These disasters…..Blair, Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld………have no children or relatives dying in this war. It is outrageous.
They are criminals plain and simple. They need to be tried for their crimes. We never needed to go to war….it was an “adventure” for them. Pure hubris and lust for power.
Unacceptable. The American people need for them to be held accountable as the first order of business.
A rather disingenuous topic by ThinkProgress. Here is Blair’s complete answer:
Mr Blair was challenged by Sir David over the violence in Iraq, saying it had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.
The prime minister replied: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning. It’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war.”
Well, from bull shit bushs lap poodle comes the word’s “it’s been a disaster”….after 600,000+ death’s leveling an entire country, sucking the USA treasury dry, borrowing upward’s of 40 trillion from china and foreign countries this kiss butt dumbass is just now saying this….You’re worse than slow tony, you’re guilty…….I hope you end up in jail with bush and company…..
I wonder if Blair feels like it’s been a disaster for those actually involved — or just for his own political career. He deserves that look of desperation he carries around these days — and more.
Still holding to that silly and discredited figure, I see.
Comment by Exley — November 18, 2006 @ 11:22 am
I have yet to see anyone make a good case that the figure from the Hopkins group is either “silly” or “discredited”. There has been an echo chamber saying so, but the criticism of the study is largely uninformed, unsound, and in many cases coming from Bush partisans.
Good Morning Zooey, Sunshine on the way….Only here for another minute, tree hugging time….Blair like bush will never give up anything, just more lies and demanding their way or the highway unless it suits a new bigger purpose….Heard the disaster in charge in Nam speech…He will still keep us in war untill he is impeached for the war crimes….
So not so sorry I skipped right over the E post….Oh well now were in and they are out….May I say Good Morning to our future President Palosi…..Blessings
These disasters…..Blair, Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld………have no children or relatives dying in this war.Comment by s
Follow this out to a logical conclusion if they have no childern or family dying gover there then they should feel obligated to pull out. so anyone else that does not have family or children dying over there they should be quiet as well. that is not my stance but the logical conclusion of your statement.
We never needed to go to war….it was an “adventure†for them. form the same post.
then you agree the the U.S. is under no obligation to enforce UN sanctions or mandates.
Who would ever have thought that when you invade and occupy another country, and remove the order of the government, chaos and violence will come from the freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorist, and criminals in that country?
Obviously Bush and Blair cannot be expected to plan for something with such an unlikely probability of actually happening, right?
The difference between “smart” and “dumb”, is NOT taking the consequence of your plan being WRONG, into consideration before acting!
criticalthinker, are your refering to the Insurgents as freedomfighters? If so, you are sadly mistaken. First, most are not even Iraqi, so they are not fighting for Iraq’s freedom. Second, they are fighting for a theocratic idea that places women, and minorities as not second, but no-class citizens.
Exley, #20, Now you did it, you confused the issue by submitting a tangable fact that counters the emotional arguement. Get ready for the name calling !
#19, Robert….I don’t think criticalthinker was using the term “freedom fighters” to describe the Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents, and Shia militias. He listed several types of groups –. “freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorist, and criminals in that country.” It seems to me that criticalthinker was referring to the decent Iraqis who are allied with the U.S in fighting the insurgents, terrorist, and criminals when he wrote of “freedom-fighters.”
Exley had a nice article from the BBC posted a moment ago that countered the numbers of casualties. did it get pulled for common sense reasons or something?
I agree with Exley. Let’s not sink to the level of Kerry-izing comments out of context. There’s plenty of real scandal to blog about.
Comment by PhilyGuy — November 18, 2006 @ 11:29 am
I disagree with Exley, and I disagree with your characterization here. Blair admits that the situation in Iraq is a disaster. This conclusion is painfully obvious, but nevertheless is significant coming from Blair (after all, Bush and his blind supporters and legions of propagandists still refuse to admit it). Furthermore, I don’t see why you or Exley think that the full quote somehow exonerates Blair. Indeed, I find his telling excuse for the disaster to be far more damning than exculpatory. Blair starts with a claim about what didn’t cause the disaster: poor planning (it is said that liars characteristically answer questions by giving too much information). If not poor planning, then what? According to Blair, it is all the fault of those darn Iraqis. By denying that poor planning was a factor, and by clinging to the pathetic excuse that it is somehow the fault of Iraqis, Blair shows that he is still firmly planted in Bushland.
Bush may be a deeply stupid person, but Blair is no dummy. He knows that he faces a very real risk of indictment for war crimes. Watch him as he squirms under the bright lights.
It looks like Robert has volunteered to serve as troll-of-the-day and use his semi-literate, uninformed, and factually incorrect posts to paint a target on himself. Some examples:
Follow this out to a logical conclusion if they have no childern or family dying gover there then they should feel obligated to pull out.
How the f**k did you come up with this weird, illogical straw man argument, Robert? It bears no resemblance to any comments I have ever heard or read. Logical my ass. Most of us believe that we should pull out because the war is wrong. What people are saying is that our leaders would have more incentive to admit that the war is a mistake if they were spending the lives of their own friends and relatives, instead of the anonymous troops dying in Iraq.
then you agree the the U.S. is under no obligation to enforce UN sanctions or mandates.
Another straw man. People who can’t debate their point often feel the need to put words in the opponents mouth. Robert makes an excellent case study of this behavior.
First, most are not even Iraqi, so they are not fighting for Iraq’s freedom.
This claim is flat wrong and has been refuted again and again, even by top military commanders in Iraq. It looks like Robert is a 30 percenter who robotically believes whatever his Decider-in-Chief tells him to believe.
Can anyone state one FACTUAL warcrime that Bush or Blair have committed? Keep it FACT based, not a talking point or emotional reaction.
Yes, Robert, here is one: starting an illegal war in violation of international laws. There is widespread agreement on this point by legal experts.
Before anyone pipes up with Gevenia Convention, remember that applies to UNIFORMED National militaries.
Robert, you are an ignorant fool. The Geneva Conventions (yes, Robert, it is plural) do cover civilian populations. Indeed, one of the conventions states clearly that the welfare of the civilian population is the obligation of an occupying military force.
I said that a woman has a right to chose to a reasonable time.
Comment by Robert
You also said there should be a limit to the number of abortions a woman should be allowed, and that past the 3 months, only if her life is in imminent danger.
By deciding for a woman what might be best for her, you reduce women to second class citizens.
I would call it genocide on part of the Americans and British -
basically they tried an old British Army trick from the Indian-Pakistan wars
Create civil War by telling the Indian that the Pakistany bullets are dipped in Cows Fat and tell the Pakistanies that the Indians have dipped their bullets into Pigs fat -
So Long as they fight each other - You can sit back and watch
So In Iraq the Sunnis were Insurgents -So the Americans armed the Interior Ministry with Shia Militias to kill the Sunnis - BUT the Sunnis fought back bombing the Shites -
What a mess American and Poddle face have made - There Plan backfired NOW they are both out to shoot American soldiers as well and no matter what happens America will NOT get the oil by Installing a Puppet goverment
Americas Next plan is to kill all males aged 16 to 30 which has been almost done that exactly why they need 6 months more - Genocide
Robert, here is another war crime for you to ponder: the destruction of Fallujah. The city was deliberately destroyed for the explicitly stated purpose of punishing its civilian population in retaliation for their alleged failure to suppress the insurgency.
And now my posting #20 is back….Thank you, TP. Oy. This is getting confusing. Okay, RealScientist you can respond to it now.
Oh, and RealScientist, your posting #34 is filled with so many errors and misstatements, it is diffiucult to know where to begin. Let’s start here:
November 15, 2004
Mujahidin terrorised Fallujah, residents say
By Times of London Online and AFP in Fallujah
Another poster in the ruins of the souk bears testament to the strict brand of Sunni Islam imposed by the council, fronted by hardline cleric Abdullah Junabi. The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.
Two female bodies found yesterday suggest such threats were far from idle. An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head …
Such is the fear that the heavily armed militants held over Fallujah that many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the US marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city.
A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds from a US munition, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.
“I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months,†he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants.
Another elderly man, who did not want his name used for fear the rebels would one day return and restore their draconian rule, said he was detained by the militants last Tuesday and held for four days before being freed. He described how he had then sought refuge in a friend’s house where they had huddled together clutching Korans in silent prayer for their lives as the massive US bombardment put the insurgents to flight.
“It was horrible,†he told an AFP reporter.â€We suffered from the bombings. Innocent people died or were wounded by the bombings.
“But we were happy you did what you did because Fallujah had been suffocated by the Mujahidin. Anyone considered suspicious would be slaughtered. We would see unknown corpses around the city all the time.â€
The same story of arbitrary executions was told by another resident, found by US troops cowering in his home with his brother and his family.
“They would wear black masks, carry rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs, and search streets and alleys,†said Iyad Assam, 24. “I would hear stories, about how they executed five men one day and seven another for collaborating with the Americans. They made checkpoints on the roads. They put announcements on walls banning music and telling women to wear the veil from head to toe.â€
It was not just pedlars of alcohol or Western videos and women deemed improperly dressed who faced the militants’ wrath. Even residents who regard themselves as observant Muslims lived in fear because they did not share the puritan brand of Sunni Islam that the insurgents enforced.
One devotee of a Sufi sect, followers of a mystical form of worship deemed herectical by the hardliners, told how he and other members of his order had lived in terror inside their homes for fear of retribution.
“It was a very hard life. We couldn’t move. We could not work,†said the man sporting the white robe and skullcap prescribed by his faith. “If they had any issue with a person, they would kill him or throw him in jail.â€
Did Saddam violate UN mandates that were stated would be met by military action? If so then the U.S. Did not start an illegal war, they enforced UN policy.
Robert, you are an ignorant fool. The Geneva Conventions (yes, Robert, it is plural) do cover civilian populations. Indeed, one of the conventions states clearly that the welfare of the civilian population is the obligation of an occupying military force. On this point we agree.
That includes to protect them from factions inside their own nation that tries to do them harm. But it does not apply POW status to NON-UNIFORMED COMBATANTS.
First, most are not even Iraqi, so they are not fighting for Iraq’s freedom.
This claim is flat wrong and has been refuted again and again, even by top military commanders in Iraq. It looks like Robert is a 30 percenter who robotically believes whatever his Decider-in-Chief tells him to believe.
Then please explain the Iranian, Jordanian, and Chechnians that have been detained or killed over there.
Robert, here is another war crime for you to ponder: the destruction of Fallujah. The city was deliberately destroyed for the explicitly stated purpose of punishing its civilian population in retaliation for their alleged failure to suppress the insurgency.
Comment by RealScientist
And for how many days prior to Fallujah did we warn the populace that we were coming? Please show me one DOCUMENTED source that states our purpose being what you state
#36, Not only that, Robert, but RealScientist’s incorrect (I won’t call it dishonest because perhaps he has simply been misinformed) assertion that Fallujah was leveled as some sort of collective punishment is false on numerous levels.
When the U.S. went into Fallujah in 2004 it was not to punish the populace, but to seek and destroy the terrorists, while at the same time, hold civilain casualties to a minimum. That is why the military engaged in selective street-by-street, house-by-house fighting. If the U.S. truly wanted to level Fallujah, it could have done so with the indiscriminate use of air and artillery power alone so as to keep our troops out of harms’ way.
This, of course, did not happen. Instead, the U.S. sent in troops to engage only the enemy. This, of course, placed our troops in greater danger and was much more difficult for the U.S. troops than would have been air strikes and bombardment. But it was necessary in order to avoid civilain casualties. RealScientist insults our troops and derogates the danger and hardship they experienced during the battle of Fallujah when he falsely and irresponsibly claims that the troops leveled the city without regard to the civilain population.
Moreover, if one reads the Times of London article (posting #34), one sees that many of the residents of Fallujah were glad to have the U.S. clear out the fanatical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists that had imposed a brutal Taliban-like grip on that city. Again, RealScientist insults our troops by ignoring this fact.
RealScientist is a bright guy and knows his stuff when it comes to discussions of global warmimg and other scientific matters. But when it comes to issues of international and domestic law and foreign affairs, he is often uniformed and inaccurate.
Exley, brevity is always a plus. I forgive you, and understand that you wouldn’t want to be rude by monopolizing the thread. I accept your apology for doing so.
Zooey, Maybe posting #20 was too large and that is why it was removed. Ah, well…he link in posting #38 contains all the relevant information debunking the Lancet study. Thank you for understanding, Zooey.
Your summation of the Geneva Conventions is INCORRECT. As Article 5 of the Conventions states:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
I would argue to you that of the more than 500 individuals interned at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, exactly 0 of them have been granted the aforementioned tribunal to assess their status. They have been summarily named “enemy combatants” by the Executive Branch of our government (specifically the President) who, under the aforementioned Article of the Conventions, does NOT have that authority. Therefore, we, as a nation, have violated the Geneva Conventions which is considered a war crime. There are other examples I could list also (specifically the Nuremburg Tribunals’ example of what is a violation of waging Preemptive war without provocation, also a war crime) but, I fear that with you, I would simply be wasting my breath as you don’t seem to be able to listen to reason.
