it is inappropriate
speaks of well of you that you did not descend to MP’s level in your response
July 4th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#84 – dixie blood,
July 4th, 2006 at 4:37 pmPlease provide a refer-back when you provide an implied reference. It makes it a bit easier for those reviewing threads. Not a criticism, but a plea.
snif sniff. typical liberal, sure can dish it out but can’t take it. you complain about name calling yet YOU started it with me. and yes it is getting to the point in america that i believe that we are so divided that it may come to another revolution. I don’t want to live in your world, a liberal world and you sure as hell don’t want to live in my conservative world so…….
July 4th, 2006 at 5:56 pmIt’s a good try dixie blood, but shitwads like moonbat LOVE it when you ask them to tone it down. Moonbat, you are a chickenshit with a big mouth. You would’nt know liberty if you woke up in the middle of the night and it was sucking your cock (dream on). Was’nt it Nixon, who cut and ran from Vietnam? How about RR who cut and ran from Lebanon after the barracks bombing? Bush I, who bailed out of his plane and let his buddy go down in flames? Started a disaster in Somalia he knew he would never have to finish? Damn near every one of your vicious, treacherous leaders fled from service when they were called. WHAT THE FUCK HAVE SCUMBAG WINGNUTS LIKE YOU EVER DONE?? “Well we saved those students in Grenada, and we sure showed Noriega a thing or two”…pussies. Libs built this country, they made it great, they fought and one two world wars, fought North Korea and the Chinese and stood the Soviets down in Cuba. Jimmy Carter put the CIA into Afghanistan and handed the Russians their own Vietnam. Clinton stopped two genocides in the balkans while he was getting blown and pissants like you were whining that he was wagging the dog. Where the fuck were you, dickshit? Win a world war against two massive powers simultaneousy with your own country in a depression and then come at us with your snivelling about patriotism and love of country, you stupid fuck. Maybe you look like an American but you smell like a goddamn nazi. Please, patrol my way, fucking tory, I want your skin on my front door.
July 4th, 2006 at 6:54 pmBrian … allow me to explain further
I often find this charge levelled subtely or otherwise, and it never fails to annoy me. The people that protest Iraq are the same core that protest other atrocities going on in the world when the right wing masses are oblivious.
Two things … what I find appalling is that some argue that the US is doing too much in Iraq but not enough in Darfur. In point of fact, Bush is the only world leader that has labelled what’s happening in Darfur “genocide” (the UN has, thus far, refused to do so) … the significance of this label is the UN nations have agreed to intervene if a “genocide” is occurring. Bush calling the “spade a spade” has indicated a willingness to act, but I’m sure no one is suggesting that the USA should go it alone again? In my opinion, one shouldn’t criticize unilateral action in one case and then criticize not enough action in another … it appears that whatever choice is made, the USA is wrong. Why do people not notice that the UN continue to do NOTHING and say to themselves, “hey … the UN kinda did nothing in Iraq too (and Rawanda)” …
This is the root of the problem. You don’t conciously gear up to kill thousands of strangers because the potential outcome sounds like it “good ideaâ€. The monstrous calculation of it!!! Plus these people were wrong, and many very wise people warned them will in advance.
It seems we disagree over what is exactly happening in Iraq … are you suggesting that atrocities committed by soldiers are the rule or the exception. And if you believe it to be the rule, how can you substantiate such? Do you believe our miltary targets civilians … are you aware of how many could be dead if they did? We’re not there to kill “thousands of strangers” (although the terrorists seem to be remarkably adept at such).
Our military is extremely professional and extremely well trained … the presence of sadistic scumbags within the military seems, to me, to be a microcosm of civilization at large. No one thinks that New York & LA are “atrocities” because heinous murders and violent crimes occur. Surely you can cede that there WILL be evil soldiers who do not adhere to the standards of conduct and that these individuals are highly likely to be the perpetrators of said war crimes … to not see this possibility is illogical.
