The news was all but inevitable: the bodies of the two missing soldiers have been found in Iraq, and spokespeople say they have been “tortured in a barbaric fashion.” No details have as yet been provided.
Pajamas Media has a roundup of reactions from both sides of the political spectrum.
All thoughtful people–myself included–mourn their loss, and the suffering they endured before their deaths.
When I read the sad news, however, the use of the word “barbaric” caught my eye. Like many familiar words, ordinarily we hardly think about what it really means.
barbarian, barbarous, boorish, brutal, coarse, cruel, fierce, graceless, inhuman, lowbrow, primitive, rough, rude, tasteless, uncivilized, uncouth, vulgar, wild
The word is the essence of cultural non-relativism. Its origins are in antiquity:
…from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (barbaros) which meant a non-Greek, someone whose (first) language was not Greek. The word is imitative, the bar-bar representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing spoken a language that one cannot understand, similar to blah blah or rhubarb in modern English.
Many cultures traditionally have had terms for “the other.” Even if those appellations don’t start out as pejorative, they usually wind up that way. And so it is with “barbarian” and “barbaric,” which have come into general use to mean especially vicious, cruel, and sadistic.
It’s really that last definition–sadistic–that seems to be the most important element here. When a soldier kills, there is always violence, no matter how the killing is accomplished. But barbarism implies a gratuitous level of mayhem, a sort of overkill, which indicates an emotional element that drives the perpetrator towards inflicting the maximum amount of pain for personal enjoyment and sensations of power.
One of the hallmarks of jihadi violence has been this element of barbarism–or, perhaps more correctly, sadism. There is a practical and strategic goal as well, which is to instill fear. Sadism and strategy are not mutually exclusive, however; they can coexist, and both may be driving this particular behavior. No one who has watched the beheading videos–or even read descriptions of them–can avoid the sense that those doing the deed are reveling in their own barbaric power, unleashed.
Sadism traditionally has been linked to sexual kinkiness. If you Google the word “sadism,” most of the definitions you find will have some connection to sex. Many have also remarked on the disturbances in Arab culture’s treatment of women and their sexuality (see this, for example), so it’s easy to surmise that there’s a connection between the two.
But it’s certainly not as simple as that–sadism is probably overdetermined among the jihadis. And another one of the elements that go into it are the backgrounds and personality disorders of some of those who rise to positions of power, such as the late and unlamented Zarqawi, who was clearly both a sadist and a psychopath in the classic sense.
But sadism and psychopathology are not limited to Arab culture, of course. In fact, the infamous Abu Ghraib prison scandal clearly involved elements of sadomasochism of the sexual sort, although the sadism did not even begin to rise to the level of that seen with the jihadis.
Then there were the Nazis, who came from a culture with enormous cultural achievements, one that was thought to be almost ultra-civilized prior to WWII. That’s one of the reasons the deeply barbaric turn many Germans took at that time was so very shocking: the degree of sadism that was unleashed in the concentration camps, for example, rivaled anything in history, classical or otherwise (and yes, I’m aware that not all the guards were German, but the guiding vision sprung from that society, and was largely a product of German or Austrian nationals).
The bottom line is that barbarism and sadism are possibilities for all human beings. But some societies and some historic times seem to encourage their fuller expression. And the task of a “civilized” military is to reduce the elements of sadism, while preserving the ability to kill.
I’ve written previously about how US soldiers are trained to kill without sadism, here. It’s not an easy task, but it’s the goal of the US military to reduce combat stress and make atrocities far less likely to occur (read the post for the details of how this is done). In contrast, the goal of the Nazis was to maximize the expression of sadism in their concentration camp guards. Likewise, this seems to be the goal of the jihadis, or at least many jihadi elements.
And they’re not the only ones who are drawn to the admiration of the barbaric. As the Wikipedia article on barbarians indicates, in a discussion of the fictional Conan the barbarian (and with an interesting connection to German history):
The modern sympathetic admiration for such fantasy barbarians as Conan the Barbarian is a direct descendant of the Enlightenment idealization of the “Noble Savage”. The German Romantics recharacterized the barbarian stereotype. Now it was the civilized Roman–or that modern Romanized Gaul, the Frenchman–who was effeminate and soft, and the stout-hearted German barbarian who exemplified manly virtue. The reforming of Arminius as “Hermann” the noble barbarian countering evil Rome provided a prototype from the 16th century onwards.
In fantasy novels and role-playing games, barbarians (or berserkers) are still depicted as brave uncivilized warriors, often able to attack with a crazed fury. Conan is simply best known of the type.
Many of those who defend jihadis, make excuses for them, and/or sympathize with them, may indeed be feeling these sorts of Rousseauvian/Romantic stirrings.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says 5:31 PM, July 05, 2006,
“Here is but one. There are many more, official and not. Not too many in your rightwing bubbleworld I guess.”
LOL, there’s no bubble here, only the facts. And the fact is much of this can be explained by the simple fact that there’s an insurgency going on by your friends in Al-Qaida and Co. It’s kinda hard to rebuild a country when aid workers are being killed, kidnapped, and beheaded on Snuff…Al-Jazeera TV. I guess you missed that point in your lefty blogs, or in my last point but I’ll be happy to point it out again. And again. And again. lol. Hey…still waiting for your proof.
“It is telling that you would blithely discard a report from the COE as a “whacko publication”. Who should we refer to for data then smartboy?”
I believe it was a different ‘publication’ I was dissing. Oh yeah, that Zmag thing you were peddling. LOL, what a joke. Just another of your wacko lefty sites inventing new atrocities committed by big bad Americans. I love how your link quotes people claiming American snipers were shooting at them. It offers no context like perhaps they were shooting at the Americans first? LOL. And no attempts were made by the writers, it seems, to gain the American point of view. What are they too lazy to do some homework? lol
Oh but maybe you ought to read some more about the liberation of Naples by the Allies in WWII when you’re not immersed in hate-America fiction. Not a smooth operation there either and they had a huge army at their disposal without the threat of insurgent attacks to deal with. Just kleptomaniacal mafioso. Sorta like your friend Saddam with the UNICEF supplies. lol
As for reliable sources, try reading mine. Our side doesn’t have a history of inventing atrocities or exaggerating the negative (CBS memogate anyone?). They may accentuate the positive, but that’s not the same as lying now is it? Don’t be scared. lol.
“Malkin and her band of rabid racist cheerleaders for death?”
Malkin racist? Lol that’s the most asinine thing you’ve said yet. Her hate mail is filled with racist rants from your troll brethren. The only death cheerleaders comes from your camp when they slay Iraqi journalists who’s tortured, (the real kind, not the imagined kind at Club Gitmo) stripped, and ultimately killed in public by having her throat slit. Nice going…
Malkin and the conservative blogosphere are actually performing a service by highlighting the hateful, insane, racist behavior of the left in supporting and promoting terrorism worldwide.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says on 4:51 PM, July 05, 2006
“BTW the Iraqi Baathists and the Syrian Baathists haven’t been pals for 40 odd years. You need to read up before pontificating.”
Oh sure, they’ve only belonged to the same idealogy, based on your Nazi -Socialist buddies, for the last 40 years but that means nothing of course. lol. Assad and Saddam may not have been pals but neither is Bush and Chirac but they manage to work together occassionally.
“There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees in Syria alone.”
Where was the token outrage from you folks when millions were refugees under Saddam? hmmm? And many are probably former Baathists looking for a new home. Good riddance. Hardly a sympathetic groups of victims are they?
“If you’d rather let them starve because they might one day oppose US occupation, then I suggest that that is reason enough for them to hate you and your kind with a passion.”
Who said anything about starving? You kookamungas really do exaggerate. Where’s the proof that the US is behind a starvation policy. Hmmm?
“It takes a particularly twisted mind to wish to punish refugees on the basis of what a few may do in the future. You’re a sick little boy.”
Nah, that’s something you folks on the left specialize in, what with your ‘re-education camps’ and boat people. We don’t try to punish anybody but the guilty. The Sunnis are punishing themselves by supporting a terrorist insurgency that’s sinking they’re only hopes of retaining some of their old power. Anyhow who’s sick here? We who seek democracy and a stable ally in the Arab world or appeasers like you who support tyrants who gas their own people? Hmmm?
The left embraces every known terrorist and ignores genuine moves towards freedom and prosperity. Korea, Vietnam, Europe all prove the feeble intellectual seriousness of you folks. That’s why yours is a dustbin idealogy. Happy down there? lol
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says on 4:37 PM, July 05, 2006
“Just a teensy weensy billion dollars eh?”
Money well spent compared to the alternative eh? I bet you folks think the billions in the Marshall Plan were all efficiently allocated as well. lol
“You’re the archetypical neocon idiot.”
Nah, there’s nothing idiotic in the verbal smackdown I’m delivering to you bub. You represent the perfect appeasenik idiot. Ignorant of the facts, historical context and in love with self hatred. How’s that going for you?
“The more you invent my thoughts, heros etc the weaker your argument sounds.”
Nah, I’m only working with what you give me son. You need to make your
blistering bigotry more clear for us if you feel misunderstood. LOL!
“At the base, it is all supposition anyway. You refute documented facts and offer none in return.”
Documented facts, you mean the leftists publications you consider gospel? lol What about my links detailing the reconstruction efforts? Still too scared to read that dread Muslim Zionist Amir Taheri or the Zarqawi letter? Here I am offering plenty of facts which you feign such interest in and you claim they don’t exist. How sad and typical.