#41, You are incorrect. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which asked for the “person whose status is in doubt” language to be inserted, states that such language refers to This “deserters, and to persons who accompany the armed forces and have lost their identity card.” Since there is no one being held at Guantanamo who can be considered a deserter or member of armed services who lost their identity card (Al Qaeda is not considered an armed force under international law), the second paragraph of Article 5 is inapplicable.
bearinachair: its not like those muzzies are real humans or anything…
bearinachair: i’m only sad that we have only managed to kill 650,000 in 4 years..we need to try harder to kill more muslims more quickly
bearinachair: we need to review the methods the nazis used in their death camps
bearinachair: peace lover changing your name ain;t fooling anyone
A Christian named , ” Bearichair ” and member of KKK . They talk this on (paltak christians chat Rooms) . LOVE of Christianity !!! they take this much pleasure from human death /murder they cause
Maybe we all miss the point of the wars, or at least from the perspective of Bush and gang. This was never about freeing a country from tyranny, oil, and/or payback for an assassination attempt against daddy Bush, or any of the 100 other scenarios that have been floated. This is pure and simply to destabilize the region and to use this as a false flag event to start a larger war that will bring on Armageddon. There is postmillennialism, pre-millennialism. The simple thesis of postmillennialism is that Jesus will literally return to the earth after the Millennium begins. Radical Evangelicals believe that it is their duty to create destiny and bring on the Rapture, thus Armageddon. We are moving towards a Fascist police state. Think about it:
The move towards a one-world government (The “New World Order†George Sr speech and everything that has happened since that speech):
- NSA using Echelon against it’s own people to build a database of dissenters.
- Google selling its search results to the CIA from information it records including your IP address.
- The 2007 law that mandates a National ID, and this ID will use an RFID chip (for what)?
- The move towards a paperless money society (see National ID).
- The passing of Patriot Act 1, 2, house bill HR6266, and executive orders to deal with dissention.
- The move to create a National Union between South America, North America, and Canada.
- The continue push to revise the European Union.
All under the auspices of a “The Global Fight against Terror†and the obviously staged events of 9/11.
George Bush was a member of skull and bones. Skull and Bones is for the family members of the 32-degree Free Masons, daddy Bush is 32-degree freemason and the Masonic religion.
Albert Pike addressing the 23 Supreme Councils of the world on July 14, 1889:- “To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: ‘the Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the LUCIFERIAN Doctrine. . .”
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.” — Samuel P. Huntington, Jewish author of “Clash of Civilizations”
When the so CALLED Civilized west stops Butchering Human being ? people are more safer by being around wild beast than Christians .
As much damage as Bush has done to the Republicans, Blair has done to the Labor Party in Britain.
sigh
I wonder how long it will take the left in Britain to recover from this douchebag!
Locals Accuse U.S. of Massacre in Ramadi
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily
RAMADI, Nov 17 (IPS) - U.S. military tank fire killed scores of civilians in Ramadi, capital of Al-Anbar province, late Monday night, according to witnesses and doctors. Anger and frustration were evident at the hospitals and during the funerals in the following days.
Iraqi doctors and witnesses at the scene of the attack said U.S. tanks killed 35 civilians when they shelled several homes in the Al-Dhubat area of the city.
Ramadi, located 110 km west of Baghdad, has been beset with sporadic but intense violence between occupation forces and insurgents for several months.
On Tuesday, hundreds of people carried the 35 coffins of the dead to a graveyard in a funeral procession which closely resembled an angry demonstration.
“We heard the bombing and we thought it was the usual fighting between resistance fighters and the Americans, but we soon realised it was bombing by large cannons,” 60-year-old Haji Jassim explained to IPS at the burial. “We weren’t allowed by the Americans to reach the destroyed houses to try to rescue those who were buried, so certainly many of them bled to death.”
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY Is this this murder still continuing By US Indecscriminate Shelling ………….. ENOUGH BLOOD SPILT GO HOME AMERICA TROOPS
Tobey, since you are from England, why are you not calling for British troops to go home as well?
Fix your own backyard.
Makes you sound a bit hypocritical to just rail at Americans ( and call us as a group names ) and not at YOUR Troops when your hands are as bloody, bubba.
Im not from England…..I live in the highlands which is totally run by Liberals or SNP…… we have no Tory seats or Labour seats here and proud of it….
which covers about 2/3 of scotlands landmass ……. we want nothing to do with Blair ,, he dont run us up here and is not even welcome up here
And Wayne what Im saying is Blair will be gone soon Britain will recover as a whole as we are much more aligned to Europe than ever now, and its not in our nature to be hostile to other countries
As where America stand alone now with War, UN vetoes ITS IN AMERICAN NATURE… not ours ????
Watch for the investigations. They are coming in january, Tobey ( or better be ). After the new congress is sworn in.
Are you calling for war crimes charges for Blair, since Brittish troops have killed quite a few civillians as well?
If you are not aware of them, I can post some links.
Wayne I really hope investigations are coming in January , The Democrats should hit Bush Hard and ASAP to be worthy,
Yes I know the british Troops commited was crimes
They killed a hotelier and beat up a few kids on video But Not really that bad compared to Americans killing 1000 civilians in Falluga with Napalm and Rape and murder,,, In fact American troops are so bad the britsh troops will not go around with american troops anymore, and as a nation we are accountable to the ICC as where America is NOT
what really gets my back up Is Bush vetoing everything good at the UN
My Parents went to Isreal and had a great time in 98 there was no troubles then under Clinton the minute Bush gets into power all hell breaks loose all over the world …………. Bush is a walking Disaster ,,,,,,,, or you could say Bush has the Shitas touch - the opposite of the midas touch - everything Bush touches turns to shit
Wayne I know there are many good Americans, and America does have a better side , we are just not seeing it at the moment
And yes I prefer the Iraqi insurgency than my own countrymen ..
Troops Know they should not be doing what they are
But my heartstring go out to the Iraqis more . Enough is Enough
I really hope America changes for the better in January , by showing the way forward in this world, If America does this then I will start buying your products
Tony nailed this one on the head. And the remainder of his statement says nothing to the contrary, just that there are groups working against us in Iraq to make it harder to success . . . no surprise there.
Exley I appreciate you trying to clarify my post, but your idea of what is meant by “freedom fighters” is WRONG!
The French who sided with the Germans during WWII were not freedom fighters, because a freedom fighter is one who battles against both the FOREIGNERS who attack and occupy their country, and the COLLABORATORS who assist them!
The “freedom fighters” are Iraqis who believe that as the citizens of a SOVERIGN nation, they and they ALONE have the right to determine if and when their government should be overthrown, and not some “imperialists” half way across the planet!
When the people of Iraq got to the point that they could no longer live under Sadham, they would have got rid a him themselves, just like when Chile grew tired of Pinochet, and just like when every other people grow tired of a dictator.
That RIGHT belongs soley to the Iraqi people, and Bush, Blair, every leader, and every soldier who participated are war criminials, for invading a country that was not in the processes of attacking the United States nor Britian.
It is possible for a person to live a free and happy life under a dictator, simply by staying out of politics, and enjoying family and friends, just like many people in the United States do, who ignore politics.
The crimes against humanity was killing these people and destroying their happy lives, and that is what the HYPOCRITES who support this war cannot comprehend!
This thread is about Blair agreeing to an assessment that Iraq is a “disaster.” The fact that he says “yes, but blah, blah blah,” is irrelevant. Evidently, Exley and Robert believe Iraq is NOT a disaster. This just shows the depth of denial and self-delusion for couple of Bush apologists, that’s all. If one doesn’t recognize by now that Iraq is a disaster, one is either insane or pushing an ideology.
Can anyone state one FACTUAL warcrime that Bush or Blair have committed? Keep it FACT based, not a talking point or emotional reaction.
Before anyone pipes up with Gevenia Convention, remember that applies to UNIFORMED National militaries.
Comment by Robert
Killing 600,000 iraqis does sound to you as what, Robert? To get Saddam Hussein? Not worth it. What if one of those 600,000 were a member of your family? Would that be the right thing to do?
Makes you sound a bit hypocritical to just rail at Americans ( and call us as a group names ) and not at YOUR Troops when your hands are as bloody, bubba.
Just saying….
Comment by Wayne
Wayne and Tobey…your both countries are fighting for the most murderous countries in all planet history: UK before WWI and US after that. So, you will never going to win.
What could be a worse crime than starting a war of aggression!
What “critical thinking” person would argue that on March 21 2003, it was so urgent that we go to war to protect our country, that it could not have waited until March 22 2003?
What “critical thinking” person would argue that was so urgent that we go to war to on March 21 2003 to protect our country, but not urgent enough to go to war on March 20 2003?
Is it not a FACT that going to war when you do not have to is a crime against humanity?
Did you not learn in elementary school that who ever throws the first punch is in the wrong, and you only fight back after either blocking a hit, ducking a hit, or being hit?
Do you understand the difference between offense and defense?
You do understand that is what Japan did to the US in 1942, and what Germany did to Poland in 1939?
You do understand that this was was a CLEAR violation the United Nations charter?
What part of this being a WAR CRIME, can you not understand!
Or are you just another HYPOCRITE, or are you going to try to argue that this was not a war of choice?
It’s also necessary to completely falsify history… There has been a huge effort since the Vietnam war to
reconstruct the history of that. Too many people began to understand what was really going on.
Including plenty of soldiers and a lot of young people who were involved with the peace movement and
others. That was bad. It was necessary to rearrange those bad thoughts and to restore some form of
sanity, namely, a recognition that whatever we do is noble and right. If we’re bombing South Vietnam,
that’s because we’re defending South Vietnam against somebody, namely the South Vietnamese, since
nobody else was there. It’s what the Kennedy intellectuals called “defense against internal aggression in South Vietnam.” That was the phrase that Adlai Stevenson used. It was necessary to make that the official and well understood picture. That’s worked pretty well. When you have total control over the media and the educational system and scholarship is conformist, you can get that across…
The picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from this point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting. em>
There are growing domestic social and economic problems, in fact, maybe
catastrophes. Nobody in power has any intention of doing anything about them. If you look at the
domestic programs of the administrations of the last ten years — I include here the Democratic
opposition — there’s really no serious proposal about what to do about the severe problems of health,
education, homelessness, joblessness, crime, soaring criminal population, jails, deterioration in the inner
cities — the whole raft of problems. You all know about them and they’re all getting worse… In such
circumstances you’ve got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this they may not
like it, since they’re the ones suffering from it. Just having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms
may not be enough. You have to whip them up into fear of enemies. In the 1930s Hitler whipped them
into fear of the Jews and Gypsies. You had to crush them to defend yourselves. We have our ways, too.
Over the last ten years, every year or two, some major monster is constructed that we have to defend
ourselves against. There used to be one that was always available: the Russians. But they’re losing their
attractiveness as an enemy, and it’s getting harder and harder to use that one, so some new ones have to
be conjured up… So it was international terrorists and narco-traffickers and crazed Arabs and Saddam
Hussein, the new Hitler, is going to conquer the world. They’ve got to keep coming up, one after
another. You frighten the population, terrorize them, intimidate them so that they’re too afraid to travel
and cower in fear. Then you have a magnificent victory over Grenada, Panama, or some other
defenseless Third World army that you can pulverize before you ever bother to look at them — which is
just what happened. That gives relief. We were saved at the last minute. That’s one of the ways in which
you can keep the bewildered herd from paying attention to what’s really going on around them, keep
them diverted and controlled….
If Iraq is pretty much a disaster, what would you call Bush’s presidency? In other words, I’m looking for a word that means something worse than a disaster.
How can violating a mandate be worse than violating the charter!
If a security council member violates the charter, how can a mandate declaring be issued, when they can veto it?
Many countries have been and currently are in violation of United Nation mandates, including the Uniteds States, England, Israel, Iraq, Sudan, and many others, so what?
Are you saying such a violation gives any country in the world the RIGHT to invade any other country, or is that RIGHT just reserved for the United States, as HYPOCRITES believe?
If the soldiers in Iraq are not wearing blue helments, then the United Nations did not authorized the war in Iraq, right?
You seem to have forgotten that the UN Weapons inspectors destroyed most of Iraqs weapons and only needed a lousy six more months to certify the job as COMPLETELY done, but Bush the war criminal declared that we were in such immediate danger that we could not wait for the mushroom cloud!
Did not the United Nations and every other “critial thinking” person on planet come to the concensus to let the inspectors finish the job?
And since when is having a weapon a valid reason for starting a war anyway?
Does not the United States have the same weapons that it does not want others to have?
So according to your login any other country should be able to attack the United States, simply because we have a weapon that they do not want us to have?
So according to your logic we should attack North Korea, right?
But if we do not have to attack North Korea who we KNOW has a nuclear bomb, then why did we have to attack Iraq who we KNOW did NOT have a nuclear bomb?
Therefore the attack against Iraq had to be for another reason, right?