Is Guantanamo a gulag … the international red cross is stationed there … I haven’t heard one peep out of them. The problem with these purported war crimes is that they fulfill the prophecy that some people earnestly need to substantiate their opinions … they jump on such cases … and assertion is heightened to truth. Did the EU find those secret prisons? (hint: nope) Did the USA try and hide Abu Ghraib? No … we punished those responsible and we adjusted … that’s what the US military has always done.
In an existential struggle for survival the question is hardly relevant. In this case however, the richest most powerful country in the world, attacking some third world basket case? Yes its especially relevant. Perhaps the US President could explain to numerous Iraqis that “We’re sorry we killed your entire family with a 500lb bomb based on faulty intelligence, but the alternative was to send in our troops and any of their deaths would be politically damaging for me.
I disagree completely … would Britain not have preferred to put a bullet between Hitlers eyes when he first rose to power … it sounds ugly, but who would say, “No, we prefer what actually happened”. And that’s the problem … when do you confront a tyrant … do you wait for him to attack neighboring countries (which incidentally, Saddam did) … is the genocide of one’s own people a fair indicator that an untrustworthy dictator is present? Not easy questions … I cannot speak for GWB, but if I were president I’d do everything and anything I could to prevent another 9/11 on anyone’s shore. People trot out the “no Al Qaeda in Iraq” mantra (we’ve since learned Zarqawi was there before we were) as if that means Iraq didn’t support terrorism … I suppose Iran doesn’t either?
In addition, how are today’s muslim extremists any different than yesterdays Nazis … opportunity … organization … social structure … I would submit that rogue agents acting as a borderless “nation” are far more scary than the Nazis. At least the Nazis valued their own lives (and those of their citizens) … compare that with the Iraqi “freedom fighters” who are 10 to 1 responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq (in fact, they target schools and churches). How anyone cannot notice that the Iraqi people voted in droves and are being butchered by their fellow arabs is beyond me … it’s cheap and easy to blame the US … even while we hamstring our own troops to avoid civilian deaths.
Agreed, but you don’t get to change the rules and do your own thing. Not least because a fraction of global polity violently forcing it’s will on the rest of us is a kind of terrorism in itself, but also because it’s dangerous. No one knows where this stuff can lead. Remember those Germans.
So what happens if an international group sets standards for a rogue country and that country continually breaks said standards … should the group continually move the “do not cross this line” line or should they enforce the standards. The UN let Saddam do whatever he wanted (he pillaged the oil for food program and they did nothing (some even facilitated it)). Knowing such …. now ask your question about whether a country that perceives a threat should move on that threat … do they wait for everyone else to be on board, or do they notice that the others will never be on board because they’re in bed with the dictator … there was ample cause for the UN to act … they didn’t … we did (and now we have to clean up after ourselves).
Look … your heart is in the right place, but I do not buy for a second that GWB did this for any of the right reasons, and I’m puzzled that you do.
For 50 years the west faced off against the Soviet Union, until we won the argument of ideas. In the EU, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey have all gradually moved from extreme totalitarian systems to full blown democracy. Not a shot fired.
And that is the crux of it … truly I can only guess or assume why he did it. Is he after oil … not according to what I just paid. Did he do it for the “corporations” … I’ve yet to see that line clearly drawn beyond a shrill talking-point.
The way I see it, the Iraqis have a shot at a people led government system … they didn’t before. Is this easy? Of course not, but the opportunity is there and it wasn’t prior to the US/Brit invasion. ALL freedom loving people should earnestly hope that the Iraqi/Afghani governments can succeed. For the US to leave now would leave a vacuum that Iran would easily fill.
I appeal to history again … there were many that felt the USA was no better than the USSR (some actual stated the exact opposite). We were accused (by the same accusers today) of over-blowing the dangers and of scare mongering. Time has revealed that the USs estimations of Soviet intentions and Soviet tactics were highly accurate and that the USSR was a scourage to the world and its people. Do the “critics” of Reagan learn from this … nope, they just repeat the same song / different bad guy. I feel that the world will also awaken to the threat of Islmaic extremism as well, but at what point? We retreated in Somalia … OBL noticed and has been quoted as saying our military was “soft” … I wonder if he feels the same way now? Do you honestly think that “ideas” are what brought down the USSR … or was it perhaps the MAD between the US and USSR that kept them at bay long enough for their economy to deteriorate. Do you think this model works with Islamic Extremists … those whose concept of ideas is rigid and quoted directly from God?