Here they are again when you have the moral courage to read them.
I knew you couldn’t argue and running from my links only strengthens my point. Thx for letting us all know. lol
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12106023_1
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/zarkawi200402121818.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm
Oh and here’s some more opinions you’ll love. Try and read it before you blather okay kiddo? It looks bad for you. lol
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2006/060628iraq.pdf
Most of what I refute was fiction not fact. And your statement actually describes you-except for the refute part. You can replace that word with another like hide, ignore, flee, cower behind the skirt of terror. lol
“Attacking hospitals is a war crime, and there is no credible evidence that they have been used by fighters at any time as a firing position.”
Riigght. So all the credible reports of Islamists using Red Crescent ambulances as personnel carriers was all invention too? Since when did you care about war crimes when your side appeases every one committed by your friends in Al-Qaida? Hospitals can be rebuilt, and allowing them to be used as sanctuaries for terrorists would be a greater crime. Just ask the folks in Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Baghdad…
“Look it up between your lols you nonce.”
LOL, so embittered and incoherent you couldn’t spell dunce properly? Or was nonce your intent? I guess it’s a word in that fantasy world you live in. lol
“I really did lol at your Castro reference. You wingnuts will believe anything won’t you?”
You like being proven wrong? You’re welcome. lol. Deep down I think it you know it to be true, which is why you’ve offered no proof to doubt Forbes’s analysis of Castro’s fortune. Forbes magazine is certainly more credible than some of the wacko sources you’ve linked here. LOL
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“
I love it when you throw crap like that out without offering any proof to back it up. Still waiting… “
Here is but one. There are many more, official and not. Not too many in your rightwing bubbleworld I guess.
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/DahrReport.htm
It is telling that you would blithely discard a report from the COE as a “whacko publication”. Who should we refer to for data then smartboy?
Malkin and her band of rabid racist cheerleaders for death?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
BTW the Iraqi Baathists and the Syrian Baathists haven’t been pals for 40 odd years. You need to read up before pontificating.
There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees in Syria alone. If you’d rather let them starve because they might one day oppose US occupation, then I suggest that that is reason enough for them to hate you and your kind with a passion.
It takes a particularly twisted mind to wish to punish refugees on the basis of what a few may do in the future. You’re a sick little boy.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Just a teensy weensy billion dollars eh?
You’re the archetypical neocon idiot. The more you invent my thoughts, heros etc the weaker your argument sounds. At the base, it is all supposition anyway. You refute documented facts and offer none in return.
Attacking hospitals is a war crime, and there is no credible evidence that they have been used by fighters at any time as a firing position.
Look it up between your lols you nonce.
I really did lol at your Castro reference. You wingnuts will believe anything won’t you?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says on 2:48 AM, June 27, 2006
“Oh and BTW, Halliburton was given US$1 billion to rebuild Iraqs hospitals.
So far, nothing has happened and several hospitals have been destroyed by US troops. Nice one Dick.”
I love it when you throw crap like that out without offering any proof to back it up. Still waiting…
Maybe nothing has happened (which is unlikely given how poorly it would reflect on the company thereby harming their public image and losing future contracts). Could it be because of something called the insurgency? Hmmm? We know they sabotage oil refineries, pipelines, attack doctors and destroy clinics, assassinate opposition leaders-all in the name of Allah. And all the things you enjoy hearing about.
Now lets ask a hypothetical question. Why would troops (of any flag) ‘destroy’ hospitals? Could it be insurgents were inside firing on them? Should we treat hospitals and mosques as safe zones where terrorists can fire on our guys at will? What if they want to shoot women and kids? How bout old timers like you? Would that be okay? Well maybe if they shot just you heh? lol
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says on 2:45 AM, June 27, 2006
“You’re living in a smug little fantasy land you twit. And get this, the US is actively stopping aid getting to refugees in Syria. What great guys. Compassionate conservativism. What a sick joke”
Am I? Or am I just able to penetrate that fog you live in with cold hard facts and logic that dismay you. It seems you’re the only one making a twit of his fantasy self here. You shamefully ignored and fled from my points to post another biased and unreliable article from a wacko publication. LOL I at least offered genuine rebuttals and argument when you can only descend into terrified name calling…pathetic.
As for the report about Syrian refugees, you basically rehashed one of your earlier links didn’t ya? lol. Ah but the writer conveniently ignores whether these newly arrived refugees are Sunnis. Since Syria is a Baathist state, therefore an idealogical brother of Hussein’s Sunni dictatorship, it’s likely these folks are former Baathists. It still doesn’t disprove my point that the number of Iraqi refugees across the Middle East have largely declined substantially since the war ended.
And what makes you so sure we stopped giving aid? Or are we just restricting aid from being used by potential terrorists? Is it so hard to think a place like the one described might be a breeding ground for future terrorists the way the ones in Jordan and the West Bank are? Syria, after all, is a transit point for your heroes in the ‘insurgency’. lol
“Are you suggesting that Palstinian refugees aren’t worth considering or counting? It wouldn’t surprise me if you were given the rabid antiPalestinian nature of most of the regulars here.”"
What I’m saying is that they aren’t native Iraqis are they? When I spoke of millions of refugees returning home was I referring to Palestianian Arabs? Hmmmm? As for being anti-Palestinian…what simplistic crockitude, folks here simply don’t support terrorism. Whether it’s Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaida, or Timothy McVeigh (you’ve got posters of them all, don’t ya kiddo?). I’m sure we’d all support a Palestinian state in the West Bank if we were gauranteed that they’d be free of terrorists like that pig Arafat. If Hamas would recognize Israel’s right to exist that might mean something but until your friends get their act together it’s going to be a hard road for mass-murdering Islamists over there. Not to hard to see eh?
“And personally, I find it repulsive that companies associated with the ruling clique are making huge amounts of money out of war. If you can’t see the danger of those sorts of cosy arrangements then you don’t have much respect for democracy as a principle rather than just a meaningless slogan.”
The ‘ruling clique’ as you simplistically label them seem to be having quite a lot of difficulty passing key points of their agenda aren’t they? Social security reform was killed along with repeals to the death tax so don’t be so sure they rule much of anything. As for making money, what are you so offended by? You’re third world heroes like Castro are worth hundreds of millions.
http://articles.news.aol.com/business/_a/castro-is-worth-900-million-report-says/20060505092609990013
Granted it’s not from war but through the enslavement of his people. I bet it’s a model you would love to emulate, hey governor? lol
As for Halliburton-good for them. This witch hunt against a corporation is the sort of activity often carried out by folks who don’t understand and fear capitalism and economics. As long as Cheney did nothing to aid his former employer from gaining contracts, where’s the scandal? Given that it’s probably the most scrutinized company in America it would be very hard for them to accomplish fraud undetected so again, where’s the scandal? Nice try
Here’s something about your favorite company:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/29/165459.shtml
This snippet might interest you:
‘So far this year, Halliburton’s profits from Iraq have been minimal,” the Times admitted. “The company’s latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission shows $1.3 billion in revenues from work in Iraq and $46 million in pretax profits for the first nine months of 2003.’
Not the sort profit margin common among war profiteers is it?
“Your sneering style is annoyingly Sally-like.”
LOL, you’re the one to criticize annoying aren’t you? LMAO!!!
And good for Sally. Face it chuckles, you’re not the victim here. I can argue straight when the other party does. I’m waiting….lol
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Oh and BTW, Halliburton was given US$1 billion to rebuild Iraqs hospitals.
So far, nothing has happened and several hospitals have been destroyed by US troops. Nice one Dick.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7894§ionID=15
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-6QCVK8?OpenDocument
You’re living in a smug little fantasy land you twit.
And get this, the US is actively stopping aid getting to refugees in Syria. What great guys. Compassionate conservativism. What a sick joke.
Are you suggesting that Palstinian refugees aren’t worth considering or counting? It wouldn’t surprise me if you were given the rabid antiPalestinian nature of most of the regulars here.
And personally, I find it repulsive that companies associated with the ruling clique are making huge amounts of money out of war. If you can’t see the danger of those sorts of cosy arrangements then you don’t have much respect for democracy as a principle rather than just a meaningless slogan.
Your sneering style is annoyingly Sally-like.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says
“http://coe-dmha.org/HARIraq.cfm”
Interesting…it doesn’t contradict my article does it? The refugee camps that existed prior to the war were emptied and this link doesn’t prove otherwise. Many of the refugees don’t seem to be Iraqis, such as the Palestinian Arabs who lived and worked in Iraq. Given their history of siding with Saddam during the last war, it might have left the local Iraqis a little less than happy to have them as neighbors. Although there are some reported refugees, nothing on the scale that existed before. Oh wait, look, it actually quotes Al-Jazeera as a legitimate news source. LOL, oh well that kills it. Is this the best you can do?
“Note the date on this article. But it all seems to have been a massive surprise to your chickenhawks in Washington. Welcomed as liberators indeed. Amoral idiots.”
Now there’s no need to get snippy Al, just try and stick to the point.
According to your left wing Guardian, it’s all just speculation about the potential refugee situation. And notice the date, February 2003-about a month before the actual invasion. So most of the predicted crises never came to pass since the war was over quickly (just 3 weeks-unless you believed Baghdad Bob-lol). Nice try man, I said I wanted fact, not fiction. LOL
“Maybe the Reagan administration missed this (just like you seem to have), along with the thousands of other reports. They wouldn’t have suppressed or glossed over them would they? Shock! Again, note the date.”