The reasons the troops are not wearing blue helmets are because of inaction by the UN. You need to remember that the UN said that if Saddam did not cooperate it would be met by force, then showed they were all talk. 42 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq, not just the U.S.. Or did you muss that tidbit.
I hope the Bush worshippers were watching C-Span this morning…
…Syrian ambassador to the U.S. Imad Moustapha was on and responded to a ? from a caller who asked…
…”President Bush and the architects of this so called war on terror have been saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, our way of life. Can you explain why they hate us?”
…Moustapha gave an excellent, thoughtful and very comprehensive dissertattion into why we find ourselves at odds with Middle Eastern fighters…
to paraphrase:
…because of the U.S.’ (racist- implied my word), hegemonist, imperialist, pro-Israeli, hypocritical foreign policy…
…I hope the al Cracker inbred Bush worshipping TRAITORS understand that the soldiers dying in Iraq…
…are NOT defending America…
…they’re defending CORPORATE America…
… God is going to piss on their (Bush supporters’) heads…
…only it won’t be with the riches they envision garnering from their support of their wealthy, avaricious, corporate elitist gods…
Right wing, Bush worshipping ,confederate, flag loving TRAITOR Lindsey Graham…
… Repulsivescum Senator from North Carolina…
…was JUST on Face the Nation (CBS) touting a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq…
…he admitted that the military was overstretched, and (mouthing off about the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force) stated that “we may need to bring back a DRAFT”….
…to strengthen the military and “WIN” this bullsh*t war-for profit and Israel…
…EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT should email this scumbag lying DEMON Graham…
…@ ussenate.com…
…and tell him what you think of his plan to “stay the course”and needlessly sacrifice our blood and treasure to help the Repulsivescum profiteers to get wealthier, and their Party and President to save face…
#66, #68 - Robert,
Saddam allowed UN inspectors into Iraq. The US ordered them out - preinvasion.
Two countries particapated in the actual invasion of Iraq. The other 40 joined afterwards in order to assist in the recovery process. The number of countries now involved in Iraq is 23 now and will dwindle. down to 11 by early next year. Some of these nations are only offering space in their territory for the training of Iraqi police forces in areas where they can complete their training without being killed by suicide bombers. Others are providing engineering and medical aid.
Saddam let them in but did not allow them the access the UN required.
Most of the rest of your statement was “spot on”. But since I do not readily have facts to dispute some small pieces readily available, I will not argue them.
#72 - Robert,
Saddam gave the UN inspectors full access when the US build-up started in July, 2002. An occasional local Iraqi commaderwould stand in the way, but was immediately chastized by Saddam or superiors at the inspector’s request and then back down. From October, on, the UN had full run of Iraq - no interference.
And did Saddam violate UN mandates by failing to allow weapons inspectors or not?
Comment by robert
Robert, you seem really concerned about Saddam violating UN´s mandates. I agree with you if that happened. Now, could you please, answer me how US should be punished for vetoing 70 UN resolutions and violating numerous times every International Law in Panama? Please, I would like to read your opinion.
#75 - Robert,
Since Jesus is the carpenter and Bush claims to be his tool, you areclaiming the Prince of Peace is to blame for the Iraqi Invasion? I believe that the tool is more to blame in this case.
Blame the administration, ALL of the administration, Comment by robert
I agree.
and not the American people
why not? US citizens are the most misinformed people in the whole world. Its a democracy, right? Then, you put a guy in government who allowed this. There should be some accountability of them too. Talk with a japanese about WWII. I did yesterday, BTW. He told me that for all the harm they did to the world, the japaneses worked hard in order to pay all war debts for 30 years.
or military
So, the soldiers that pulled jews into Siemens ovens should not be held for some accountability?
Your arguement says that the soldier that did nothing more than issue pay is as bad as that one that pulled people into ovens.
Comment by robert
You said: not the military. As if ALL of the troops or ANY of the troops. If you say not the military you probably meant NONE of the military men/women. I said, yeah. The guy who killed the kid point blank, who raped the girl, who shot the crippled father, who ran over kids, etc…they should all meet justice. Now, the guy who obeyed an order to spread White Phosphorous is as guilty as Rumsfeld giving that order. The guys who bathed with Napalm and Agent Orange the vietnamese jungle and thousands of civilians along. The guys who mustard gassed german soldiers in WWI…All should meet justice. Do you agree?
All those who KNOWINGLY took part in any act that is in direct violation of the Laws of War & Code of Conduct should be brought to justice. I never said all military should get a free pass. But you don’t judge someone that has not comitted a crime.
Also, those who use women and children as human shields, kill their own countrymen for having a different political view, and fake surrender in order to “close the gap” and launch an assault are also guilty of war crimes. Would you not agree? They are all violations of the Law of War.
Would you not agree? They are all violations of the Law of War.
Comment by robert
I agree.
Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:
Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction
Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible
People and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship
To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:
Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
Facilitating the restoration of peace.
Robert, how many of these points is US really trying to accomplish?
As I am not a member of the administration I can not give an honest answer. I do know that these same things are briefed to us before we deploy and I have never been ordered to violate any of them. Guess I have had good leaders.
One thing, define necessary destruction. If someone is firing rockets at you from the top of a house, how do you remove the threat? If you try to fire a rifle and you break a window, is that un-necessary destruction?
Hey, Robert…missing the point. We can travel around all technical specifications…the truth is that 600,000 civilians have died since the beginning of the undefined, ambigous, pathetic WAR ON TERROR (Super sic!).
Juan, You are spinning. YOU started the technical specifications battle. Can you place a soldier at the scene of every one of those deaths?
If a chechnian insurgent killed 15 innocent Iraqis, how is that the fault of the U.S. Military? That is like blameing Budweiser for the guy that died at the hands of a drunk driver.
YOU started the technical specifications battle.
Comment by robert
Thats how we see life: You see a battle. I see a healthy discussion.
Can you place a soldier at the scene of every one of those deaths?
No. But those people werent dead if US hadnt invaded for illegal or hyporcritical reasons. So, it turns out US killed those people. Also killed 3,000 of your kids. Sad.
If a chechnian insurgent killed 15 innocent Iraqis, how is that the fault of the U.S. Military?
15 out of thousands? Besides, can you backed that up?
That is like blameing Budweiser for the guy that died at the hands of a drunk driver.
So, if hutus and tutsis lived peacefully, then come the Europeans, sell them weapons and make them enemies…and now hutus and tutsis killed each other, whos to blame? Well, sure, hutus and tutsis. Europeans have nothing to do. Right.
15 out of thousands? Besides, can you backed that up?
Have you even bothered to look up how many death were caused by non-U.S. personel? Or is it just more conveniant to blame Americans and be done with it?
Hutus and tutus bear the responibility since they were given a tool that they chose to use as a weapon.
I would support the mandatory death penalty for anyone who tried to suppress the vote or eligible voter failed to vote where he or she had an opportunity. With that, the USA would have a turnout above 50% in every election cycle. Executioners would be stationed at every polling place to immediately deliver the coup de grace to any lawyer or poll worker who violates those provisions. Push pollers would be taken out with Predator unmanned aircraft. That way, we may be able to deliver a fair election cycle.
#60, It is possible for a person to live a free and happy life under a dictator, simply by staying out of politics, and enjoying family and friends
Perhaps the stupidest, most inane thing ever posted on ThinkProgress. Criticalthinker is clearly clueless about what it means to live under a totalitarian dictatorship. CT, before you ever write such a intellectually and morally vapid statement again, I would suggest you seek out and speak to people who lived under regimes such as the USSR, Castro’s Cuba, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and who saw family members, who had nothing to do with politics, taken away in the middle of the night by the secret police simply because they were “suspected” on being disloyal, or were seen reading the “wrong” book, or listening to the “wrong” music.
Moreover, it appears that you are ignorant of the fact that participating in politics and civic affairs of one’s nation is a fundamental human right. Your suggestion that people who live in dictatorships should sit back, say nothing, accept their oppression and forfeit their human right to engage in politics is as foolish and ignorant as it is sickening.
The leaders and soldiers of all 42 nations that participated in the invasion of Iraq are all war criminials!
The United Nations hjad no LOGICAL REASON to order the invasion of Iraq, therefore the countries that attacked are guilty of violating the United Nations charter, what part of that concept can you not grasp?
You may think it is ok for OUR country to invade another country simply for having weapons that WE have, because we do not want them to have those same weapons, but fortunately “critical thinking” people understand that HYPOCRISY is not a valid get out “jail free card” for crimes against humanity.
You cannot get away from the FACT that the we did not have to go to war on March 21 2003, therefore this was a WAR OF CHOICE, and therefore a crime against humanity!
Why do you not tell me and the others reading this thread why we had to go to war on March 21 2003 with Iraq, to avoid a “mushroom cloud”, but we did not have to go to war with North Korea after their nuclear test, to avoid a “mushroom cloud”?
You are STUPID to believe that NOBODY lived a happy life under Sadham, and EVERYBODY wanted the ORDER of government destroyed and replaced with CHAOS!
I could easily live under a dictatorship just like may Iraqis did, because I am SMART enough to keep my mouth shut about politics, and enjoy a happy life with my friends and family.
I would not want somebody half way across the planet to decide that my happy life is “unbearable”, and drop bombs that kill my friends and family in order to “liberate” me!
This is what simple minded non “critical thinking” HYPOCRITES like you cannot understand, and why you do not realize why the iraq invasion was a crime againt humanity.
You are STUPID in that you do not understand the idea of what SOVERIEIGN means and that people have a RIGHT to self determination.
You are STUPID for believing that the Iraq war war done to liberate the Iraqi people, when CLEARLY it was not, because NOBODY can find any record of that argrument being made before the nation as the reason for going to war in 2003, remember it was the phony WMD argument!
If you really cared about the Iraqi people, you would have complained about the 12 years of sanctions that killed thousands of people especially children, from denying them access to basic medicines!
The choice to remove an evil dictator like Sadham, can only be made by the people living under that dictorship, because only they can gage how “happy” their lives are, and not some imperialist HYPOCRITE sitting on the other side of the world.
Or is such LOGIC to much for your limited intellect?
#94, As I said, criticalthinker, it is clear you have never met or spoken with anyone who lived under a totalitarian regime and had a family member sent off to prison or a “psychiatric hospital” simply because someone who spread a rumor to the secret police or because they had read a book that the government has arbitrarily designated as “subversive.”
Moreover, you again show that you fail to understand that people have a fundamental human right to express themselves and participate in their nation’s affairs.
Some day you will mature, CT, and look back on what you have written here with great embarassment.
Exley,
The people who I have met in the USSR and subsequently Russia were actually a bit better off on average than we here in the United States. Universal health care is and was the norm there.
What we call the homeless here were and are housed in two room tenements with a common bathroom and a shared kitchen (Which, by the way, is quite common for the poor in Europe.). Here they live in cardboard boxes over steam vents and pee in the gutter or migrate down to Florida where they live out of purloined shopping carts in the woods.
Widows are paid in make-work jobs as street cleaners and chamber maids. Machines would be less expensive, but are not socially acceptable. They also receive a pension, but, honor comes first.
In the USSR and Russia (now) they identify intelligent kids from kindergarten up to the forth grade and accelerate their education regardless of class. There, they recognize that a mind is a horrible thing to waste, here, we waste it.
Oh, and CriticalThinker, your ignorance of recent history is as embarassing as your failure to understand the nature of totalitarian dictatorships:
You erroneously (or dishonestly) claimed: because NOBODY can find any record of that argrument being made before the nation as the reason for going to war in 2003,
“Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.” President George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003
“The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.” President George W. Bush, Speech to the United Nations, September 2002
“There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.” President George W. Bush, Feb. 26, 2003
“Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime” Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2002.
I could give additional examples, criticalthinker, but that would be piling on. The historical record clearly proves you wrong. Perhaps next time you will do a little reading and research before you spout off your ignorance. It will spare you much embarassment in the future.
#94 Critical thinker. Great post.
Nevermind, Exley. He is a good fella who gets his information from Reader´s Digest and think Fox News is far left. heh.
By the way, Juan, back on November 15 on the “Key Baker Ally Says ‘We Have To Stay’ In Iraq,” thread you asked me some questions during one of our debates, which I answered, and then you bailed…Disappointing. Get back over there and let’s finish that discussion.
Exley,
The cad, Batista, who was deposed by Castro was much more of a murderer then Castro ever was or has been. How else could you ever concieve of a nation falling behind a ragtag group of rebels in opposition of their federal government. Castro was only guilty of cozying up to the Soviets, but that was only because he had no other choice. It’s the basic rule - contempt breeds contempt.
#106, Walt,
One can recognize that Batista was a dictator and also acknowledge that Castro’s brand of Soviet-style totalitarian rule was and is far more brutal and has caused far more state-sponsored deaths and imprisonments for political crimes than ever perpetrated by Batista. To deny that fact is to deny history.
#107 - Exley,
Why then does the civilized world recognize Castro as the legitimate head of state in Cuba? The answer lies with the Cuban deserters in Miami - votes!
Why would I be on a computer all day and not enjoy my happy life?
Do you live your own happy life, or do you stay on the computer all day trying to justify why you have the RIGHT to ruin many Iraqi happy lives to make some Iraqi sad lives better?