Giacomo, what your post “amounts†to is a plea to be allowed to do as you please because you “pay the billsâ€. Although one could take issue even with that premise, we’ll hop over it for the moment to the main point.
That’s not what I was saying … but I understand how that came across.
As democrats, we would not accept a “one dollar one vote†system nationally, why on earth would you expect us to accept that system internationally? Individual Americans are often generous, in fact the world most foremost philantropists are Americans. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Does that mean I should give a borderline criminal gang a free pass? Not on your life!!!!
Again, that’s not what I was inferring … I think what you fail to realize is that, within the UN, the USA is the only nation (Israel too, I guess) castigated for acting in self-interests. Where’s the outcry of French back-handed deals with Saddam … where’s the call for investigations into Russian exports of miltary technology. The USA is upfront about acting unilaterally … everyone screams foul. Other council members do the same (or worse) … they get a pass.
How does one expect the USA to keep feeding money into a corrupt system that backhands us at every turn and turns a blind eye to the atrocities and under-handedness it was founded to ameliorate?
So has said every warlord on the face of the planet when confronted with a check on their power. We need as a minimum step agreed democratic procedures that allow war only when there is broad global agreement. No vetoes, no special treatment.
The difference being … the USA is not a warlord or a malevolent nation … if we were, Afghanistan would be under a nuclear glow for the next couple of thousand or so years. The struggle will always be that NO nation will ever want to put its very existance to a world vote … especially with the UN as it is now. Too much corruption.
July 4th, 2006 at 7:11 pmNo prob, Blood. Don’t take any crap from these swine. Libs have nothing to be ashamed of, especially in the face of what theyv’e done to a country that did, in fact, greet us with flowers.
July 4th, 2006 at 7:19 pmEvil Spaniard
And please, the “private money†that sends the USA has sent along the Government money, has been demonstrated again and again that represents a little per capita quantity compared with many other countries. And, generally, rigged to USA economic and political interests, as in the AIDS fight in Africa. Abstinence first. Ha. What a joke.
You need to re-check your facts my friend. What’s often cited is ONLY US Government aid … conveniently ignored are civilian and corporate gifting. To give you an idea, philanthropic giving for individual Americans (the private money I alluded to in my previous post that you added scare quotes to) exceeded 260 billion in 2005 (the US government gave 27 billion). The USA gives more benevolent money than some nations GNP.
Oh, and the insinuation that the US Government should somehow blindly give money out without some standards for receiving that money is just plain stupid.
July 4th, 2006 at 8:08 pmRelativistic on Israel? As on destroying the source for electricity for the water pumps of a whole neighborhood to find a single kidnapped soldier. And destroying the bridges to go to work at Israel? In a moment when Israel is holding the Palestinian money (coming from taxes of palestinians) who serves to pay functionaires and hospitals? Let’s rumble, Giacomo.
Let’s do … since I assume you’re in Spain, how would your nation respond if, say, Morocco started firing rockets into Malaga … how about 2000 or so of them … in the past 6 months? Not fair you say, Israel has “occupied” palestinian land? Perhaps a history lesson then.
The area that comprises much of the eastern middle east was all a part of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) … Britain took over said lands after WWI. Between the 20s and 40s, the UN (through Britain) created land for a Jewish state, but also created what are now Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon (pleae note: no one says these other nations are illegitmate … funny that). Prior to this time, none of these peoples had individual nation status but were part of the Ottoman empire. Also, the term “palestinian” was used to describe the Jews who lived in the area.
The jews accepted the terms (and boundries) the UN created and founded Israel. Also created alongside the Jewish land was Arab land to found a nation of Palestine. Again, Israel agreed to the boundaries The surrounding Arab nations did not agree however and planned to corporately attack and end the Jewish state. This they did … one more than one occassion … they were defeated each time. In addition, Israel aquired land from Egypt and Jordan (legally according to the UN) in the context of the battles and overall war. Please note that had the Arabs chosen to set up Palestine, it would exist today.