Yeah, a little bit late on the ball wouldn’t you say? I was asking about something more germane to my point. Maybe a report from the 80s, or the 70s about Cambodia, Vietnam, or Saddam. But you’d think these leftists would be happy we eliminated Saddam but noooooo. It’s funny, looking over it, it seems anyone reported hurt or killed by our military actions were considered victims of a war crime. I’d have loved to see such hypersensitivity regarding Dresden, or Tokyo, or Hamburg, or Naples, or Berlin…
“USAID is well known as being a defender of US corporate interests over the needs of the third world. Tied aid is worse than no aid in many instances and mostly it works like extortion.”
Well known huh? I’ll treat such attacks more seriously if you offer actual proof beyond opinion. Sorry…Now I’ve addressed some of this as a time saving measure in an emergency situation. Is it perfect to your liking…no it never is, is it? But is it proof of a neocon conspiracy to defraud the folks in Iraq of their hard earned freedom? That’s a stretch dude. Keep stretching…
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says on 4:53 PM, June 25, 2006
“Thatguy, you are quite the cheerleader aren’t you?”
Nah, you are quite the troll, ain’t ya? Gimme a T. Gimme an R. Gimme an O….What you’re really saying is, ‘Thatguy, you’re making too much sense, please stop.’ Hmmm…..nope.
Is that why you ran from many of my points? Interesting…
“Pretty much all your “facts” are quite wrong and can be refuted easily by reading plain black and white numbers.”
I’m still waiting for you to refute them old chap. If you have any numbers then bring it on or are you just blustering? I’m waiting…
“George Galloway is no friend of mine, but he did go up in my estimation when he cut your silly little guttersnipe senator down to size. For that only mind you.”
Sure he’s no friend. He only agrees with you 99.9998% of the time…the traitorous bastard. You know he actually perjured himself on his Senate testimony claiming to have no knowledge of his associate’s oil (or should we say ‘oily’) dealings with Saddam. You might wanna ask his wife where she suddenly got $150,000 from. It wasn’t from the Rose law firm or Whitewater I can tell ya…lol
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/10/every_penny_in.html
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTGallowayOct05FINAL.pdf
“Your link is to a nationalist zionist web page. Do you expect me to take that seriously?”
LOL, that as silly as I expected from ya man. How Zionistic is an Iranian muslim columnist? Any proof of that or are you just hiding? What are you afraid of? If the numbers are false, than it should be relatively easy to debunk these ‘Zionists’. I’m waiting….
“Halliburton, Bechtel, Amoco and others with strong links to the republican party under Bush/Cheney are making billions out of this war,”
There’s no crime making money or being closer to one political party than another. Since few companies are qualified to do the work Halliburton and Bechtel are capable of, it’s no accident they would be selected for much of the rebuilding in Iraq. Still waiting for proof that billions were siphoned off for no work. Again, explain how it helps a company to develop a reputation for failing to deliver on it’s contractual obligations. Next….
“largely through no-tender or closed tender contracts. The facts can be found in your congressional oversight committee records. Simple.”
It’s done that way to save time. I heard a similar measure was being used in the Katrina rebuilding to avoid the lengthy, bureaucratic process of bidding and filings that take a mountain of time to complete. So you see, there are rational explanations that don’t imply wrongdoing.
There has been some fraud, as is unavoidable in such large endevours, but much of it is attributed to Iraqi corruption, which is unfortunate. Still waiting for proof offered by you of largescale fraud from Halliburton or any of your favorite friends. lol
“It remains to be seen how much the death of Zarqawi will affect the ‘insurgency’. I don’t hold much stead in the propaganda from your military though with respect to his importance. Until a couple of months ago they were telling us he had only one leg, so there intelligence is questionable in more ways than one.”
I don’t think they were reporting he had only one leg. I think they were saying his leg injuries (incurred in Afghanistan) were treated by doctors in Iraq in 2002, after he escaped the asswhipping delivered to his Al-Qaida masters by the US military. The loss of his files, address and contacts books, and incidentally his life lead to over 400+ raids withing 72 hours of his rude awakening in hell. It netted 700+ prisoners and 100+ dead terrorists. It’s hard to imagine the terror network can recover from such a huge blow. Good luck trying though. The propaganda blow was tremendous. And it’s unclear how much effect Zarqawi was having even when he was alive. Captured letters show an increasing difficulty finding skilled recruits and safe houses while commenting on the increased effectiveness of the Iraqi army and police. See it for yourself. Don’t be scared, lol:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/zarkawi200402121818.asp
“Amnesty, UN agencies and many others were reporting Saddam’s abuses long before you republicans and no, US/Saudi aid to Saddam didn’t stop in the early 80s. You should check your facts, they are freely available from official sources. The tacit and covert support of Saddam was a well known ’secret’. The large scale killing happened mostly while he was your client. If it didn’t make the evening news in the US then more fool you.”
Don’t be bitter little man. And how do ya know I’m even Republican? Can a Democrat or Independent express a Conservative viewpoint? No? What a narrow minded world you must live in-steeped in leftist dogma and doctrine. Re-read my last post dude.
I never said US aid stopped during the early 80s. My point was that US aid dried up soon after the Kurdish massacres (as far as I knew), which would make that the late 80s, wouldn’t it? But I’m sure you’re right and that there were some complaints from human rights groups but far out of proportion to their collective wail about our presence there now. Doesn’t that strike you as strange? They peep and offer token outrage over 300,000 murdered, raped, and tortured by Saddam but launch a breathtakingly silly group cryathon about the comparatively benign administering by us?
“The lap dog reputation of the mainstream press in the US is widely known and despised. The neocon conspiracy theories regarding a left wing bias in the media are, possibly, the silliest and saddest aspects of your wingnuttery. Unbelievably naive and stupid.”
Really? Tell that to the New York Times and Los Angeles Times since they love publishing details of classified programs that are either useful or essential to our national security. Or go ask Judith Miller why she spent several nearly 80 days in prison for refusing to reveal a government source. It’s a convenient fiction to call them subservient but their past and present behavior is hardly that of people friendly to the current administration. How do ya explain that dude?
“If you think it is clever to use “lol” so often, if at all, you aren’t clever. It makes you read like a prat. Just a thought.”
It’s sweet of you to consider my image but I thing I’ll keep on with what I like thank you. If I read like such a prat than why reply? What does it make someone like you who replies to the pratly? Hmmm? Just a thought.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Does anyone know when they’ll catch Zarqawi yet?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
From Amnesty
6. Reconstruction contracts
In recent weeks the US Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded contracts to US consortia for projects worth US$1.7 billion. The projects range from building schools and roads, to managing the oil sector and advising the Iraqi central bank. Energy industry analysts are openly speculating that some oil companies would like the occupying powers to tear up existing contracts between Iraq and other companies so that they can explore in one of the world’s largest oil reservoirs.(40) The process of awarding initial contracts has been criticized as arbitrary, and there is no guarantee that due process will be followed in awarding oil concessions.
Disbursements from the Development Fund are controlled by the occupying powers, and Resolution 1483 directs that the needs of Iraqi people ought to guide such decisions. There is no provision made, however, to allow a complaint mechanism or some such procedure so that Iraqis might contest particular projects or how contracts are awarded. The former head of the US-affiliate of the Anglo-Dutch Shell Group has been appointed to run the Iraqi National Oil Co.,(41) with an advisory board made up of Iraqis and foreigner nationals, assisting him. A senior Iraqi professional has been named as the equivalent of a chief executive officer.
Since the announcement of the USAID contracts, companies from the UK have lobbied their government to represent their business interests. In late May, Bechtel Corporation, a US company which won the main reconstruction contract, organized meetings in the USA, the UK and the Middle East with potential subcontracting bidders from a number of countries.
USAID is well known as being a defender of US corporate interests over the needs of the third world. Tied aid is worse than no aid in many instances and mostly it works like extortion.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Maybe the Reagan administration missed this (just like you seem to have), along with the thousands of other reports.
They wouldn’t have suppressed or glossed over them would they? Shock!
Again, note the date.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/docs/iraqsurvey.pdf
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Note the date on this article. But it all seems to have been a massive surprise to your chickenhawks in Washington.
Welcomed as liberators indeed. Amoral idiots.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,886603,00.html
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
http://coe-dmha.org/HARIraq.cfm
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Thatguy, you are quite the cheerleader aren’t you?
Pretty much all your “facts” are quite wrong and can be refuted easily by reading plain black and white numbers.
George Galloway is no friend of mine, but he did go up in my estimation when he cut your silly little guttersnipe senator down to size. For that only mind you.
Your link is to a nationalist zionist web page. Do you expect me to take that seriously?
Halliburton, Bechtel, Amoco and others with strong links to the republican party under Bush/Cheney are making billions out of this war, largely through no-tender or closed tender contracts. The facts can be found in your congressional oversight committee records. Simple.
It remains to be seen how much the death of Zarqawi will affect the ‘insurgency’. I don’t hold much stead in the propaganda from your military though with respect to his importance. Until a couple of months ago they were telling us he had only one leg, so there intelligence is questionable in more ways than one.
Amnesty, UN agencies and many others were reporting Saddam’s abuses long before you republicans and no, US/Saudi aid to Saddam didn’t stop in the early 80s. You should check your facts, they are freely available from official sources. The tacit and covert support of Saddam was a well known ’secret’. The large scale killing happened mostly while he was your client. If it didn’t make the evening news in the US then more fool you.