Yes some people are SAD in Cuba, just like the people in Katrina were SAD in the United States, so what?
So we should drop bombs and invade Cuba like Iraq to make the sad people happy?
But would not that make the happy people sad?
So we should drop bombs and invade a second time to make the sad people happy, by installing the old government back?
But that would make the supporters of the new government sad, so we should drop bombs and invade a third time to make them happy be installing the new government back?
Why do you think the Iraqi Sadam demands a military solution, while the Cuba Casyto problem does not demand a military solution.
I am not HYPOCRITE so the idea that I have the RIGHT to drop bombs and bring chaos to people who are half way across the world and are no threat to me, is WRONG.
Since you are a HYPOCRITE you believe that you are never WRONG, when it is OBVIOUS to “critial thinking” people, that the leaders and soldiers that started an UNECESSARY war, have committed crimes against humanity and they MUST appear in a court room to answer for their crimes, just like the Nazi’s did, and I was just following orders was not an excuse then and is not an excuse now!
The purpose of the United States military or that of any other nation is to DEFEND the country from other nation’s attacks, and not to change other nations governments!
I know such concepts must be hurting your head right now, but please try to take a moment to THINK and understand why the war in Iraq was not necessary.
Can’t help but notice that you failed to mention Posting #101 in which your ignorance of history was exposed for everyone to see….That’s understandable. Your embarassment is palpable. Next time, know of what you write before you post something that is some patently false and dishonest. It’ll spare you much embarassment in the future.
Hey, Juan C, criticalthinker, BlueDog 49, I guesss these are the actions of the “freedom fighters†you are so proud to support and lionize. Sickening.
“A suicide bomber in the predominantly Shiite city of Hillah south of Baghdad lured men to his Kia minivan with promises of a day’s work as laborers, then blew it up, killing at least 22 and wounding 44, police said.
Within hours, a roadside bomb and two car bombs exploded one after another near a bus station in Mashtal, a mostly Shiite area of southeastern Baghdad, killing 11 and wounding 51, police said.â€
Ex…sorry. Yeah, I asked some questions back there. I just missed it. We can discuss here.
Hey, Juan C, criticalthinker, BlueDog 49, I guesss these are the actions of the “freedom fighters†you are so proud to support and lionize
Now, I dont know if that was a freedom fighter, but if one of my family was killed by a cluster bomb, a misfired bomb, white phosphorous, you bet Im going to filled my van with gasoline or TNT and blow the invading army or the government that supports the invasion.
Now, what about the 500,000 dead civilians. Are you negating that yet?
One can recognize that Batista was a dictator and also acknowledge that Castro’s brand of Soviet-style totalitarian rule was and is far more brutal and has caused far more state-sponsored deaths and imprisonments for political crimes than ever perpetrated by Batista. To deny that fact is to deny history.
Comment by Exley
Where did you study that history?
Why is Bush more hated elsewhere in the world than Castro? Why Ernesto Guevara is loved and admired all around the world, but not one marine? Why Europeans said that US poses more threat to the world than Iraq or North Korea? Havent yourself asked those questions? Because of democracy? People would hate canadians also. Nobody is doing that. See, Ex, you have to open your eyes and know that US is the most murdering state since UK.
#112, Juan, With all due respect you are being deliberately obtuse….The bombers referenced in that article did not target military objectives…One lured a group of men to a minivan with promises of a day’s work as laborers, then blew it up, killing at least 22 and wounding 44. The other bombers planted a roadside bomb and two car bombs that exploded one after another near a bus station in Mashtal, a mostly Shiite area of southeastern Baghdad, killing 11 and wounding 51.
Those are not the actions of a “freedom fighter,” Juan…That is pure terrorism, deliberately targeting civilians. And each time you fail to condemn or signal that you are even remotely concerned with such deliberate terrorist attacks, you undermine whatever moral authority you claim to possess.
#113, Again Juan, you are a bright guy, but you just make yourself look silly when you allow your political ideology to overwhelm historical facts, such as when you ludicrously claim that the U.S. is the most murderous state in post World War II history, while conveniently ignoring Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea.
Juan, Another point; You wrote, “if one of my family was killed by a cluster bomb, a misfired bomb, white phosphorous, you bet Im going to filled my van with gasoline or TNT and blow the invading army or the government that supports the invasion.” ….So, in short, you do accept violence for purposes of vengeance or justice or preventing future attacks if your loved ones or members of your community are killed. And yet you condemn the United States for responding militarily in Afghanistan against those who plotted and planned to kill 3,000 innocent people on American soil on September 11, 2001….Care to explain that rather striking inconsistency on your part, Juan?
That is pure terrorism, deliberately targeting civilians.
Comment by Exley
If thats so, then I agree with you. They are as despicable as US army/navy/air forces that kill civilians. Do you agree? Besides I dont have any moral authority. I never said I possess moral authority. I dont care about that. I care about justice.
claim that the U.S. is the most murderous state in post World War II history, while conveniently ignoring Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea.
Comment by Exley
Want me to make a list about how many people have died due to actions of these countries and see which has the highest toll?
See Ex, you see all this through the eyes of emotions, its you first, your coutry, and then the others. That says a lot about your humanity. In 1865, There was a war in South America, where 3 countries: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay formed the Triple Alliance to fight Paraguay. Paraguay was a protective country, not allowing foreign products to enter so easily. So, Britain, at the time, wasnt very happy. UK financed a war against Paraguay against 3 neighboring countries. The Triple Alliance won 5 years later. Do you think Im proud of my country having invaded a sovereign country for reasons that werent urgent for its national security? Do you think the war against Chile makes me proud or fighting a monster like UK for the Falklands or Islas Malvinas according who you ask their names? Not at all. My government killed thousands of innocent people, fellow citizens that think differently, and I am not supporting that. The thing with you is that your premise is: America is the greatest country in the world. From that on, there is really nothing to argue, because that statement cant be challenged logically.
Public relations is a huge industry. They’re spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its committment was to controlling the public mind….
…The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floor all have the same interests. We can all work
together and work for Americanism in harmony, liking each other. That was essentially the message. A
huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community, so they
control the media and have massive resources… Mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty
concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or, to bring it up to date, “Support our troops.”
Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that?… The point of public relations
slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you
support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy?
But you don’t want people to think about the issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You
want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for, because
nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts
your attention….
So, in short, you do accept violence for purposes of vengeance or justice or preventing future attacks if your loved ones or members of your community are killed.
No, I dont. But I havent seen my sister being raped by army men. Circumstances are powerful.
And yet you condemn the United States for responding militarily in Afghanistan against those who plotted and planned to kill 3,000 innocent people on American soil on September 11, 2001….Care to explain that rather striking inconsistency on your part, Juan?
Comment by Exley
Were there afghans in those hijacked planes? I missed that.
#117, “They are as despicable as US army/navy/air forces that kill civilians” And therein lies the crucial difference, Juan. U.S. forces as a matter of tactics, strategy, or policy deliberately target civilains. You know that as well as I do. Those few rogue soldiers who do commit murder and other war crimes are prosecuted and punished by the U.S. military justice system. The terrorists target civilains. The U.S. military does not.
“Want me to make a list about how many people have died due to actions of these countries and see which has the highest toll?”
Please do, Juan. For if you did so (and did so honestly), you would recognize that your statement that the U.S. has killed more people in the post-World War II era than the Soviet Union, China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the communist Eastern Bloc, among others is patently absurd (Although I suspect you know that already and are merely being provocative).
As for your last point, I would indeed not be proud if my country invaded another for reasons of mere economics and opening of markets, unrelated to national security concerns. But as I wrote the other day, that has not occurred with regard to the United States since the end of World War II.
Here is my full answer to you that I posted on Nov. 15 when you posed a similar question:
1) Hmmmmm, Good question, Juan. I would say in the post-World War II-era, yes, the U.S. has been motivated by national security concerns. As for the period between the Spanish-American War amd the beginning of World War II, I make no argument that U.S. excursions into South and Central American countries were always motivated by national security concerns. I would agree with that economic concerns likely prompted many, if not most, of those military actions.
Sorry, I am going to have to call you out on being deliberately obtuse when you write: “Were there afghans in those hijacked planes? I missed that.”
You know full well that Al Qaeda, which was the terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 atrocity, was based in Afghanistan and was protected, working hand-in-hand with the Taliban, which is made up primarily of Afghan radical Islamic fundamentalists. The pursuit of justice against Al Qaeda led the U.S. directly to Afghanistan.
I am puzzled by your moral and logical inconsistency by which you argue it is just and morally defensible for Iraqi insurgents to blow up American soldiers because, as you see it, the U.S. did an immoral thing by deposing Saddam Hussein, but it is unacceptable and immoral for the U.S. to go after members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who were responsible for the 9/11/2001 atrocity.
Juan, By the way Posting #125 was directed at you (But I am sure you knew that already)….Anyway, Juan, it is late here and I am going to bed. But I know you stay up later than me, so I hope to see your responses when I check in tomorrow morning…I look forward to continuing this discussion. Have a good night, Juan…Until tomorrow and begin jousting anew!
Correction: The second sentence in posting #124 should read: “U.S. forces as a matter of tactics, strategy, or policy do not deliberately target civilains.”
(I am sure I will take grief for that embarassing error of omission!)
Blair agrees Iraq is a disaster, but accepts no responsibility for his part in it.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:52 amI thought those British folks were supposed to be intelligent? This has been a disaster for 3 and half years.
-GSD
November 18th, 2006 at 11:02 amThese disasters…..Blair, Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld………have no children or relatives dying in this war. It is outrageous.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:03 amThey are criminals plain and simple. They need to be tried for their crimes. We never needed to go to war….it was an “adventure” for them. Pure hubris and lust for power.
Unacceptable. The American people need for them to be held accountable as the first order of business.
A rather disingenuous topic by ThinkProgress. Here is Blair’s complete answer:
Mr Blair was challenged by Sir David over the violence in Iraq, saying it had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.
The prime minister replied: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning. It’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war.”
November 18th, 2006 at 11:08 ams,
Adventure & power & profit.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:08 amYes, and Blair is partly responsible for the chaos in Iraq, so Tony must resign as PM of Britain and be tried for war crimes alongside of Bush!
November 18th, 2006 at 11:13 amIt’s not difficult because of some accident in planning.
- Blair
That’s the statement where Blair f*cks up, because that’s exactly why the situation in Iraq is “difficult.”
If you never plan anything in your entire life, war really ought to be one of the things for which you have a plan — a good one.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:18 amYes Tony, the Investigations are on the way.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:19 amBetter lawyer-up.
Well, from bull shit bushs lap poodle comes the word’s “it’s been a disaster”….after 600,000+ death’s leveling an entire country, sucking the USA treasury dry, borrowing upward’s of 40 trillion from china and foreign countries this kiss butt dumbass is just now saying this….You’re worse than slow tony, you’re guilty…….I hope you end up in jail with bush and company…..
November 18th, 2006 at 11:20 am#9 after 600,000+ death’s
Still holding to that silly and discredited figure, I see.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:22 amSharon,
I wonder if Blair feels like it’s been a disaster for those actually involved — or just for his own political career. He deserves that look of desperation he carries around these days — and more.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:23 amStill holding to that silly and discredited figure, I see.
Comment by Exley —
Why don’t you give us your own ridiculous figure.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:24 amI agree with Exley. Let’s not sink to the level of Kerry-izing comments out of context. There’s plenty of real scandal to blog about.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:29 amStill holding to that silly and discredited figure, I see.
Comment by Exley — November 18, 2006 @ 11:22 am
I have yet to see anyone make a good case that the figure from the Hopkins group is either “silly” or “discredited”. There has been an echo chamber saying so, but the criticism of the study is largely uninformed, unsound, and in many cases coming from Bush partisans.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:33 amGood Morning Zooey, Sunshine on the way….Only here for another minute, tree hugging time….Blair like bush will never give up anything, just more lies and demanding their way or the highway unless it suits a new bigger purpose….Heard the disaster in charge in Nam speech…He will still keep us in war untill he is impeached for the war crimes….
So not so sorry I skipped right over the E post….Oh well now were in and they are out….May I say Good Morning to our future President Palosi…..Blessings
November 18th, 2006 at 11:34 amThese disasters…..Blair, Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld………have no children or relatives dying in this war.Comment by s
Follow this out to a logical conclusion if they have no childern or family dying gover there then they should feel obligated to pull out. so anyone else that does not have family or children dying over there they should be quiet as well. that is not my stance but the logical conclusion of your statement.
We never needed to go to war….it was an “adventure†for them. form the same post.
then you agree the the U.S. is under no obligation to enforce UN sanctions or mandates.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:35 amre#4
Who would ever have thought that when you invade and occupy another country, and remove the order of the government, chaos and violence will come from the freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorist, and criminals in that country?
Obviously Bush and Blair cannot be expected to plan for something with such an unlikely probability of actually happening, right?
The difference between “smart” and “dumb”, is NOT taking the consequence of your plan being WRONG, into consideration before acting!