Today’s Palestinians” as a people exist because 1) they refused to become Israelites when offered by Israel (some accepted and are citizens with members in parliment, etc.) 2) the surrounding Arab nations refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist 3) None of the Arab nations were willing to accept the Palestinians (unlike Israel who accepted displaced Jews from Arab lands AND arab palestinians willing to become citizens). 4) On three occasions, Israel offered to retreat back to the original borders if the Arab nations would recognize their right to exist … most refused. Caught in the middle … modern Palestinians are now victims of their own hatred of Israel and the unwillingness of surrounding Arab nations to take them in (again, since they chose to not become Israelis which was offered) or recognize the Israeli nation.
Why is all this important … because it shows how tenuous the arguments against Israel often are. The Palestinians don’t want Israel out of gaza or the west bank only (in fact, once Israel left gaza the Palastinians decided to reward them by shooting shooting rockets) … they want Israel gone … the entire nation … annihalated. Now, understanding that Israel is not fighting for its safety, but its existance … what would you have them do. They pull out, they get more violence. They attack the terrorists, the world calls them the bad guy. What should they do? Should the world not yell in chorus for the Arab nations who refuse to recognize them (even though they were founded in the exact same way as Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) to cut the BS … should the USA not assist the only strong democrcy in the middle east (which, by the way, has Arab citizens who enjoy the most freedoms and opportunities of ANY Arabs in the middle east). Feel free to talk about bridges and water if you wish, but I’m not sure you’d respond any differently if the very existance of Spain were at stake.
July 4th, 2006 at 8:09 pmJuly 4th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Wow … impressive research … let me see if I can clarify.
The meaning of a word can be broken into two literary definitions or terms. While you provided great detail into the denotation (the strict, literal dictionary definition of a word) of fascism , I was actually referencing the common connotation (the nonliteral, associative meaning of a word; the implied, suggested meaning) of fascism … which are vastly different.
The statement, “GWB is a fascist (or close to one)” is not one bound by the simple definition of fascist … the stater is not trying to strictly specify GWB as an entity … they are using the word fascist as a pejorative … they are making an implication (which also assigns value) about the word fascist …… but what is the implication?
The term fascist mostly connotes the term “Nazi” … which then in turn connotes “unspeakable evil” (among other things) … consider the title “BusHitler” that’s tossed around so often if you think my progression false. My argument should be set against this connotation of fascist (and while I don’t think the strict denotation applies either, it’s more accurate) which, in all honesty, is hard to refute.
Hope that was “cutting-edge” enough for you, o’ smug one. Cheers.
July 4th, 2006 at 9:49 pmThe term fascist mostly connotes the term “Nazi†… which then in turn connotes “unspeakable evil†(among other things)
Comment by Giacomo
You would starve as a thesaurus. Who the hell told you all the BS? Nazi…unspeakable evil? Nationalsocialist was the party who got power in Germany after WWI. Nazis were the people who conformed this party. They began a terrible xenophobic campaign against non-arian citizens (jewish people were not the only victims, just the most privileged and wealthy of them) but the reasons were truly economical (nationalism and patriotism have always been the tools to drive ignorant people to war) and the invasions were the way they thought they could win markets. Sure, what they did is dispeakable, hienous and something we must never forget, but please, stop using religious and axiological terms to describe economy and political terms. You can not define what is evil, you are sounding like GWB who, surely, must know a lot about evilness.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:47 amSure, what they did is dispeakable, hienous and something we must never forget, but please, stop using religious and axiological terms to describe economy and political terms. You cannot define what is evil.
And here is a perfect example of what’s wrong with much of leftist thinking. I won’t even get into a pissing contest about the existance of absolutes … you spend an entire paragraph trying to force me to define things as you would have the world define them …
I cannot define something in a particular manner (that doesn’t suit you), but you’re perfectly within bounds to define the same something to me (in a way that does) …. uhhmmmmm … HELLO.
Why don’t you try saying, “As I see it, the definition of evil serves no purpose because of …….” then you won’t look like a huge hypocrite. I’m sure you are 100% sure you are right … shouldn’t change how you frame the argument.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:40 amYou really let me down. Your response is massively disappointing.