The lap dog reputation of the mainstream press in the US is widely known and despised. The neocon conspiracy theories regarding a left wing bias in the media are, possibly, the silliest and saddest aspects of your wingnuttery. Unbelievably naive and stupid.
If you think it is clever to use “lol” so often, if at all, you aren’t clever. It makes you read like a prat. Just a thought.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Oh, I don’t disagree about the pointing out. The sentence you qouted wasn’t framed the way my mind was working. It suggested I agreed, and then pointed out an exclusionary clause. It would have made more sense for me to say, “Yes, of course. In an unrelated episode….”. My mind jumps from one subject to another before I’m ready, my grammer tends to reflect that although I try to separate it out.
While I favor agent provocateur as a more proper label than troll, I have to say after having read Apocalypse Troll by david Weber, the title has a certain ring to it.
I have to admit, old chap that guy, I could do a better job of criticizing Bush, convincing Republicans that they are on the wrong path, and being praised for such compared to Conned here.
How and Why? Simply because, I try and seek out the true beliefs of a person, what they really want. Once I obtain that, I can convince them with specific arguments tailored to their desires and specific concerns.
The Left wants to supplant America into some super-perfect uber-nation of noblesse oblige rich people. I can never give them what they want or even consider doing so. So, negotiations break down, we get out the guns, and assassinations start. (like IRA)
If we win, there’ll be peace and joy, if we lose, well let’s not lose, okay?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Neoneoconned says on 7:06 PM, June 24, 2006:
“widely acknowledged by the unthinking neo-con denizens of this blog”
LoL. If you read the recent posts by neo con herself and other commenters regarding trolling, you’ll see postsby other liberals who were appalled by the trollish behavior of the their idealogical cousins. Certainly you’ve read their remarks or were you too afraid and unthinking to do so?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
But it’s widely acknowledged here that certain liberals posting here are trolls
widely acknowledged by the unthinking neo-con denizens of this blog
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Thx Ariel. Appreciate the sentiment.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
ymarsakar says on 2:03 PM, June 24, 2006
“Of course, but as Weary G recognized, just because people don’t favor each other’s beliefs, doesn’t mean there is a need to assassinate each other personally or metaphorically though our character. “
Now I don’t get personal unless I’m attacked first. But it’s widely acknowledged here that certain liberals posting here are trolls so I’d almost be remiss if I didn’t point out the obvious, wouldn’t I?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Thatguy,
Damn you’re good. Point by point refutation, dead on.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I’m pretty sure Confude will soon enough provide you with the proof of Taheri’s credibility problems
But (no pun intended) perhaps you know better than I how often he practices the rear end denials. You seem to have posted more often than I.
Indeed, but there’s less pressure recently to reply to Confude since everyone now wants a piece of Confude. Very very different from back when Confude was just talking to me and me alone. Which was several, several threads back, back to when he first visited this site to “honestly understand the opposition views”.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt. You know the rest.
A well reasoned essay shouldn’t be dismissed so easily.
Of course, but as Weary G recognized, just because people don’t favor each other’s beliefs, doesn’t mean there is a need to assassinate each other personally or metaphorically though our character. Weary G did not call me an extremist when I favored taking the UN staff dudes hostage, and I didn’t call him a wuss or pro-UN genocider when he favored more peaceful means.
However, “well reasoned” is subjective, based upon whether you, the person, has any “ability to reason”. Some people don’t use the same reasoning you or I do, others don’t even use the same “metaphysical epistemology”. Which is different than saying someone has different reasons. Epistemology was very useful for me to learn. Although it took awhile to learn how to apply it to human psychology and internet arguments.
I hear the CIA card thrown around a lot but not much proof to back it up. Maybe you have some. Please share.
The only proof I have is that I read Iraq the Model, and if I was a CIA operative, I wouldn’t do it the way it has been done. That’s a reason to disbelieve the CIA charge of course, but then again, I never believed the CIA had enough balls and brains to do anything as subtle and effective as Iraq the Model in the first place.
But, that doesn’t mean I can’t do the devil’s advocate position and tell you that people see things another way, i.e. CIA operatives.
People who believe as I think they believe, has many operative paths to choose if you knock our their neo-con route. It’s like a terroist cell in methodology, if not morality. One falls down, another activates.
Takes Charles (charlemagne) for example. He posited that Iraqis have a position of hate and fear of the US (not exactly his exact wording), because Confude asked him a question about what Iraqs probably believe. So I countered with Iraq the Model’s comments about the subject. Charles didn’t believe it, said that Iraq the Model could be be propaganda via the CIA or Bush, and that was it. Innuendo vs actuality.
The epistemology is not the same. Charles believes that the possibility of corruption invalidates the results, I believe you need more reasons and justifications and evidence than a “possibility” to discount something.
I don’t take truck with the ad hominem argument that just because someone is biased, that what they say is inaccurate. The global media’s history of disinformation and inaccuracy is much more persuasive than say, their internal biases.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Ymarsakar says on 1:06 PM, June 24, 2006:
“Is there a particular reason you believe he needs practice with that, that guy?”
Judging by his attacks and assertions, I was curious if he could provide something besides his opinion to back up his point. But (no pun intended) perhaps you know better than I how often he practices the rear end denials. You seem to have posted more often than I.
“People don’t have to be a neo con to be a paid CIA agent and crackpot, you know.”
A well reasoned essay shouldn’t be dismissed so easily. Any proof Taheri is anything other than what he says he is? I’ve read several columns of his and I detect nothing hinting at a crackpot point of view.
I hear the CIA card thrown around a lot but not much proof to back it up. Maybe you have some. Please share.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Or are you praciticing a ‘talk outta your anus’ moment?
Is there a particular reason you believe he needs practice with that, that guy?
This report from Amir Taheri (as far from a neo-con as you can get),
People don’t have to be a neo con to be a paid CIA agent and crackpot, you know.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says on 5:02 PM, June 23, 2006,
“This is some sort of a joke isn’t it? Have they built as many schools as they destroyed yet? No.”
Why do you find facts which contradict your fixed opinions sickly funny? Actually, I was wondering if you were serious since it’s been reported that schools are open with new ones being built. There are 8.5 million Iraqi kids now in school, an all time high, and yet that’s not a sign of progress to you. Wow. And unless, you can provide a reliable accounting of the number of schools destroyed by us, I can’t take your opinion as gospel, sorry…
“Electricity for all? No. Supplies even in the main cities are spasmodic at best.”
True enough but there never was electricity for all in Iraq under Saddam either. But they have more now in many places than when Saddam was rationing it off in favor of Baghdad. Restoring the electrical grid will be a long, laborous process which wasn’t helped by the dilapitaded state Saddam left it in. And don’t blame the sanctions, the electrical grid was well run down long before the first Gulf war.
As for this talk of Halliburton and Co. siphoning off billions, do you have actual proof? Anything at all? Even a genuine article from Al-Reuters might be something. Or are you praciticing a ‘talk outta your anus’ moment? But for the life of me, I can’t see how it helps Halliburton’s image or any company to be accused of corruption or incompetance. Just how would such an image foster confidence from nation states to award further contracts?
And it doesn’t seem to be going too badly in Iraq. This report from Amir Taheri (as far from a neo-con as you can get) offers a fairly reasoned and balanced analysis of conditions in Iraq and suggests reasons to be optimistic. Take your time.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12106023_1
“A less corrupt police force? No, there are numerous credible reports of police militias and death squads and involvement in organized crime.”
Reports from Al-Jazeera, Al-Reuters, and Al-AP? You’ve got to be kidding. lol. Any organization that was known for jailing children, raping women and videotaping the act, and carrying out brutal executions (including feeding live prisoners through wood chippers) will likely be perceived by history as the more corrupt and vile. Compare that with the largely scattered and less than reliable reports of death squads operating in Iraq killing terrorist sympathizing Sunnis. Good luck with that moral equivalence thing. So yeah, the current police is less corrupt, not perfect, but better than their predecessors.
“Expats returning? That really is a sick joke.”
Nothing funny about it my man. It’s been reported that the refugee camps that existed prior to the war (in some cases for decades) have largely emptied since the end of the war. There were millions there who now have returned to Iraq. You know enter a war torn country. You didn’t miss that story did ya?
“Stalinists favourite son? Reagan’s “rock in the middle east” don’t you mean?”
The Baathist party was a Socialistic entity. Most of their military hardware came from the French and the Soviet Union. Sounds like a son of Stalin to me. In fact the French were still owed billions in unpaid bills by their boy before the war. Maybe that was part of the reason they chose to oppose the intervention? Hmmm?
“Terrorist appeasers? I’ll ask one if I ever meet one.”
Go talk to your ally Galloway then. lol
“There were plenty of people calling for action in all the situations you mention.”
Were there? Then name one. A significant group of leftists who loved Saddam who actually criticized his mass murder? Give it a try. How about Cambodia? Or Rwanda? Go ahead…
“Reagan administration when he was committing those crimes against humanity? No, they were paying him $1 billion a year to carry on, supplied him with weapons and arms, cheered him on and actively assisted in the gulf war.”
Did not Reagan restrict ties with Saddam after the Kurdish massacres? I thought I read that somewhere. But even so, what contacts Reagan had with Saddam seemed to have ended sometime around that time. Why would that be? However, the French and Russians never. Maybe it also had something to do with certain oil fields near Mosul?
“I’m not going to grace your ‘gentle occupation’ comment with a response.”