November 18th, 2006 at 11:35 amHave a great day, Sharon. Thanks for the sunshine. :)
November 18th, 2006 at 11:37 amcriticalthinker, are your refering to the Insurgents as freedomfighters? If so, you are sadly mistaken. First, most are not even Iraqi, so they are not fighting for Iraq’s freedom. Second, they are fighting for a theocratic idea that places women, and minorities as not second, but no-class citizens.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:42 amCan anyone state one FACTUAL warcrime that Bush or Blair have committed? Keep it FACT based, not a talking point or emotional reaction.
Before anyone pipes up with Gevenia Convention, remember that applies to UNIFORMED National militaries.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:45 amExley, #20, Now you did it, you confused the issue by submitting a tangable fact that counters the emotional arguement. Get ready for the name calling !
November 18th, 2006 at 11:47 amSecond, they are fighting for a theocratic idea that places women, and minorities as not second, but no-class citizens.
Comment by Robert
This is an interesting statement, Robert, given your comment at the bottom of the Kondrake thread.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:49 am#19, Robert….I don’t think criticalthinker was using the term “freedom fighters” to describe the Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents, and Shia militias. He listed several types of groups –. “freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorist, and criminals in that country.” It seems to me that criticalthinker was referring to the decent Iraqis who are allied with the U.S in fighting the insurgents, terrorist, and criminals when he wrote of “freedom-fighters.”
November 18th, 2006 at 11:49 amExley had a nice article from the BBC posted a moment ago that countered the numbers of casualties. did it get pulled for common sense reasons or something?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:51 am#23, thatnk you for the clarification. I did not wish for him to have a Kerry moment.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:53 am#24….Robert, I noticed that myself. Interesting….
November 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI agree with Exley. Let’s not sink to the level of Kerry-izing comments out of context. There’s plenty of real scandal to blog about.
Comment by PhilyGuy — November 18, 2006 @ 11:29 am
I disagree with Exley, and I disagree with your characterization here. Blair admits that the situation in Iraq is a disaster. This conclusion is painfully obvious, but nevertheless is significant coming from Blair (after all, Bush and his blind supporters and legions of propagandists still refuse to admit it). Furthermore, I don’t see why you or Exley think that the full quote somehow exonerates Blair. Indeed, I find his telling excuse for the disaster to be far more damning than exculpatory. Blair starts with a claim about what didn’t cause the disaster: poor planning (it is said that liars characteristically answer questions by giving too much information). If not poor planning, then what? According to Blair, it is all the fault of those darn Iraqis. By denying that poor planning was a factor, and by clinging to the pathetic excuse that it is somehow the fault of Iraqis, Blair shows that he is still firmly planted in Bushland.
Bush may be a deeply stupid person, but Blair is no dummy. He knows that he faces a very real risk of indictment for war crimes. Watch him as he squirms under the bright lights.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:02 pmSecond, they are fighting for a theocratic idea that places women, and minorities as not second, but no-class citizens.
Comment by Robert
This is an interesting statement, Robert, given your comment at the bottom of the Kondrake thread.
Comment by Zooey
did I say they were no class citizens? I said that a woman has a right to chose to a reasonable time.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pmIt looks like Robert has volunteered to serve as troll-of-the-day and use his semi-literate, uninformed, and factually incorrect posts to paint a target on himself. Some examples:
Follow this out to a logical conclusion if they have no childern or family dying gover there then they should feel obligated to pull out.
How the f**k did you come up with this weird, illogical straw man argument, Robert? It bears no resemblance to any comments I have ever heard or read. Logical my ass. Most of us believe that we should pull out because the war is wrong. What people are saying is that our leaders would have more incentive to admit that the war is a mistake if they were spending the lives of their own friends and relatives, instead of the anonymous troops dying in Iraq.
then you agree the the U.S. is under no obligation to enforce UN sanctions or mandates.
Another straw man. People who can’t debate their point often feel the need to put words in the opponents mouth. Robert makes an excellent case study of this behavior.
First, most are not even Iraqi, so they are not fighting for Iraq’s freedom.
This claim is flat wrong and has been refuted again and again, even by top military commanders in Iraq. It looks like Robert is a 30 percenter who robotically believes whatever his Decider-in-Chief tells him to believe.
Can anyone state one FACTUAL warcrime that Bush or Blair have committed? Keep it FACT based, not a talking point or emotional reaction.
Yes, Robert, here is one: starting an illegal war in violation of international laws. There is widespread agreement on this point by legal experts.
Before anyone pipes up with Gevenia Convention, remember that applies to UNIFORMED National militaries.
Robert, you are an ignorant fool. The Geneva Conventions (yes, Robert, it is plural) do cover civilian populations. Indeed, one of the conventions states clearly that the welfare of the civilian population is the obligation of an occupying military force.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pmI said that a woman has a right to chose to a reasonable time.
Comment by Robert
You also said there should be a limit to the number of abortions a woman should be allowed, and that past the 3 months, only if her life is in imminent danger.
By deciding for a woman what might be best for her, you reduce women to second class citizens.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:26 pmA Disaster -
I would call it genocide on part of the Americans and British -
basically they tried an old British Army trick from the Indian-Pakistan wars
Create civil War by telling the Indian that the Pakistany bullets are dipped in Cows Fat and tell the Pakistanies that the Indians have dipped their bullets into Pigs fat -
So Long as they fight each other - You can sit back and watch
So In Iraq the Sunnis were Insurgents -So the Americans armed the Interior Ministry with Shia Militias to kill the Sunnis - BUT the Sunnis fought back bombing the Shites -
What a mess American and Poddle face have made - There Plan backfired NOW they are both out to shoot American soldiers as well and no matter what happens America will NOT get the oil by Installing a Puppet goverment
Americas Next plan is to kill all males aged 16 to 30 which has been almost done that exactly why they need 6 months more - Genocide
November 18th, 2006 at 12:27 pmRobert, here is another war crime for you to ponder: the destruction of Fallujah. The city was deliberately destroyed for the explicitly stated purpose of punishing its civilian population in retaliation for their alleged failure to suppress the insurgency.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pmTony, if you had decided to stand up to George Bush instead of becoming his lap dog, you could have been remembered as a great leader.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pmAnd now my posting #20 is back….Thank you, TP. Oy. This is getting confusing. Okay, RealScientist you can respond to it now.
Oh, and RealScientist, your posting #34 is filled with so many errors and misstatements, it is diffiucult to know where to begin. Let’s start here:
November 15, 2004
Mujahidin terrorised Fallujah, residents say
By Times of London Online and AFP in Fallujah
Another poster in the ruins of the souk bears testament to the strict brand of Sunni Islam imposed by the council, fronted by hardline cleric Abdullah Junabi. The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.
Two female bodies found yesterday suggest such threats were far from idle. An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head …
Such is the fear that the heavily armed militants held over Fallujah that many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the US marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city.
A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds from a US munition, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.
“I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months,†he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants.
Another elderly man, who did not want his name used for fear the rebels would one day return and restore their draconian rule, said he was detained by the militants last Tuesday and held for four days before being freed. He described how he had then sought refuge in a friend’s house where they had huddled together clutching Korans in silent prayer for their lives as the massive US bombardment put the insurgents to flight.
“It was horrible,†he told an AFP reporter.â€We suffered from the bombings. Innocent people died or were wounded by the bombings.
“But we were happy you did what you did because Fallujah had been suffocated by the Mujahidin. Anyone considered suspicious would be slaughtered. We would see unknown corpses around the city all the time.â€
The same story of arbitrary executions was told by another resident, found by US troops cowering in his home with his brother and his family.
“They would wear black masks, carry rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs, and search streets and alleys,†said Iyad Assam, 24. “I would hear stories, about how they executed five men one day and seven another for collaborating with the Americans. They made checkpoints on the roads. They put announcements on walls banning music and telling women to wear the veil from head to toe.â€
It was not just pedlars of alcohol or Western videos and women deemed improperly dressed who faced the militants’ wrath. Even residents who regard themselves as observant Muslims lived in fear because they did not share the puritan brand of Sunni Islam that the insurgents enforced.
One devotee of a Sufi sect, followers of a mystical form of worship deemed herectical by the hardliners, told how he and other members of his order had lived in terror inside their homes for fear of retribution.
“It was a very hard life. We couldn’t move. We could not work,†said the man sporting the white robe and skullcap prescribed by his faith. “If they had any issue with a person, they would kill him or throw him in jail.â€
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ article/ 0,,3-1359782_2,00.html
November 18th, 2006 at 1:04 pmRealScientist #31,
Did Saddam violate UN mandates that were stated would be met by military action? If so then the U.S. Did not start an illegal war, they enforced UN policy.
Robert, you are an ignorant fool. The Geneva Conventions (yes, Robert, it is plural) do cover civilian populations. Indeed, one of the conventions states clearly that the welfare of the civilian population is the obligation of an occupying military force. On this point we agree.
That includes to protect them from factions inside their own nation that tries to do them harm. But it does not apply POW status to NON-UNIFORMED COMBATANTS.
First, most are not even Iraqi, so they are not fighting for Iraq’s freedom.
This claim is flat wrong and has been refuted again and again, even by top military commanders in Iraq. It looks like Robert is a 30 percenter who robotically believes whatever his Decider-in-Chief tells him to believe.
November 18th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThen please explain the Iranian, Jordanian, and Chechnians that have been detained or killed over there.
Robert, here is another war crime for you to ponder: the destruction of Fallujah. The city was deliberately destroyed for the explicitly stated purpose of punishing its civilian population in retaliation for their alleged failure to suppress the insurgency.
Comment by RealScientist
And for how many days prior to Fallujah did we warn the populace that we were coming? Please show me one DOCUMENTED source that states our purpose being what you state
November 18th, 2006 at 1:17 pm#36, Not only that, Robert, but RealScientist’s incorrect (I won’t call it dishonest because perhaps he has simply been misinformed) assertion that Fallujah was leveled as some sort of collective punishment is false on numerous levels.
When the U.S. went into Fallujah in 2004 it was not to punish the populace, but to seek and destroy the terrorists, while at the same time, hold civilain casualties to a minimum. That is why the military engaged in selective street-by-street, house-by-house fighting. If the U.S. truly wanted to level Fallujah, it could have done so with the indiscriminate use of air and artillery power alone so as to keep our troops out of harms’ way.
This, of course, did not happen. Instead, the U.S. sent in troops to engage only the enemy. This, of course, placed our troops in greater danger and was much more difficult for the U.S. troops than would have been air strikes and bombardment. But it was necessary in order to avoid civilain casualties. RealScientist insults our troops and derogates the danger and hardship they experienced during the battle of Fallujah when he falsely and irresponsibly claims that the troops leveled the city without regard to the civilain population.
Moreover, if one reads the Times of London article (posting #34), one sees that many of the residents of Fallujah were glad to have the U.S. clear out the fanatical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists that had imposed a brutal Taliban-like grip on that city. Again, RealScientist insults our troops by ignoring this fact.
RealScientist is a bright guy and knows his stuff when it comes to discussions of global warmimg and other scientific matters. But when it comes to issues of international and domestic law and foreign affairs, he is often uniformed and inaccurate.
November 18th, 2006 at 1:32 pmAnd once again posting #20 is gone…I think TP is having major technical problems today. Well, here is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm
November 18th, 2006 at 1:39 pmExley, brevity is always a plus. I forgive you, and understand that you wouldn’t want to be rude by monopolizing the thread. I accept your apology for doing so.
November 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pmZooey, Maybe posting #20 was too large and that is why it was removed. Ah, well…he link in posting #38 contains all the relevant information debunking the Lancet study. Thank you for understanding, Zooey.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pmRobert,
Your summation of the Geneva Conventions is INCORRECT. As Article 5 of the Conventions states:
I would argue to you that of the more than 500 individuals interned at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, exactly 0 of them have been granted the aforementioned tribunal to assess their status. They have been summarily named “enemy combatants” by the Executive Branch of our government (specifically the President) who, under the aforementioned Article of the Conventions, does NOT have that authority. Therefore, we, as a nation, have violated the Geneva Conventions which is considered a war crime. There are other examples I could list also (specifically the Nuremburg Tribunals’ example of what is a violation of waging Preemptive war without provocation, also a war crime) but, I fear that with you, I would simply be wasting my breath as you don’t seem to be able to listen to reason.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#41, You are incorrect. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which asked for the “person whose status is in doubt” language to be inserted, states that such language refers to This “deserters, and to persons who accompany the armed forces and have lost their identity card.” Since there is no one being held at Guantanamo who can be considered a deserter or member of armed services who lost their identity card (Al Qaeda is not considered an armed force under international law), the second paragraph of Article 5 is inapplicable.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pmbearinachair: its not like those muzzies are real humans or anything…
bearinachair: i’m only sad that we have only managed to kill 650,000 in 4 years..we need to try harder to kill more muslims more quickly
bearinachair: we need to review the methods the nazis used in their death camps
bearinachair: peace lover changing your name ain;t fooling anyone
A Christian named , ” Bearichair ” and member of KKK . They talk this on (paltak christians chat Rooms) . LOVE of Christianity !!! they take this much pleasure from human death /murder they cause
November 18th, 2006 at 2:53 pmMaybe we all miss the point of the wars, or at least from the perspective of Bush and gang. This was never about freeing a country from tyranny, oil, and/or payback for an assassination attempt against daddy Bush, or any of the 100 other scenarios that have been floated. This is pure and simply to destabilize the region and to use this as a false flag event to start a larger war that will bring on Armageddon. There is postmillennialism, pre-millennialism. The simple thesis of postmillennialism is that Jesus will literally return to the earth after the Millennium begins. Radical Evangelicals believe that it is their duty to create destiny and bring on the Rapture, thus Armageddon. We are moving towards a Fascist police state. Think about it:
The move towards a one-world government (The “New World Order†George Sr speech and everything that has happened since that speech):
- NSA using Echelon against it’s own people to build a database of dissenters.