I hang my head in shame ;-)
Musolini was a Fascist, Hitler was not. George Bush is a fascist. He is not a Nazi. However, his grandfather, Prescot Bush, was a Nazi sympathizer/supporter. His bank (not his alone) was siezed by the government under the Trading with the Enemies Act a full year after the law was passed.
Look … you’re free to disagree … you’re free to see the world as you see it … conspiracy theories don’t usually convince anyone other than those who already don’t like the subject of the conspiracy. An example … Al Gore’s father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 64 … gasp … he even tried to fillibuster it … double gasp. Quotes like that might play with the weak-minded crowd, but it’s drivel to those able to see shades of gray. As I said in my previous comment, leftists keep trying to define GWB in absolute terms, but cry foul when a conservative does the same with Iran or North Korea or Iraq, etc. Start looking for nuance, my friend … you’ll be much happier.
And by the way, nice reframe after I trashed your “Giacomo has no idea what a facist really is” argument. We both know what people mean when they say GWB is a fascist … they aren’t talking about your literal definition … and they sure as hell aren’t talking about WWII Italy …
Cheers
July 5th, 2006 at 7:53 amAll this Nazi talk is upsetting me my grandfather was killed in Aushwitz when he fell of the guard tower
July 5th, 2006 at 8:43 amas per the title of this set of posts: yeah you assholes are really winning over hearts and minds! to the conservative side. keep up the good work you moonbat leftards!
July 5th, 2006 at 8:52 am#94
In my opinion, one shouldn’t criticize unilateral action in one case and then criticize not enough action in another … it appears that whatever choice is made, the USA is wrong. Why do people not notice that the UN continue to do NOTHING and say to themselves, “hey … the UN kinda did nothing in Iraq too (and Rawanda)†…
Many of us do. In my blog, you will find the UN subjected to some fairly harsh critiques, but you have to look behind the curtain. The UN is simply the sum of it’s parts, worse than that, it is cursed with an uwieldy decision making structure that is fundamentally undemocratic. Blaming the UN is like blaming a car for killing a pedestrian, it is the drunk driver (or in this case drivers) at the wheel that is the problem, not the car.
Plus the larger countries, and the I’ll happily concede that the US is not alone in this, are perfectly thrilled with this arrangement. It allows them to pay lip service to any number of worthy causes, and pin the blame for lack of action on the UN. It’s clearly bullshit, and a clever guy like yourself should be well able to see through it.
it appears that whatever choice is made, the USA is wrong.
There is some truth to this, and it is the unhappy lot of the world lone hyperpower to attract vitriol. In much the same way as people complain about the EU, the federal government and the UN, the US is in a leadership role globally and gets stuck with a lot of criticisim. This is not new, however that nearly all the complaints now levelled are justified is new.
We will probably disagree here, and at this point perhaps depart to alternate realities. I just cannot see how any truly objective person could consider the US’s actions over the last 6 years as anything but wholly disastrous. I say this concious of my own subjectivity, but no matter how I try to adjust my own perceptions, the US comes out with a big red F, and I’m far from alone. GWB is the primary cause.
Do you believe our miltary targets civilians
I the sense of “we are going to kill these civilians today”, no, I absolutely do not. Although as you say, the military has some real bastards tucked in there.
However the US military carries out detailed assessment prior to bombing and invasion, in these scenarios civilian deaths were projected. The US killed about 30,000 people invading Iraq, I think these figures are pretty uncontroversial?
I am simply pointing out warfare entails the wholesale killing of civilians, I see little moral difference between a pilot bombing from 50,000 feet or a suicide bomber blowing up a busy market. I’m certain you do, but I maintain that given the outcomes are identical who cares what the motives are? Do you care what the motives of those that bombed the twin towers was? Course not, well the Iraqi who has had there family blown to pieces doesn’t care about motives either. It’s the logic of war, and why it should not be entertained. To put it another way, if you are unwilling to put troops in harms way to protect non combatants of any and every stripe, then pack it in. You are simply going to unleash decades of terrorisim as the British discovered in Ireland, and the Russians are finding in Checyna.