Well because I suspect deep down, you know my point to be true. Compared with our not too gentle conquest and/or liberation of Italy, Germany, France. South Korea, South Vietnam… How many died at Dresden? 100,000? 200,000? 300,000? All towards the end of the war when the Germans’ military strength was almost spent? I think an Iraqi would prefer Baghdad 2003-present day to being in Dresden on April 13-15, 1945. LOL
“You need to read some facts about what is happening. Not ultranationalist cheerleader blogs. Your ignorance of the reality is stunning. “
Now you know that ain’t true. Alternative media has owned the Saddam/Al-Qaida/Iraq story which the mainstream press won’t cover. It may be biased in favor of Iraq but when your side won’t seemingly offer any substantive rebuttals on things like the WMDs found in Iraq or Hikmak Shakir, it sorta proves their points, doesn’t it?
Your definition of reality is what’s stunning, which is the reason I felt the need to comment on your ignorance here. You shouldn’t drink all that Al-Jazeera kool aid, it’s not nice for your teeth or your mind dude. lol
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve says on 11:46 AM, June 23, 2006,
“No you haven’t. Electricity, sewage , health care facilities and accessability remain well below pre-invasion levels. Preventable disease is on the rise - unemployment is at 50%, inflation is massive while living wages….”
I haven’t seen any credible sources indicating that. In fact, the reports I’ve read indicated a general parity, even improvement from pre-war levels. Are the inflation levels anywhere near the record heights reported during the 90s when people in neighboring countries refused it? The countrys’ electrical grid is more evenly distributed as compared to the days when Saddam was siphoning it off to favor select areas of Baghdad. Much of the reported problems stem from violence and terrorist sabotage. But even with the reported problems, would the majority of Iraqis have preferred their rapist-in-chief (no, not Bill CLinton, lol) to the current establishment? Would the Kurds, the Shias? hmm….
Read Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist who recently reported on conditions in Iraq. It seems there’s reason to be optimistic?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12106023_1
“Tell me mate - how would you know there was nary a peep from the left about civilian deaths during Saddam’s time? Where were you? You ‘ve got to be joking? Is this a point?”
Are you making one now matey? Do we not all sense a hesitation from the UN from condemning what’s plainly happening in the Sudan as genocide? And was Galloway decrying the hundreds of thousands his patron Saddam was killing? I don’t quite remember, remind me please…
“Same with displaced populations in Cambodia and Vietnam. I guess you missed the fact that the U.S dropped more tonnage of bombs on Indochina than was dropped during the entire Second World War - but I suppose that had nothing to do with it lol. Unbelievable.”
That’s silly, the bombings didn’t help, but don’t forget it was the Leftist Khoumer Rouge who carried out the mass killings and starvations in Cambodia, not the US Air Force. How could the US Air Force do such a thing when your feet need to touch the ground for that little messy business of shooting and burying someone? lol
As for Vietnam, I was specifically referring to the mass exodus of people after the Communist takeover of South Vietnam. You might wanna blame Uncle Ho’s minions, who succeeded him after his death, for pushing millions of his own people to flee the country. And maybe add a little more blame to the Democrats for cutting military aid to South Vietnam after 1972.
But my point again is not the amount of death from above we delivered but whether the Stalinist Left or the Democrats actually offered any protest during the killing fields of Cambodia, the executions of Hue, the ‘re-education camps’ in Vietnam, the mass refugee exodus after Saigon fell, or Rwanda. What little, if any protests, they offered in the past is paltry in comparison to less violent and bloody present.
“Gentle? Wow. How’s that for intelligent analysis. Good models for comparison lol. See my above post and others for the current plight of Iraqis after three wars, 12 years of sanctions, a corrupt occuption and no end in sight. Unbelievable….”
Awww, now where’s the hate coming from homey? I thought it was a good enough model, if I do say so myself, since it ain’t that hard to follow the fact that we killed hundreds of thousands to several million civvies during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam while killing a far lower amount today in Iraq. Not too hard to understand, is it matey? lol The best the left can seemingly offer as a counter is a flawed Lancet study which has been debunked. Oh yeah, you didn’t forget that Saddam stole much of the Oil for Food money earmarked for his people did ya? Ya know, it’s what the whole ‘oil for food’ scandal is mainly about? And why Benon Sevon, former head of the Oil for Food Program, is hiding in Cyprus (last I checked) to escape prosecution? lol
Insurgencies like this do not end quickly but require suppression over a gradual period of time. When the Iraqi police and Army display sufficient counter-insurgency proficiency, our role can be scaled back. Already there is talk of troop reductions by the end of this year, largely due to the terrorist roll up we conducted after capturing much of Zarqawi’s personal files and records. Counter-insurgency takes time but it’s no excuse to cut and run prematurely is it?
“No comment. And this type of innane nonsense derserves none.”
Yet you take the time to reply to me, what does that make you? hmmm…. Even though you describe your post precisely, I still feel the need to comment on your angry and flawed attack. Hope you enjoy it and maybe take a breath before your next response. lol
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve
No - I’m not justifying it. I use the history part simply to point out the obvious - that there is a resistance - and with all the immoral deeds it entails - and that focusing on eliminating, discrediting it and posing the moral question to the exclusion of the occupation - the initial and most significant crime - is immoral - and irrelevant.
Does it really matter to the survivors and victims who started the annihilation of humanity in WWIII? What matters is what happens now and later because of that. It matters a lot who engages in extreme violent actions and who refuse to tone it down in favor of political self-interest. Insurgents and terroists like the IRA have left their arms in favor of politics, because it was better to live in peace than in the sea of blood red violence. When people say we should focus on the intial “obvious crime” (in your view), this justifies continual blood feud and devastation with no end in sight.
There is nothing immoral about the IRA setting down their arms in the hopes of peaceful co-existence and the safety of their children. Honest resistances want peace and prosperity and would give up the gun if they could be assured they wouldn’t be exterminated once they did.
When terroists blow up civilians on a continuous basis, and we have you here saying the initial problem that must be considered is the invasion, you present a problem that does not serve the interests of peace nor prosperity.
There is nothing obvious about your opinion that the Iraq invasion was a crime and the initial problem.
Arguing that the insurgency are the problem and that defeating them will make everything allright is immoral.
That would be the duly elected Iraqi government. I suppose you might believe that elected governments do not have the moral authority to decide what the policy should be in the best interests of the voting citizens, but I’d have to disagree with you.
Consider in terms of how you support the U.S troops in Iraq - you support them but don’t support what they did in Haditha(I would hope not) - but for you that doesn’t negate the righteousness of their mission(if I may be so presumptous.
Your analysis is wrong. Simply because, if that is all that the US soldiers did in Iraq, the purported propaganda that is called Haditha, then there is no righteousness in their mission. We didn’t send soldiers to sacrifice life and limb so they can shoot a bunch of women and children, your unbeatable insurgent terroists however, did.
Drawing a distintion or proclaming the high ground by pointing to corruption in ‘there’ forces while defending your own from comparable atrocities gives it away.
I’ll make a stand and say that Haditha is an enemy propaganda project conducted in order to sow disinformation amongst Americans and the global media.
A refreshing change from the conservatives who usually say that “they don’t know what happened”. Ah, but I’m taking a gamble.
The US Marines have no comparable atrocities, and you are unable to prove it one way or the other.
Weary Can anyone else name something which might have contributed to the current plight of the Iraqi people?
I’ll bite. Saddam and the Nazi inspired Baathists. More Nazi than Baathist I’d wager, they even favor the same amount of meticulous paperwork for some reason.
Saddam, Steve. Saddam, right?
I’m reading this in sequence, so I guess I got it right cause I didn’t peek.
While I share Justin’s disdain of teachers who waste class time asking questions that don’t really teach us anything, (Socratic Method is not asking a bunch of questions to start a lecture) I don’t see Weary as being a teacher, so the dynamic isn’t the same. Besides, he wasn’t asking me the question so much as steve. If steve doesn’t want to answer, that’s between him and weary. Since I figured the answer out when I started considering, it’s not a big frustration with me.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Yeah, I’m an Aussie. I’m in 2 minds about the soccer. I hate professional football for the cheating and diving and the on and off field prima donna antics of the overpaid hair models. (Was a Liverpool supporter as a kid though)
I’m a life long rugby bloke. Sorry.
I did sneak a look at that game though and have to say I was very proud of the way they played and the commitment shown. Hard to see us going all the way but as you would know, you write an Aussie team off at your peril.
If they beat Italy I’ll take my place on the bandwagon for sure.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
by the way - Crude - are you an Aussie? If your not, my apologies…
I noticed your thread about the World Cup - if you are congrats - the match against the Croats was the wildest, best game I’ve seen yet - good stuff.
I’m a Liverpool supporter so it was great to see Kewell finally get on the scoresheet in a big way(he should have had a hat-trick against Brazil)…
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Crude wrote:
“s we are being objective, I’d like a bit more from you on the above statement, please. Which resolutions and what ACTUAL noncompliance?
This is an important issue because it recurs through your rightwingnut world endlessly, without explanation.
Should every country that doesn’t comply with UN resolutions incur sanctions, invasion and indiscriminate destruction of its civilian infrastructure and population?”
To add to that I’d say the sanctions regime was placed punitivley and not because of any recurrent violations of international law(after the Gulf War and unconditional surrender) and were placed almost entirely at the behest of the U.S.
The U.N has quite often remained silent on major crimes of the U.S - there was absolute silence at the U.N during Vietnam, next to the Nazi holocaust, the most horrific and outrageous case of pure aggression of the 20th century.