- Google selling its search results to the CIA from information it records including your IP address.
- The 2007 law that mandates a National ID, and this ID will use an RFID chip (for what)?
- The move towards a paperless money society (see National ID).
- The passing of Patriot Act 1, 2, house bill HR6266, and executive orders to deal with dissention.
- The move to create a National Union between South America, North America, and Canada.
- The continue push to revise the European Union.
All under the auspices of a “The Global Fight against Terror†and the obviously staged events of 9/11.
George Bush was a member of skull and bones. Skull and Bones is for the family members of the 32-degree Free Masons, daddy Bush is 32-degree freemason and the Masonic religion.
Albert Pike addressing the 23 Supreme Councils of the world on July 14, 1889:- “To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: ‘the Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the LUCIFERIAN Doctrine. . .”
November 18th, 2006 at 2:56 pm“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.” — Samuel P. Huntington, Jewish author of “Clash of Civilizations”
When the so CALLED Civilized west stops Butchering Human being ? people are more safer by being around wild beast than Christians .
November 18th, 2006 at 3:04 pmBUT the worst thing is ……… It Need never have happened Iraq was no Threat to the USA and there was no Al-Queda there beforehand
The Irony is terrorism has been reborn , No Oil for America and Now America has lost face
November 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pmAs much damage as Bush has done to the Republicans, Blair has done to the Labor Party in Britain.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:22 pmsigh
I wonder how long it will take the left in Britain to recover from this douchebag!
Locals Accuse U.S. of Massacre in Ramadi
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily
RAMADI, Nov 17 (IPS) - U.S. military tank fire killed scores of civilians in Ramadi, capital of Al-Anbar province, late Monday night, according to witnesses and doctors. Anger and frustration were evident at the hospitals and during the funerals in the following days.
Iraqi doctors and witnesses at the scene of the attack said U.S. tanks killed 35 civilians when they shelled several homes in the Al-Dhubat area of the city.
Ramadi, located 110 km west of Baghdad, has been beset with sporadic but intense violence between occupation forces and insurgents for several months.
On Tuesday, hundreds of people carried the 35 coffins of the dead to a graveyard in a funeral procession which closely resembled an angry demonstration.
“We heard the bombing and we thought it was the usual fighting between resistance fighters and the Americans, but we soon realised it was bombing by large cannons,” 60-year-old Haji Jassim explained to IPS at the burial. “We weren’t allowed by the Americans to reach the destroyed houses to try to rescue those who were buried, so certainly many of them bled to death.”
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY Is this this murder still continuing By US Indecscriminate Shelling ………….. ENOUGH BLOOD SPILT GO HOME AMERICA TROOPS
November 18th, 2006 at 3:30 pmBritain will recover once Blair has gone , As this is not in Britains Nature,,,, Really only Tony Blairs nature
As where America will not really recover its still in their nature as a nation
November 18th, 2006 at 3:33 pm#48 ENOUGH BLOOD SPILT GO HOME AMERICA TROOPS
Tobey, since you are from England, why are you not calling for British troops to go home as well?
Fix your own backyard.
Makes you sound a bit hypocritical to just rail at Americans ( and call us as a group names ) and not at YOUR Troops when your hands are as bloody, bubba.
Just saying….
November 18th, 2006 at 3:42 pmIm not from England…..I live in the highlands which is totally run by Liberals or SNP…… we have no Tory seats or Labour seats here and proud of it….
November 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pmwhich covers about 2/3 of scotlands landmass ……. we want nothing to do with Blair ,, he dont run us up here and is not even welcome up here
And Wayne what Im saying is Blair will be gone soon Britain will recover as a whole as we are much more aligned to Europe than ever now, and its not in our nature to be hostile to other countries
As where America stand alone now with War, UN vetoes ITS IN AMERICAN NATURE… not ours ????
November 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pmWatch for the investigations. They are coming in january, Tobey ( or better be ). After the new congress is sworn in.
Are you calling for war crimes charges for Blair, since Brittish troops have killed quite a few civillians as well?
November 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIf you are not aware of them, I can post some links.
Wayne I really hope investigations are coming in January , The Democrats should hit Bush Hard and ASAP to be worthy,
Yes I know the british Troops commited was crimes
They killed a hotelier and beat up a few kids on video But Not really that bad compared to Americans killing 1000 civilians in Falluga with Napalm and Rape and murder,,, In fact American troops are so bad the britsh troops will not go around with american troops anymore, and as a nation we are accountable to the ICC as where America is NOT
what really gets my back up Is Bush vetoing everything good at the UN
My Parents went to Isreal and had a great time in 98 there was no troubles then under Clinton the minute Bush gets into power all hell breaks loose all over the world …………. Bush is a walking Disaster ,,,,,,,, or you could say Bush has the Shitas touch - the opposite of the midas touch - everything Bush touches turns to shit
November 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pmWayne I know there are many good Americans, and America does have a better side , we are just not seeing it at the moment
And yes I prefer the Iraqi insurgency than my own countrymen ..
Troops Know they should not be doing what they are
But my heartstring go out to the Iraqis more . Enough is Enough
I really hope America changes for the better in January , by showing the way forward in this world, If America does this then I will start buying your products
November 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pmTony nailed this one on the head. And the remainder of his statement says nothing to the contrary, just that there are groups working against us in Iraq to make it harder to success . . . no surprise there.
November 18th, 2006 at 5:21 pmRe#23
Exley I appreciate you trying to clarify my post, but your idea of what is meant by “freedom fighters” is WRONG!
The French who sided with the Germans during WWII were not freedom fighters, because a freedom fighter is one who battles against both the FOREIGNERS who attack and occupy their country, and the COLLABORATORS who assist them!
The “freedom fighters” are Iraqis who believe that as the citizens of a SOVERIGN nation, they and they ALONE have the right to determine if and when their government should be overthrown, and not some “imperialists” half way across the planet!
When the people of Iraq got to the point that they could no longer live under Sadham, they would have got rid a him themselves, just like when Chile grew tired of Pinochet, and just like when every other people grow tired of a dictator.
That RIGHT belongs soley to the Iraqi people, and Bush, Blair, every leader, and every soldier who participated are war criminials, for invading a country that was not in the processes of attacking the United States nor Britian.
It is possible for a person to live a free and happy life under a dictator, simply by staying out of politics, and enjoying family and friends, just like many people in the United States do, who ignore politics.
The crimes against humanity was killing these people and destroying their happy lives, and that is what the HYPOCRITES who support this war cannot comprehend!
November 18th, 2006 at 5:26 pmThis thread is about Blair agreeing to an assessment that Iraq is a “disaster.” The fact that he says “yes, but blah, blah blah,” is irrelevant. Evidently, Exley and Robert believe Iraq is NOT a disaster. This just shows the depth of denial and self-delusion for couple of Bush apologists, that’s all. If one doesn’t recognize by now that Iraq is a disaster, one is either insane or pushing an ideology.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:08 pmcriticalthinker: Nice post.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:10 pmCan anyone state one FACTUAL warcrime that Bush or Blair have committed? Keep it FACT based, not a talking point or emotional reaction.
Before anyone pipes up with Gevenia Convention, remember that applies to UNIFORMED National militaries.
Comment by Robert
Killing 600,000 iraqis does sound to you as what, Robert? To get Saddam Hussein? Not worth it. What if one of those 600,000 were a member of your family? Would that be the right thing to do?
November 18th, 2006 at 7:27 pmMakes you sound a bit hypocritical to just rail at Americans ( and call us as a group names ) and not at YOUR Troops when your hands are as bloody, bubba.
Just saying….
Comment by Wayne
Wayne and Tobey…your both countries are fighting for the most murderous countries in all planet history: UK before WWI and US after that. So, you will never going to win.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:38 pmRe#60
What could be a worse crime than starting a war of aggression!
What “critical thinking” person would argue that on March 21 2003, it was so urgent that we go to war to protect our country, that it could not have waited until March 22 2003?
What “critical thinking” person would argue that was so urgent that we go to war to on March 21 2003 to protect our country, but not urgent enough to go to war on March 20 2003?
Is it not a FACT that going to war when you do not have to is a crime against humanity?
Did you not learn in elementary school that who ever throws the first punch is in the wrong, and you only fight back after either blocking a hit, ducking a hit, or being hit?
Do you understand the difference between offense and defense?
You do understand that is what Japan did to the US in 1942, and what Germany did to Poland in 1939?
You do understand that this was was a CLEAR violation the United Nations charter?
What part of this being a WAR CRIME, can you not understand!
Or are you just another HYPOCRITE, or are you going to try to argue that this was not a war of choice?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:57 amRepresentation as Reality
It’s also necessary to completely falsify history… There has been a huge effort since the Vietnam war to
reconstruct the history of that. Too many people began to understand what was really going on.
Including plenty of soldiers and a lot of young people who were involved with the peace movement and
others. That was bad. It was necessary to rearrange those bad thoughts and to restore some form of
sanity, namely, a recognition that whatever we do is noble and right. If we’re bombing South Vietnam,
that’s because we’re defending South Vietnam against somebody, namely the South Vietnamese, since
nobody else was there. It’s what the Kennedy intellectuals called “defense against internal aggression in South Vietnam.” That was the phrase that Adlai Stevenson used. It was necessary to make that the official and well understood picture. That’s worked pretty well. When you have total control over the media and the educational system and scholarship is conformist, you can get that across…
The picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from this point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting. em>
November 19th, 2006 at 2:32 amThere are growing domestic social and economic problems, in fact, maybe
November 19th, 2006 at 2:33 amcatastrophes. Nobody in power has any intention of doing anything about them. If you look at the
domestic programs of the administrations of the last ten years — I include here the Democratic
opposition — there’s really no serious proposal about what to do about the severe problems of health,
education, homelessness, joblessness, crime, soaring criminal population, jails, deterioration in the inner
cities — the whole raft of problems. You all know about them and they’re all getting worse… In such
circumstances you’ve got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this they may not
like it, since they’re the ones suffering from it. Just having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms
may not be enough. You have to whip them up into fear of enemies. In the 1930s Hitler whipped them
into fear of the Jews and Gypsies. You had to crush them to defend yourselves. We have our ways, too.
Over the last ten years, every year or two, some major monster is constructed that we have to defend
ourselves against. There used to be one that was always available: the Russians. But they’re losing their
attractiveness as an enemy, and it’s getting harder and harder to use that one, so some new ones have to
be conjured up… So it was international terrorists and narco-traffickers and crazed Arabs and Saddam
Hussein, the new Hitler, is going to conquer the world. They’ve got to keep coming up, one after
another. You frighten the population, terrorize them, intimidate them so that they’re too afraid to travel
and cower in fear. Then you have a magnificent victory over Grenada, Panama, or some other
defenseless Third World army that you can pulverize before you ever bother to look at them — which is
just what happened. That gives relief. We were saved at the last minute. That’s one of the ways in which
you can keep the bewildered herd from paying attention to what’s really going on around them, keep
them diverted and controlled….
If Iraq is pretty much a disaster, what would you call Bush’s presidency? In other words, I’m looking for a word that means something worse than a disaster.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:19 amYou do understand that this was was a CLEAR violation the United Nations charter?
And did Saddam violate UN mandates by failing to allow weapons inspectors or not?
November 19th, 2006 at 9:24 amRe#66 robert
How can violating a mandate be worse than violating the charter!
If a security council member violates the charter, how can a mandate declaring be issued, when they can veto it?
Many countries have been and currently are in violation of United Nation mandates, including the Uniteds States, England, Israel, Iraq, Sudan, and many others, so what?
Are you saying such a violation gives any country in the world the RIGHT to invade any other country, or is that RIGHT just reserved for the United States, as HYPOCRITES believe?
If the soldiers in Iraq are not wearing blue helments, then the United Nations did not authorized the war in Iraq, right?
You seem to have forgotten that the UN Weapons inspectors destroyed most of Iraqs weapons and only needed a lousy six more months to certify the job as COMPLETELY done, but Bush the war criminal declared that we were in such immediate danger that we could not wait for the mushroom cloud!
Did not the United Nations and every other “critial thinking” person on planet come to the concensus to let the inspectors finish the job?