Is Guantanamo a gulag … the international red cross is stationed there … I haven’t heard one peep out of them.
Thats because they don’t peep. They discuss issues directly with the parties involved and are hyper discreet to ensure they continue to be viewed as neutral, and yet they have in fact complained http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/C5667B446C9A4DF7C1256F5C00403967 … , now you know.
The US is of course trying to deal with these issues, and if I was to rate them against all the previous imperial powers in history they come out as the most humane. Nonetheless, we are moving on, and the standards that are common place in nation states must become equally commonplace internationally. This was actually progressing quite nicely until Bush hove into view.
The room for manevour of those who choose war so easily, must be crimped and crimped until it is completely eliminated. In a networked world of 6.5 billion, chock full of WMD, with nanotech on the horizon, this is an absolute must for the survivial of the speices. Sounds dramatic, but we have had many near misses in the cold war, we need to quit rolling the dice and step away from the table.
Damn, I’m at this nearly 40 minutes so I’m going to summaries the rest. Feel free to read my ‘umble blog, it addresses much of the issues you raise and you’ll either be enlightned or recognise unbridgable gaps:-(
I think our basic difference is that I insist all countries abide by agreed standards. You feel similarly, but because some violate the standard, it is meaningless and should be ignored where it conflicts with narrow national interest. I submit, that this view is suicidal in the long term, especially if you make up barely 5% of the global population. At some point people will reject this enforced hegemony, and eventually that rejection will be violent.
You need to recognise nationalisim for what it is, an artificially imposed and sustained form of hyper tribalisim. It needs to be replaced globally by a greater good philosophy. This in effect how successful nation states, and supra national regions like the EU function, you just need to think bigger.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:17 amgeez #108 in your summation you suggest a one world governement. Yeah just look how effective the UN is. If they would have done their self appointed job we would not have had to go into Iraq.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:33 amno we should not have one government for the whole world. hey celibrate diversity right??
Brian,
Thanks for the honest and measured responses … I cannot say I’ll ever agree with your statements about the nature of war, but they are reasoned and well-thought … and, gasp, logical. A fair, point by point response is so seldomly found here at TP, that I come and go periodically … most just devolve into wild hyperbole and ad-hominem attacks (some don’t, the morons do and no one stops them). I’ll check out your blog …
- Cheers
July 5th, 2006 at 9:40 amwhat happend eyeballs? mommy make you get off the computer leftard??
July 5th, 2006 at 5:30 pmdixie blood you don’t have to leave just grow up and give up your liberal ways. educate yourself and see the real world. beside liberals are so insignificant and miniscule in importance that a few more election cycles they will be put in a museum as mental anomolies and abberations. liberalism is dead in America .
The british think what of us? F**K them, ill bust a cap in they ass….im bouts ta get paid ya’ll, cuz its all about the blang blang baby!…….. and OMG, did you SEE what jessica simpson was wearing……?
you mean they think we’re like that? pshht!
July 5th, 2006 at 6:04 pmthey are british , they think piss is one of the food groups and green teeth are normal and besides who cares? in 10 years the rag head muslins will have taken over anyway and we will have to bail them out again.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:19 pmIt took me 5 minutes to refute your crap. No you cannot “clarify†because you REFUSE to use then COMMON DEFINITIONS of WORDS known to the rest of the world.
Look, if you can’t read my explanation and understand it, then I’m not sure why I should dignfy you with a re-explain. How you can speak about “common definitions” (all caps too) when my post directly addresses the DIFFERENCE between connotation and denotation … oh, never mind.
No one on earth can converse with you with those rules in place! Do you own a dictionary? Can you do basic research? Or am I just dealing a permantly closes mind? Could you please leave this blog for good? and ever?
That’s the nice thing about an education … I don’t need copious amounts of research to make a point … honestly, it may be my fault … how can I expect more from you when you accuse me of a having a “closed mind” and ask me to abstain from posting opinions that differ from yours in sequential sentences. Perhaps when you grow up, you’re learn to not be threatened by those with opinions other than your own. Until then ………..
July 5th, 2006 at 10:59 pm