From where I’m standing, of course…
The U.N
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“You’ve passed the time to spit it out by a considerable margin.”
Actually, a few people here passed the time to come up with a pretty obvious answer. I did not, however, want to stab anyone in the face.
Steve,
I appreciate your gracious answer in this. I was only try to make a point about the problem with looking at something too narrowly. That’s all. Have a good night.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Now how hard was that? Geez….
Oh right - Saddam yeah - almost forgot….my bad.
Sorry Weary….
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Actually, it does, thanks, but probably not in the way you think. Anyone else? One more try?
You’ve passed the time to spit it out by a considerable margin. My immunology teacher last semester would do that - ask questions where nobody had any idea what kind of answer he was expecting, let alone which, then pace back and forth across the classroom for 15 minutes (causing class to very often go very overtime - he was infamous for that) while people made random guesses hoping to get lucky. It made us want to stab him in the face.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Weary G said…
Confud,
I think Steve can answer for himself now. Thanks.
6:53 PM, June 23, 2006
I think you misunderstood my post. I am asking YOU to explain your statement. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud,
I think Steve can answer for himself now. Thanks.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
The sanctions placed on him were for his non-compliance with UN resolutions.
As we are being objective, I’d like a bit more from you on the above statement, please. Which resolutions and what ACTUAL noncompliance?
This is an important issue because it recurs through your rightwingnut world endlessly, without explanation.
Should every country that doesn’t comply with UN resolutions incur sanctions, invasion and indiscriminate destruction of its civilian infrastructure and population?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Everyone: it’s necessary every so often — until neo implements her troll-squashing strategy at least — to repeat that the sad individual who posts here obsessively under the name of ‘confud’ is really an embarrassment to the human race — lying, vain, arrogant, bullying, and stupid — and responding to him, however much he so obviously craves it, is just a waste.
Still waiting for your defence regarding Israeli occupation and settlement of the Golan, butchergirl.
I’ve invited you to show me where I’ve lied. Telling that you haven’t. Not being a dishonest coward again are you?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“Weary, Steve knows as well as everyone else — it doesn’t suit him to say so is all.
Alright, Sally. You are right. I knew it, but I was hoping Steve would have the honesty to admit it.
Saddam, Steve. Saddam, right?
If you are going to list reasons for why Iraq is such a mess, and the people there are in such a plight, you might think to mention Saddam’s rule as one major cause, no?
I mean, the guy did rule the nation for, what, thirty plus years? Can we not explain at least some significant portion of Iraq’s current problems by looking at the effect of three decades of control by a brutal dictator who ran his state in the mold of Stalin? Especially since we can blame at least part of your list on Saddam’s actions as well. He did invade Iran (war one) and he did invade Kuwait (war two). The sanctions placed on him were for his non-compliance with UN resolutions. I will grant you that the third war and the occupation are open for question.
So, the thing that seems important to me, Steve, and what I was getting at, is why it was so hard for you see that? And if you did in fact see it, why was it so hard to say it?
Just something for you to ponder as you look objectively at the issues.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Gee weary - not looking good.
Why don’t you just tell the class what you have on your mind…..
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Weary, Steve knows as well as everyone else — it doesn’t suit him to say so is all.
Steve, I don’t know what you mean by your “subtle jibe” — that ‘insurgents’ killing their own people is “uncontroversial”?
Everyone: it’s necessary every so often — until neo implements her troll-squashing strategy at least — to repeat that the sad individual who posts here obsessively under the name of ‘confud’ is really an embarrassment to the human race — lying, vain, arrogant, bullying, and stupid — and responding to him, however much he so obviously craves it, is just a waste.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“4. The fact that billions of dollars purportedly for reconstruction have disappeared into republican friendly companies’ through closed tender contracts, with little to no output evident.
5. The fact that Iraq had an enormous refugee problem prior to the latest war because those democracy lovers the Al Sabahs expelled 300,000 odd people over Iraq’s southern border.
6. See above posts in response to thatguy for a few more.”
Actually, it does, thanks, but probably not in the way you think. Anyone else? One more try?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Despite your simpering tone, I’ll have a stab.
4. The fact that billions of dollars purportedly for reconstruction have disappeared into republican friendly companies’ through closed tender contracts, with little to no output evident.
5. The fact that Iraq had an enormous refugee problem prior to the latest war because those democracy lovers the Al Sabahs expelled 300,000 odd people over Iraq’s southern border.
6. See above posts in response to thatguy for a few more.
Hope that helps.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Okay, by his silence I am assuming Steve apparently does not have the answer.
Can anyone else name something which might have contributed to the current plight of the Iraqi people? Steve’s answers were; three wars, sanctions and an occupation. Anyone else got something that might also have contributed? I have a feeling that a few of you might. What did Steve manage to miss?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Ariel, here is an interesting link regarding the Vincennes.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html
Maybe you missed it?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
At 5:08 PM, June 23, 2006, Ymarsakar said…
People like Confude believe the insurgency is justified in cutting off the heads of chldren and putting them in fruit baskets because they believe the US is using the maximum amount of retaliation force as an occupation power. They are sadly mistaken. The US has not used more than say, 30% of our reserve strength.
Ymar, you are a disgusting pea brained lying excuse for a human being. You constantly spectacularly achieve the morality of the murderers that you purport to oppose.
The fact that neo tolerates you and encourages you is commentary in itself.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“steve is arguing basically that the resistance is justified to do anything to resist, simply because the resistance has done anything to resist in historical terms.”
Yar wrote - but I think this is the point Sally is trying to make too.
No - I’m not justifying it. I use the history part simply to point out the obvious - that there is a resistance - and with all the immoral deeds it entails - and that focusing on eliminating, discrediting it and posing the moral question to the exclusion of the occupation - the initial and most significant crime - is immoral - and irrelevant.
Arguing that the insurgency are the problem and that defeating them will make everything allright is immoral.
1) I don’t believe they can be defeated - as I’ve said - the Vietcong, while being feared and loathed by many were an unfortunate neccessity - accepted by a large enough majority of the country that they were able to inflict enough damage that they eventually forced the U.S to withdraw - it was accepted that they were fighting foreign invaders - despite the fact they were killing and terrorizing other Vietnemese in the process. It’s no different in Iraq. Consider in terms of how you support the U.S troops in Iraq - you support them but don’t support what they did in Haditha(I would hope not) - but for you that doesn’t negate the righteousness of their mission(if I may be so presumptous.
2) As I say it’s a collection of interests - like many groups that become militarized in a resistance capactiy there is internal strife, corruption - just like in a modern military. Drawing a distintion or proclaming the high ground by pointing to corruption in ‘there’ forces while defending your own from comparable atrocities gives it away.
You may not think they are comparable, but you after all and not under occupation. You are American and, err, patriotic….
Sally - I’m sure you don’t think yourself the only one entitled to use the odd sarcastic dig…seems that what you are saying when your criticizing my far more subtle jibe.
Is that what your saying?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
People like Confude believe the insurgency is justified in cutting off the heads of chldren and putting them in fruit baskets because they believe the US is using the maximum amount of retaliation force as an occupation power. They are sadly mistaken. The US has not used more than say, 30% of our reserve strength.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
At 6:56 AM, June 23, 2006, Thatguy said…
Confud says:
“I don’t think anyone is showing concern, mock or otherwise with regard to the insurgents. The civilian population is your legal and moral responsibility under the conventions and your forces and administration are ignoring their responsibilities. You invade, you take responsibility.”
Haven’t we? There are new schools, a less corrupt army and police force, a growing economy, evenly distributed electricity for every Iraqi, an influx of expatriates willing (in many cases for the first time in decades) to return home. All in all, it’s grooving along in Iraq. Was it perfect? Of course not, but is it a disastrous failure? Only if we follow the counsel of the terrorist appeasers’ and cut and run from the country.
All this feigned concern about civilian deaths and irresponsibility from liberals and their troll sheep. Was there a peep about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia murdered by Saddam during his reign? Or of the millions displaced and killed in Cambodia and Vietnam? What about Vukovar? How about Rwanda? Hmmm, it seems the liberals don’t want American intervention until they want American intervention.
Considering the boatloads of civvies killed and made homeless by our forces during WWII, Korea, Vietnam our efforts in Iraq are extraordinarily light and even gentle. Who can seriously complain about the vastly improved conditions in Iraq now compared with what it was like when the Stalinists’ favorite son, Saddam, was enthroned? You want irresponsibility, read sometime about the hash the UN has made of Kosovo, the Congo, and Haiti. Didn’t a UN appointed Brazilian general commit suicide in Port Au Prince? Terrific work there Kofi. And these are the people folks like you want entrusted with our lives? Oh boy…lol.
This is some sort of a joke isn’t it? Have they built as many schools as they destroyed yet? No.
Electricity for all? No. Supplies even in the main cities are spasmodic at best.
Hospitals and health care? No, infant mortality rates and deaths from water borne diseases are on the increase. A billion dollars has disappeared into Halliburton with no effect to the health system, no drugs, no construction, no nothing to show.
Infrastructure was targeted by the US in the invasion and has largely been ignored by the corporate buddies since.
A less corrupt police force? No, there are numerous credible reports of police militias and death squads and involvement in organized crime.
Expats returning? That really is a sick joke. The middle class technocrats have largely fled, doctors are leaving in droves, teachers can’t be hired and Iraqi construction companies are going broke because they are not being given work by the US corporates or not being paaid.
Stalinists favourite son? Reagan’s “rock in the middle east” don’t you mean?