And since when is having a weapon a valid reason for starting a war anyway?
Does not the United States have the same weapons that it does not want others to have?
So according to your login any other country should be able to attack the United States, simply because we have a weapon that they do not want us to have?
So according to your logic we should attack North Korea, right?
But if we do not have to attack North Korea who we KNOW has a nuclear bomb, then why did we have to attack Iraq who we KNOW did NOT have a nuclear bomb?
Therefore the attack against Iraq had to be for another reason, right?
Can you guess what it was?
November 19th, 2006 at 9:50 amCriticalthinker,
The reasons the troops are not wearing blue helmets are because of inaction by the UN. You need to remember that the UN said that if Saddam did not cooperate it would be met by force, then showed they were all talk. 42 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq, not just the U.S.. Or did you muss that tidbit.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:02 amI hope the Bush worshippers were watching C-Span this morning…
…Syrian ambassador to the U.S. Imad Moustapha was on and responded to a ? from a caller who asked…
…”President Bush and the architects of this so called war on terror have been saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, our way of life. Can you explain why they hate us?”
…Moustapha gave an excellent, thoughtful and very comprehensive dissertattion into why we find ourselves at odds with Middle Eastern fighters…
to paraphrase:
…because of the U.S.’ (racist- implied my word), hegemonist, imperialist, pro-Israeli, hypocritical foreign policy…
…I hope the al Cracker inbred Bush worshipping TRAITORS understand that the soldiers dying in Iraq…
…are NOT defending America…
…they’re defending CORPORATE America…
… God is going to piss on their (Bush supporters’) heads…
…only it won’t be with the riches they envision garnering from their support of their wealthy, avaricious, corporate elitist gods…
…their Karma demands it…
November 19th, 2006 at 10:41 amRight wing, Bush worshipping ,confederate, flag loving TRAITOR Lindsey Graham…
… Repulsivescum Senator from North Carolina…
…was JUST on Face the Nation (CBS) touting a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq…
…he admitted that the military was overstretched, and (mouthing off about the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force) stated that “we may need to bring back a DRAFT”….
…to strengthen the military and “WIN” this bullsh*t war-for profit and Israel…
…EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT should email this scumbag lying DEMON Graham…
…@ ussenate.com…
…and tell him what you think of his plan to “stay the course”and needlessly sacrifice our blood and treasure to help the Repulsivescum profiteers to get wealthier, and their Party and President to save face…
November 19th, 2006 at 11:05 am#66, #68 - Robert,
November 19th, 2006 at 11:09 amSaddam allowed UN inspectors into Iraq. The US ordered them out - preinvasion.
Two countries particapated in the actual invasion of Iraq. The other 40 joined afterwards in order to assist in the recovery process. The number of countries now involved in Iraq is 23 now and will dwindle. down to 11 by early next year. Some of these nations are only offering space in their territory for the training of Iraqi police forces in areas where they can complete their training without being killed by suicide bombers. Others are providing engineering and medical aid.
#71,
Saddam let them in but did not allow them the access the UN required.
Most of the rest of your statement was “spot on”. But since I do not readily have facts to dispute some small pieces readily available, I will not argue them.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:15 am#72 - Robert,
November 19th, 2006 at 11:39 amSaddam gave the UN inspectors full access when the US build-up started in July, 2002. An occasional local Iraqi commaderwould stand in the way, but was immediately chastized by Saddam or superiors at the inspector’s request and then back down. From October, on, the UN had full run of Iraq - no interference.
And did Saddam violate UN mandates by failing to allow weapons inspectors or not?
Comment by robert
Robert, you seem really concerned about Saddam violating UN´s mandates. I agree with you if that happened. Now, could you please, answer me how US should be punished for vetoing 70 UN resolutions and violating numerous times every International Law in Panama? Please, I would like to read your opinion.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:19 pm#74, punish those who ordered the violation. You need to blame the carpenter, not the tools.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#75 - Robert,
November 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pmSince Jesus is the carpenter and Bush claims to be his tool, you areclaiming the Prince of Peace is to blame for the Iraqi Invasion? I believe that the tool is more to blame in this case.
punish those who ordered the violation. You need to blame the carpenter, not the tools.
Comment by robert
So, If you supported the war on Iraq due to supposed WMD´s, then you have to support the bombing of US due to actual WMD´s.
If not, you have a double standard, therefore you hold only emotional-patriotic basis for any discussion.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:52 pmONE THING TO BEAR IN MIND WHEN BLAIR QUITS BEING PM ,HE MOVING TO AMERICA TO WORK FOR THE CARLYLE GROUP ON 1.5 Millions dollars per year
November 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#76,
Blame the administration, ALL of the administration, an dnot the American people or military
November 19th, 2006 at 1:23 pmBlame the administration, ALL of the administration, Comment by robert
I agree.
and not the American people
why not? US citizens are the most misinformed people in the whole world. Its a democracy, right? Then, you put a guy in government who allowed this. There should be some accountability of them too. Talk with a japanese about WWII. I did yesterday, BTW. He told me that for all the harm they did to the world, the japaneses worked hard in order to pay all war debts for 30 years.
or military
November 19th, 2006 at 2:33 pmSo, the soldiers that pulled jews into Siemens ovens should not be held for some accountability?
#80,
Soldiers should be held accoutable for their actions individually, not as a collective.
Your arguement says that the soldier that did nothing more than issue pay is as bad as that one that pulled people into ovens.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:39 pmYour arguement says that the soldier that did nothing more than issue pay is as bad as that one that pulled people into ovens.
Comment by robert
You said: not the military. As if ALL of the troops or ANY of the troops. If you say not the military you probably meant NONE of the military men/women. I said, yeah. The guy who killed the kid point blank, who raped the girl, who shot the crippled father, who ran over kids, etc…they should all meet justice. Now, the guy who obeyed an order to spread White Phosphorous is as guilty as Rumsfeld giving that order. The guys who bathed with Napalm and Agent Orange the vietnamese jungle and thousands of civilians along. The guys who mustard gassed german soldiers in WWI…All should meet justice. Do you agree?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pmAll those who KNOWINGLY took part in any act that is in direct violation of the Laws of War & Code of Conduct should be brought to justice. I never said all military should get a free pass. But you don’t judge someone that has not comitted a crime.
Also, those who use women and children as human shields, kill their own countrymen for having a different political view, and fake surrender in order to “close the gap” and launch an assault are also guilty of war crimes. Would you not agree? They are all violations of the Law of War.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pmWould you not agree? They are all violations of the Law of War.
Comment by robert
I agree.
Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:
Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction
Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible
People and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship
To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:
Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
Facilitating the restoration of peace.
Robert, how many of these points is US really trying to accomplish?
November 19th, 2006 at 3:05 pmAs I am not a member of the administration I can not give an honest answer. I do know that these same things are briefed to us before we deploy and I have never been ordered to violate any of them. Guess I have had good leaders.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pmOne thing, define necessary destruction. If someone is firing rockets at you from the top of a house, how do you remove the threat? If you try to fire a rifle and you break a window, is that un-necessary destruction?
November 19th, 2006 at 3:11 pmHey, Robert…missing the point. We can travel around all technical specifications…the truth is that 600,000 civilians have died since the beginning of the undefined, ambigous, pathetic WAR ON TERROR (Super sic!).
November 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pmJuan, You are spinning. YOU started the technical specifications battle. Can you place a soldier at the scene of every one of those deaths?
If a chechnian insurgent killed 15 innocent Iraqis, how is that the fault of the U.S. Military? That is like blameing Budweiser for the guy that died at the hands of a drunk driver.
November 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pmYOU started the technical specifications battle.
Comment by robert
Thats how we see life: You see a battle. I see a healthy discussion.
Can you place a soldier at the scene of every one of those deaths?
No. But those people werent dead if US hadnt invaded for illegal or hyporcritical reasons. So, it turns out US killed those people. Also killed 3,000 of your kids. Sad.
If a chechnian insurgent killed 15 innocent Iraqis, how is that the fault of the U.S. Military?
15 out of thousands? Besides, can you backed that up?
That is like blameing Budweiser for the guy that died at the hands of a drunk driver.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:13 pmSo, if hutus and tutsis lived peacefully, then come the Europeans, sell them weapons and make them enemies…and now hutus and tutsis killed each other, whos to blame? Well, sure, hutus and tutsis. Europeans have nothing to do. Right.
15 out of thousands? Besides, can you backed that up?
Have you even bothered to look up how many death were caused by non-U.S. personel? Or is it just more conveniant to blame Americans and be done with it?
Hutus and tutus bear the responibility since they were given a tool that they chose to use as a weapon.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:19 pmI would support the mandatory death penalty for anyone who tried to suppress the vote or eligible voter failed to vote where he or she had an opportunity. With that, the USA would have a turnout above 50% in every election cycle. Executioners would be stationed at every polling place to immediately deliver the coup de grace to any lawyer or poll worker who violates those provisions. Push pollers would be taken out with Predator unmanned aircraft. That way, we may be able to deliver a fair election cycle.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#60, It is possible for a person to live a free and happy life under a dictator, simply by staying out of politics, and enjoying family and friends
Perhaps the stupidest, most inane thing ever posted on ThinkProgress. Criticalthinker is clearly clueless about what it means to live under a totalitarian dictatorship. CT, before you ever write such a intellectually and morally vapid statement again, I would suggest you seek out and speak to people who lived under regimes such as the USSR, Castro’s Cuba, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and who saw family members, who had nothing to do with politics, taken away in the middle of the night by the secret police simply because they were “suspected” on being disloyal, or were seen reading the “wrong” book, or listening to the “wrong” music.
Moreover, it appears that you are ignorant of the fact that participating in politics and civic affairs of one’s nation is a fundamental human right. Your suggestion that people who live in dictatorships should sit back, say nothing, accept their oppression and forfeit their human right to engage in politics is as foolish and ignorant as it is sickening.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:52 pmRe#71 Robert
The leaders and soldiers of all 42 nations that participated in the invasion of Iraq are all war criminials!
The United Nations hjad no LOGICAL REASON to order the invasion of Iraq, therefore the countries that attacked are guilty of violating the United Nations charter, what part of that concept can you not grasp?
You may think it is ok for OUR country to invade another country simply for having weapons that WE have, because we do not want them to have those same weapons, but fortunately “critical thinking” people understand that HYPOCRISY is not a valid get out “jail free card” for crimes against humanity.
You cannot get away from the FACT that the we did not have to go to war on March 21 2003, therefore this was a WAR OF CHOICE, and therefore a crime against humanity!
Why do you not tell me and the others reading this thread why we had to go to war on March 21 2003 with Iraq, to avoid a “mushroom cloud”, but we did not have to go to war with North Korea after their nuclear test, to avoid a “mushroom cloud”?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:00 pmRe#92 Exley
You are STUPID to believe that NOBODY lived a happy life under Sadham, and EVERYBODY wanted the ORDER of government destroyed and replaced with CHAOS!
I could easily live under a dictatorship just like may Iraqis did, because I am SMART enough to keep my mouth shut about politics, and enjoy a happy life with my friends and family.
I would not want somebody half way across the planet to decide that my happy life is “unbearable”, and drop bombs that kill my friends and family in order to “liberate” me!
This is what simple minded non “critical thinking” HYPOCRITES like you cannot understand, and why you do not realize why the iraq invasion was a crime againt humanity.
You are STUPID in that you do not understand the idea of what SOVERIEIGN means and that people have a RIGHT to self determination.
You are STUPID for believing that the Iraq war war done to liberate the Iraqi people, when CLEARLY it was not, because NOBODY can find any record of that argrument being made before the nation as the reason for going to war in 2003, remember it was the phony WMD argument!
If you really cared about the Iraqi people, you would have complained about the 12 years of sanctions that killed thousands of people especially children, from denying them access to basic medicines!
The choice to remove an evil dictator like Sadham, can only be made by the people living under that dictorship, because only they can gage how “happy” their lives are, and not some imperialist HYPOCRITE sitting on the other side of the world.
Or is such LOGIC to much for your limited intellect?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pm#94, As I said, criticalthinker, it is clear you have never met or spoken with anyone who lived under a totalitarian regime and had a family member sent off to prison or a “psychiatric hospital” simply because someone who spread a rumor to the secret police or because they had read a book that the government has arbitrarily designated as “subversive.”
Moreover, you again show that you fail to understand that people have a fundamental human right to express themselves and participate in their nation’s affairs.
Some day you will mature, CT, and look back on what you have written here with great embarassment.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:33 pmSo, criticlalthinker. I have never fired a round and anyone and I never took part in a bombing campaign, but I am a war criminal? Charged with what?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:42 pmExley,
November 19th, 2006 at 5:44 pmThe people who I have met in the USSR and subsequently Russia were actually a bit better off on average than we here in the United States. Universal health care is and was the norm there.
What we call the homeless here were and are housed in two room tenements with a common bathroom and a shared kitchen (Which, by the way, is quite common for the poor in Europe.). Here they live in cardboard boxes over steam vents and pee in the gutter or migrate down to Florida where they live out of purloined shopping carts in the woods.
Widows are paid in make-work jobs as street cleaners and chamber maids. Machines would be less expensive, but are not socially acceptable. They also receive a pension, but, honor comes first.
In the USSR and Russia (now) they identify intelligent kids from kindergarten up to the forth grade and accelerate their education regardless of class. There, they recognize that a mind is a horrible thing to waste, here, we waste it.
Oh, and CriticalThinker, your ignorance of recent history is as embarassing as your failure to understand the nature of totalitarian dictatorships:
You erroneously (or dishonestly) claimed: because NOBODY can find any record of that argrument being made before the nation as the reason for going to war in 2003,
“Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.”
President George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003
“The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.”
President George W. Bush, Speech to the United Nations, September 2002
“There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.”
President George W. Bush, Feb. 26, 2003
“Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime”
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2002.
I could give additional examples, criticalthinker, but that would be piling on. The historical record clearly proves you wrong. Perhaps next time you will do a little reading and research before you spout off your ignorance. It will spare you much embarassment in the future.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:51 pmCastro’s Cuba
Comment by Exley
I encourage you to go to Cuba to see how SAD are cubans.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pm#94 Critical thinker. Great post.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:34 pmNevermind, Exley. He is a good fella who gets his information from Reader´s Digest and think Fox News is far left. heh.
I have never fired a round and anyone and I never took part in a bombing campaign, but I am a war criminal? Charged with what?
Comment by robert
Anyone supporting an illegal war, should get the same in its own soil.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:36 pmJuan, You can, I can’t. For some reason, my government has placed Cuba as off-limits.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:42 pmAnd the land of the free (Only if you buy one willl you get one.).
November 19th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#99 Juan, I would encourage you to speak to some Cuban refugees who have fled Castro’s tyranny.
Hey, anyone hear from criticalthinker? He seems to have run away after posting #98 where I showed how completely ignorant he is regarding history.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:48 pmBy the way, Juan, back on November 15 on the “Key Baker Ally Says ‘We Have To Stay’ In Iraq,” thread you asked me some questions during one of our debates, which I answered, and then you bailed…Disappointing. Get back over there and let’s finish that discussion.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:59 pmExley,
November 19th, 2006 at 7:18 pmThe cad, Batista, who was deposed by Castro was much more of a murderer then Castro ever was or has been. How else could you ever concieve of a nation falling behind a ragtag group of rebels in opposition of their federal government. Castro was only guilty of cozying up to the Soviets, but that was only because he had no other choice. It’s the basic rule - contempt breeds contempt.
#106, Walt,
November 19th, 2006 at 7:27 pmOne can recognize that Batista was a dictator and also acknowledge that Castro’s brand of Soviet-style totalitarian rule was and is far more brutal and has caused far more state-sponsored deaths and imprisonments for political crimes than ever perpetrated by Batista. To deny that fact is to deny history.
#107 - Exley,
November 19th, 2006 at 8:44 pmWhy then does the civilized world recognize Castro as the legitimate head of state in Cuba? The answer lies with the Cuban deserters in Miami - votes!
Re#99 Exley
Why would I fear words?
Why would I be on a computer all day and not enjoy my happy life?
Do you live your own happy life, or do you stay on the computer all day trying to justify why you have the RIGHT to ruin many Iraqi happy lives to make some Iraqi sad lives better?
Yes some people are SAD in Cuba, just like the people in Katrina were SAD in the United States, so what?
So we should drop bombs and invade Cuba like Iraq to make the sad people happy?
But would not that make the happy people sad?
So we should drop bombs and invade a second time to make the sad people happy, by installing the old government back?
But that would make the supporters of the new government sad, so we should drop bombs and invade a third time to make them happy be installing the new government back?
Why do you think the Iraqi Sadam demands a military solution, while the Cuba Casyto problem does not demand a military solution.
I am not HYPOCRITE so the idea that I have the RIGHT to drop bombs and bring chaos to people who are half way across the world and are no threat to me, is WRONG.
Since you are a HYPOCRITE you believe that you are never WRONG, when it is OBVIOUS to “critial thinking” people, that the leaders and soldiers that started an UNECESSARY war, have committed crimes against humanity and they MUST appear in a court room to answer for their crimes, just like the Nazi’s did, and I was just following orders was not an excuse then and is not an excuse now!
The purpose of the United States military or that of any other nation is to DEFEND the country from other nation’s attacks, and not to change other nations governments!
I know such concepts must be hurting your head right now, but please try to take a moment to THINK and understand why the war in Iraq was not necessary.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:25 pmCan’t help but notice that you failed to mention Posting #101 in which your ignorance of history was exposed for everyone to see….That’s understandable. Your embarassment is palpable. Next time, know of what you write before you post something that is some patently false and dishonest. It’ll spare you much embarassment in the future.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:30 pmHey, Juan C, criticalthinker, BlueDog 49, I guesss these are the actions of the “freedom fighters†you are so proud to support and lionize. Sickening.
“A suicide bomber in the predominantly Shiite city of Hillah south of Baghdad lured men to his Kia minivan with promises of a day’s work as laborers, then blew it up, killing at least 22 and wounding 44, police said.
Within hours, a roadside bomb and two car bombs exploded one after another near a bus station in Mashtal, a mostly Shiite area of southeastern Baghdad, killing 11 and wounding 51, police said.â€
November 19th, 2006 at 10:33 pmEx…sorry. Yeah, I asked some questions back there. I just missed it. We can discuss here.
Hey, Juan C, criticalthinker, BlueDog 49, I guesss these are the actions of the “freedom fighters†you are so proud to support and lionize
Now, I dont know if that was a freedom fighter, but if one of my family was killed by a cluster bomb, a misfired bomb, white phosphorous, you bet Im going to filled my van with gasoline or TNT and blow the invading army or the government that supports the invasion.
Now, what about the 500,000 dead civilians. Are you negating that yet?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:33 pmOne can recognize that Batista was a dictator and also acknowledge that Castro’s brand of Soviet-style totalitarian rule was and is far more brutal and has caused far more state-sponsored deaths and imprisonments for political crimes than ever perpetrated by Batista. To deny that fact is to deny history.
Comment by Exley
Where did you study that history?
Why is Bush more hated elsewhere in the world than Castro? Why Ernesto Guevara is loved and admired all around the world, but not one marine? Why Europeans said that US poses more threat to the world than Iraq or North Korea? Havent yourself asked those questions? Because of democracy? People would hate canadians also. Nobody is doing that. See, Ex, you have to open your eyes and know that US is the most murdering state since UK.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:39 pm#112, Juan, With all due respect you are being deliberately obtuse….The bombers referenced in that article did not target military objectives…One lured a group of men to a minivan with promises of a day’s work as laborers, then blew it up, killing at least 22 and wounding 44. The other bombers planted a roadside bomb and two car bombs that exploded one after another near a bus station in Mashtal, a mostly Shiite area of southeastern Baghdad, killing 11 and wounding 51.
Those are not the actions of a “freedom fighter,” Juan…That is pure terrorism, deliberately targeting civilians. And each time you fail to condemn or signal that you are even remotely concerned with such deliberate terrorist attacks, you undermine whatever moral authority you claim to possess.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:59 pm#113, Again Juan, you are a bright guy, but you just make yourself look silly when you allow your political ideology to overwhelm historical facts, such as when you ludicrously claim that the U.S. is the most murderous state in post World War II history, while conveniently ignoring Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:03 amJuan, Another point; You wrote, “if one of my family was killed by a cluster bomb, a misfired bomb, white phosphorous, you bet Im going to filled my van with gasoline or TNT and blow the invading army or the government that supports the invasion.” ….So, in short, you do accept violence for purposes of vengeance or justice or preventing future attacks if your loved ones or members of your community are killed. And yet you condemn the United States for responding militarily in Afghanistan against those who plotted and planned to kill 3,000 innocent people on American soil on September 11, 2001….Care to explain that rather striking inconsistency on your part, Juan?
November 20th, 2006 at 12:25 amThat is pure terrorism, deliberately targeting civilians.
Comment by Exley
If thats so, then I agree with you. They are as despicable as US army/navy/air forces that kill civilians. Do you agree? Besides I dont have any moral authority. I never said I possess moral authority. I dont care about that. I care about justice.
claim that the U.S. is the most murderous state in post World War II history, while conveniently ignoring Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, North Korea.
Comment by Exley
Want me to make a list about how many people have died due to actions of these countries and see which has the highest toll?
See Ex, you see all this through the eyes of emotions, its you first, your coutry, and then the others. That says a lot about your humanity. In 1865, There was a war in South America, where 3 countries: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay formed the Triple Alliance to fight Paraguay. Paraguay was a protective country, not allowing foreign products to enter so easily. So, Britain, at the time, wasnt very happy. UK financed a war against Paraguay against 3 neighboring countries. The Triple Alliance won 5 years later. Do you think Im proud of my country having invaded a sovereign country for reasons that werent urgent for its national security? Do you think the war against Chile makes me proud or fighting a monster like UK for the Falklands or Islas Malvinas according who you ask their names? Not at all. My government killed thousands of innocent people, fellow citizens that think differently, and I am not supporting that. The thing with you is that your premise is: America is the greatest country in the world. From that on, there is really nothing to argue, because that statement cant be challenged logically.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:28 amAbout America propaganda:
Public relations is a huge industry. They’re spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its committment was to controlling the public mind….
…The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floor all have the same interests. We can all work
November 20th, 2006 at 12:30 amtogether and work for Americanism in harmony, liking each other. That was essentially the message. A
huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community, so they
control the media and have massive resources… Mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty
concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or, to bring it up to date, “Support our troops.”
Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that?… The point of public relations
slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you
support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy?
But you don’t want people to think about the issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You
want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for, because
nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts
your attention….
So, in short, you do accept violence for purposes of vengeance or justice or preventing future attacks if your loved ones or members of your community are killed.
No, I dont. But I havent seen my sister being raped by army men. Circumstances are powerful.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:32 amAnd yet you condemn the United States for responding militarily in Afghanistan against those who plotted and planned to kill 3,000 innocent people on American soil on September 11, 2001….Care to explain that rather striking inconsistency on your part, Juan?
Comment by Exley
Were there afghans in those hijacked planes? I missed that.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:34 am#117, “They are as despicable as US army/navy/air forces that kill civilians” And therein lies the crucial difference, Juan. U.S. forces as a matter of tactics, strategy, or policy deliberately target civilains. You know that as well as I do. Those few rogue soldiers who do commit murder and other war crimes are prosecuted and punished by the U.S. military justice system. The terrorists target civilains. The U.S. military does not.
“Want me to make a list about how many people have died due to actions of these countries and see which has the highest toll?”
Please do, Juan. For if you did so (and did so honestly), you would recognize that your statement that the U.S. has killed more people in the post-World War II era than the Soviet Union, China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the communist Eastern Bloc, among others is patently absurd (Although I suspect you know that already and are merely being provocative).
As for your last point, I would indeed not be proud if my country invaded another for reasons of mere economics and opening of markets, unrelated to national security concerns. But as I wrote the other day, that has not occurred with regard to the United States since the end of World War II.
Here is my full answer to you that I posted on Nov. 15 when you posed a similar question:
1) Hmmmmm, Good question, Juan. I would say in the post-World War II-era, yes, the U.S. has been motivated by national security concerns. As for the period between the Spanish-American War amd the beginning of World War II, I make no argument that U.S. excursions into South and Central American countries were always motivated by national security concerns. I would agree with that economic concerns likely prompted many, if not most, of those military actions.
Comment by Exley — November 15, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 12:42 amSorry, I am going to have to call you out on being deliberately obtuse when you write: “Were there afghans in those hijacked planes? I missed that.”
You know full well that Al Qaeda, which was the terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 atrocity, was based in Afghanistan and was protected, working hand-in-hand with the Taliban, which is made up primarily of Afghan radical Islamic fundamentalists. The pursuit of justice against Al Qaeda led the U.S. directly to Afghanistan.
I am puzzled by your moral and logical inconsistency by which you argue it is just and morally defensible for Iraqi insurgents to blow up American soldiers because, as you see it, the U.S. did an immoral thing by deposing Saddam Hussein, but it is unacceptable and immoral for the U.S. to go after members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who were responsible for the 9/11/2001 atrocity.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:52 amEx…Im off for today. I just read your last posts. I will answered you in another thread. Take care.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:58 amJuan, By the way Posting #125 was directed at you (But I am sure you knew that already)….Anyway, Juan, it is late here and I am going to bed. But I know you stay up later than me, so I hope to see your responses when I check in tomorrow morning…I look forward to continuing this discussion. Have a good night, Juan…Until tomorrow and begin jousting anew!
November 20th, 2006 at 12:59 amJuan, Re: Postings #126 and 127….Great minds think alike, eh paisan?
Talk to ya later, Juan.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:04 amCorrection: The second sentence in posting #124 should read: “U.S. forces as a matter of tactics, strategy, or policy do not deliberately target civilains.”
(I am sure I will take grief for that embarassing error of omission!)
November 20th, 2006 at 1:08 am