Terrorist appeasers? I’ll ask one if I ever meet one.
There were plenty of people calling for action in all the situations you mention. Weren’t you listening? Was there a peep out of your own heros in the Reagan administration when he was committing those crimes against humanity? No, they were paying him $1 billion a year to carry on, supplied him with weapons and arms, cheered him on and actively assisted in the gulf war.
I’m not going to grace your ‘gentle occupation’ comment with a response.
You need to read some facts about what is happening. Not ultranationalist cheerleader blogs. Your ignorance of the reality is stunning.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Here’s some good stuff about not only the peacenik Leftists but also Oil for blood,
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Here are some book recommendations on insurgencies, and are also quite entertaining to read. Fictional, but quite adequate as a primer’s guide to insurgency warfare, as it removes all the technical-military gobbly gook. And it’s free.
From what I’ve read of steve’s comments and beliefs, and the implications of his meta-concept, steve is arguing basically that the resistance is justified to do anything to resist, simply because the resistance has done anything to resist in historical terms. Again, a reminder to people that history isn’t a cut and paste exercise, so be wary of any specific application of it that is bereft of the big picture.
Not delving into the “ends justify the means” problem with steve’s beliefs, there is still one other problem that can be mentioned. In addition to the ends justify the means derivation of steve’s position, we also have the situation in which if the resistance is justified in doing anything because they are the resistance, then the United States of American is then justified in retaliation to use any and all means at our disposal to glass the place over, poison the water supply, and otherwise lay siege to the environment and people.
Steve, is in effect almost requiring that the United States destroy all opposition with the maximum of force. He offers no variation in what type of resistance is justified, so why should those who are resisted vary our response? That is the logical trap steve does not recognize. I’d rather see into someone’s soul and pinpoint their logical premises, rather than go forever arguing with them based upon just what they say they believe.
If people don’t want to analyze their own beliefs and look within themselves, then I’ll just do it for them, although what I find is probably the reason these people don’t look within using introspection.
Without the experience and knowledge of military history or the human condition, people cannot be convinced otherwise on a simple written correspondence like a blog. Blogs provide information, but information without context is useless to any individual.
I don’t consider steve’s rather biased anti-colonialist and anti-occupation policies in favor of the historical justification of insurgent retaliation, very objective.
I consider objectivity the comprehension of both the strengths and weaknesses of both the occupation and the insurgency. In historical terms, there are always layers to the cultural, political, and military aspects between the occupation forces like Britain and the insurgency, like the AMerican rebels.
Steve does not comprehend the strengths of America. This presents a gaping maw that no objectivity may result from, irrespective of his inaccurate historical premises.
What is embarassingly relevant to the issue is that the United States is justified in using maximum force against an insurgency that is itself using maximum force, this tends to go both ways. When the occupation exceeds the maximum violence tolerable by the population, then the insurgents then become justified in raising their actions to a higher maximum violence threshold as a response, since now people will consider it justified rather than extreme.
Steve’s comments show why he is incredibly biased, and in no position to claim any kind of objectivity.
No you haven’t. Electricity, sewage , health care facilities and accessability remain well below pre-invasion levels. Preventable disease is on the rise - unemployment is at 50%, inflation is massive while living wages have decreased. Billions of dollars in reconstruction money unaccounted for infrastructure in shambles while Iraqi workers and companies who did a fine job of rebuilding the damage twiddle their thumbs while multinationals do comparitively nothing to aleviate the suffering. Oil production and output remain well below pre-invasion levels. No it’s not perfect. The fact is it way worse than when Saddam was in power. Iraqis economy swindled by mulitnational corporations while Iraqis starve. Is that progress? For who?
Steve has described numerous negative things in his list and zero positives and at the end of it all he says it is still not perfect, is this a reason for us to believe steve is objective since he says it is “not perfect”? How could it be more perfect in steve’s view, would Iraq being a total disaster be “perfect” as the case may be?
What kind of objective person seeks perfection anyway, whose side is steve on, given that perfection is different for terroists and Americans? Whose perfection is steve saying has not been achieved yet?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
That’s some funny stuff, Captain.
Why would you do it? Seems a little insane to me.
I already know human beings are irrational ; )
Sally, I know, doesn’t agree with that point you made and the same point Neo made, and Wasp has already told us his reasons for his words to Confude.
Tell me mate - steve
Another Australian?
I have to agree. I’m done. I’ve wasted my time.
Don’t worry, I still read what you wrote, even if I skipped the responses. Well, mostly anyway.
I make an observation only, that steve will argue with Sally and talk about G’s lack of independent analysis, but since I’ve made two such independent analysis, steve instead chooses to pick an argument with people like Sally and G rather than with the independent analysis of steve’s beliefs and criticisms.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve: Hard to see how you arrive at the conclusion that I’m defending them based on what I’ve written.
Here’s what you wrote: “It’s [’insurgents’ killing their own people] not controversial because history is very consistant in showing that resistance targets collaberators.”
Here’s what that “resistance” targeted: a famous Shiite mosque, a pet shop, a nursing home, etc. — all examples of what I assume in your book are “collaborators”.
From that I infer that you and the “resistence” see eye-to-eye, and I arrive at the conclusion that you’re defending them.
I also note your abstraction of the “occupation/resistence” paradigm from any moral context — as though die-hard nazis fighting occupying allies had the same moral stature as those resisting the nazi occupiers.
I’m sorry to sound harsh about this, Steve. Maybe you’re just naive. But it’s a real and too often, sadly, a nasty world out there, and you’ll need to deal with situations, quite different from classrooms or blogs, that present you with real choices, however imperfect. I think it’s you looked at where your own value judgments are leading you.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“At 6:45 AM, June 23, 2006, Captain Wrath said…
And so it goes. I give some of you credit for persistence, and some for sincerity, but its pointless.”
I have to agree. I’m done. I’ve wasted my time.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve,
Well, just so you know, my first warning bell for dealing with you is the play on the screen name so early on. Does not bode well. But, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
You just stated to Sally that:
“you’ve left out a sizeable portion of objective observation to arrive at your position. I have not.”
I don’t think that’s true, frankly. I can’t believe that you can’t think of even one other factor that contributed to the current state of Iraq and Iraqis.
You mention wars.
Sure. Wars are certainly traumatizing. That is a good point.
You mention sanctions. Well, yes again, sanctions are meant to engender hardship, so its hard to argue that in principle.
Occupation? Sure, occupation, no matter what the circumstances has GOT to have an effect on a populace.
I am just really unsure as to why you have not mentioned something else. Are you really unsure, or are you being coy? Think, Steve, what else may have had a real bigh affect on the current state of Iraq and its people?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
WearyG wrote:
“No, I would like you to think about it. What other contributing factors could there be to the state of the Iraqis today? There are only three?”
WearySteve replys:
I have thought about it G. And I think I’ve explained my position in the preceeding posts. If you have any specific questions about them I’m happy to respond.
Probably better to offer your own analysis - you clearly take issue with my point(which I stand by) - offer your rebuttle.
Lets not quibble - get on with it….
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“Well, either your intelligence or your moral judgement (or both) has taken a big plunge. The people you’re defending as resistance fighters have targeted world-historical mosques, have tortured their prisoners before murdering them, have done their worst to destroy the infrostructure of the country that the supposed plunderers are doing their best to build up. And when they slaughter their own people in open markets, in nursing homes, in pet shops — you side with the butchers and call those innocent people trying simply to live their lives “collaborators”. And you think you can make that kind of moral filth come clean with the cheap and easy sentence “Killing is wrong”.”
Hard to see how you arrive at the conclusion that I’m defending them based on what I’ve written. Your being dishonest, Sally.
I’m merely pointing to the fact that insurgents, resistance in occuppied countries often do immoral acts. Undisputable. I don’t have to pick a side. It’s an objective observation. And it’s a historical truism. Jewish collaborators were assassinated by Jewish resistance in Nazi occuppied Europe. American’s did it during the Civil war. And on and on. Is that terribly difficult to understand? Sure people with the means and collective ability to inflict there own personal expressions of violence will always find an outlet in war - again, objective observation. The methods, motivation are a convienient sideshow for apologists for colonialist aggression. Again a historical truism. Take your pick.
I understand how you feel about it. You have chosen a side. And you’ve left out a sizeable portion of objective observation to arrive at your position. I have not.
No need to throw the insults around Sally. You don’t agree. Fair enough.
But please don’t misrepresent what I am saying….
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve,
No, I would like you to think about it. What other contributing factors could there be to the state of the Iraqis today? There are only three?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve: It’s not controversial because history is very consistant in showing that resistance targets collaberators. Killing is wrong. I’m just not willing to subscribe the immorality to those under military occupation - plundering the country.
Well, either your intelligence or your moral judgement (or both) has taken a big plunge. The people you’re defending as resistance fighters have targeted world-historical mosques, have tortured their prisoners before murdering them, have done their worst to destroy the infrostructure of the country that the supposed plunderers are doing their best to build up. And when they slaughter their own people in open markets, in nursing homes, in pet shops — you side with the butchers and call those innocent people trying simply to live their lives “collaborators”. And you think you can make that kind of moral filth come clean with the cheap and easy sentence “Killing is wrong”.
No, Steve, sometimes you can’t just sit on a fence — whether you know it or not, you’ve chosen your side. Live with it.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I don’t know. Maybe you’d like to tell me?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve,
You are lamenting the current plight of Iraqis, and mention three contributing factors…
“…three wars, 12 years of sanctions, a corrupt occuption and no end in sight.”
Any other contributing factors that might help explain the current plight or Iraqis?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
WearyG wrote:
“What is missing here?”
Steve wrote:
“Do tell”.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
How to Talk To a Troll If You Must
From smalldeadanimals
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Don’t know.
Tell me….
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“You sound like a sincere young man, at least as far as I can tell so far, but a naive and politically confused one, to say the least. You say no one supports the war. You claim to “know” things “with absolute certainty”. You believe that your views are the product of pure logic, untouched by ideology, conscious or unconscious. You equate “neoconservatism” with fascism without giving the slightest indication that you understand either term.”
Yes I do - “lipstick on a pig” - the short version - but if you require a more serious analysis I’m happy to oblige. Why don’t you tell me how neoconservatism differs from fascism?
“You say that the targeting and slaughtering of their own people by “insurgents” (never “terrorists”!) isn’t “in anyway controversial” — though another person might think it would be a bit “controversial” to the targets at least — but then a couple of sentences later you say that it’s wrong.”
I probably should have said “predicitable” maybe that would have been easier for you to understand. And it is wrong - but embarassingly irrelevant to the issue, as I’ve said.
“Even more despicable, you say that most Iraqis also support the insurgency in it’s attacks on U.S and allied troops - if not on Iraqi civilians”, but a couple of sentences later you recognize that the insurgents’ purpose in attacking their own people is precisely to “install fear amongst the population to disuade them from cooperating with U.S troops and others” — why, you might stop long enough to ask yourself, would they want to instill or install fear in their own people if their own people already support them?”
What’s despicable? Pointing out the facts? Whats so hard to understand? that Iraqi see the U.S as an invading, negative force(poll and poll clearly show) and that resistance is legitimate. Nobody wants to be caught in a cross fire or targeted for coolaberating with the enemey - but whose fault is that? It’s not controversial because history is very consistant in showing that resistance targets collaberators. Killing is wrong. I’m just not willing to subscribe the immorality to those under military occupation - plundering the country. That is more wrong - and the source of all other wrongs that follow.
Uncontroversially.
By the way - I do read Frontpage. Often. And Horowitz whose level of analysis is a grade 3 level. Or lower. And he’s got an annoying habit of lying. He really should stop that.
Now go one and tell me that Chomksy does to. And then provide the tired examples of “jew hating” “U.S hating” etc nonsense that are as ridiculously easy to refute as it is to prove Horowitz is an irrelevant hack.
You seem like a reasonable person Sally - why would you embarrass yourself by defending Horowitz?
Do tell….
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Steve,
“Gentle? Wow. How’s that for intelligent analysis. Good models for comparison lol. See my above post and others for the current plight of Iraqis after three wars, 12 years of sanctions, a corrupt occuption and no end in sight.”
What’s missing here?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
thatguy wrote:
“Haven’t we? There are new schools, a less corrupt army and police force, a growing economy, evenly distributed electricity for every Iraqi, an influx of expatriates willing (in many cases for the first time in decades) to return home. All in all, it’s grooving along in Iraq. Was it perfect? Of course not, but is it a disastrous failure? Only if we follow the counsel of the terrorist appeasers’ and cut and run from the country.”
No you haven’t. Electricity, sewage , health care facilities and accessability remain well below pre-invasion levels. Preventable disease is on the rise - unemployment is at 50%, inflation is massive while living wages have decreased. Billions of dollars in reconstruction money unaccounted for infrastructure in shambles while Iraqi workers and companies who did a fine job of rebuilding the damage twiddle their thumbs while multinationals do comparitively nothing to aleviate the suffering. Oil production and output remain well below pre-invasion levels. No it’s not perfect. The fact is it way worse than when Saddam was in power. Iraqis economy swindled by mulitnational corporations while Iraqis starve. Is that progress? For who?
“All this feigned concern about civilian deaths and irresponsibility from liberals and their troll sheep. Was there a peep about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia murdered by Saddam during his reign? Or of the millions displaced and killed in Cambodia and Vietnam? What about Vukovar? How about Rwanda? Hmmm, it seems the liberals don’t want American intervention until they want American intervention.”
Tell me mate - how would you know there was nary a peep from the left about civilian deaths during Saddam’s time? Where were you? You ‘ve got to be joking? Is this a point?
Same with displaced populations in Cambodia and Vietnam. I guess you missed the fact that the U.S dropped more tonnage of bombs on Indochina than was dropped during the entire Second World War - but I suppose that had nothing to do with it lol. Unbelievable.
“Considering the boatloads of civvies killed and made homeless by our forces during WWII, Korea, Vietnam our efforts in Iraq are extraordinarily light and even gentle.”
Gentle? Wow. How’s that for intelligent analysis. Good models for comparison lol. See my above post and others for the current plight of Iraqis after three wars, 12 years of sanctions, a corrupt occuption and no end in sight. Unbelievable….
“Who can seriously complain about the vastly improved conditions in Iraq now compared with what it was like when the Stalinists’ favorite son, Saddam, was enthroned? You want irresponsibility, read sometime about the hash the UN has made of Kosovo, the Congo, and Haiti. Didn’t a UN appointed Brazilian general commit suicide in Port Au Prince? Terrific work there Kofi. And these are the people folks like you want entrusted with our lives? Oh boy…lol.”
No comment. And this type of innane nonsense derserves none.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Confud says:
“I don’t think anyone is showing concern, mock or otherwise with regard to the insurgents. The civilian population is your legal and moral responsibility under the conventions and your forces and administration are ignoring their responsibilities. You invade, you take responsibility.”
Haven’t we? There are new schools, a less corrupt army and police force, a growing economy, evenly distributed electricity for every Iraqi, an influx of expatriates willing (in many cases for the first time in decades) to return home. All in all, it’s grooving along in Iraq. Was it perfect? Of course not, but is it a disastrous failure? Only if we follow the counsel of the terrorist appeasers’ and cut and run from the country.
All this feigned concern about civilian deaths and irresponsibility from liberals and their troll sheep. Was there a peep about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia murdered by Saddam during his reign? Or of the millions displaced and killed in Cambodia and Vietnam? What about Vukovar? How about Rwanda? Hmmm, it seems the liberals don’t want American intervention until they want American intervention.
Considering the boatloads of civvies killed and made homeless by our forces during WWII, Korea, Vietnam our efforts in Iraq are extraordinarily light and even gentle. Who can seriously complain about the vastly improved conditions in Iraq now compared with what it was like when the Stalinists’ favorite son, Saddam, was enthroned? You want irresponsibility, read sometime about the hash the UN has made of Kosovo, the Congo, and Haiti. Didn’t a UN appointed Brazilian general commit suicide in Port Au Prince? Terrific work there Kofi. And these are the people folks like you want entrusted with our lives? Oh boy…lol.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
And so it goes. I give some of you credit for persistence, and some for sincerity, but its pointless.
Again, you don’t win an argument with a Troll, because they are not arguing. They are playing an free internet video game similar to Pong.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong)
You THINK you are having a discussion, but they playing with their mental paddle, not really examining your reasoning or considering your argument, but-
WHAP!
They swat it back.
You prove them wrong on a particul-
WHAP!
You show they misquoted-
WHAP!
You point a flaw in their log-
WHAP!
You use their own quotes to show they contradict thems-
WHAP!
And so it goes.
You hear various arguments in your head and sound out your own reasoning and all they hear is-
Bleep! Bloop! Bleep! Bloop! Bleep! Bleep!
The equivalent of this is playing Chess with someone you KNOW is going to rearrange the pieces everytime you use the bathroom or look away. Why would you do it? Seems a little insane to me.
The only format to do this is one in which Trolls are whacked when they act up. If you delete their comments and/or ban for their stupidity, they lose their motivation which is to be a public pain in the ass. There is a penalty incurred for being a jerk, one they can’t ignore.
I used to have a radio show in college, and we took calls. Invariably you would have the prank caller, the antecedent to the Troll. Similar to Trolls, the goal was not engaging in any substantive debate, but to spew some invective or blather some shakey point or simply just curse on air.
If you tried to engage this person, whether on the air or even after he or you had hung up (by mocking or taunting him) it was that much more motivation for them to keep calling in. They were losers who got off on being annoying and being noticed.
The correct way to handle someone like that was to cut them off, act as if nothing much happened, and try to screen them out on the next call. Without the cheap thrill of conflict and the more important “validation” that a public response gave them, most would give up and seek other ways to be annoying.
Comment threads are the same deal. Trolls are NOT looking to argue points, but to act out. The chance to do it publicly, where people are forced to experience the tantrum makes it all the more alluring. There is also the added thrill of destruction, in that decent conversation is rail-roaded into inane areas.
Barring the ability to keep the Trolls out, do not feed them.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Ariel said…
We, and others, spend so much time on US transgressions that all forget the rest of the world makes its own mischief. Remember the Cubans in Angola?
Or actual UN sanctioned, legal by international law, US actions are remember as illegal. Such as the actions in the Persian Gulf in the late 80’s.
The Russians, the French and the Cubans didn’t declare war and invade Iraq on false pretences and aren’t currently occupying it.
Regarding the 1sr gulf war, despite your wiki stuff, there were numerous violations by the US. US warships fired on Iranian naval, coastguard and customs boats carrying out legitimate searches of ships and the attacks on the oil loading facilities were clear breaches of the mandate.
The mandate was a construct anyway as you mentioned. The goal was to assist Saddam quite clearly. Reagan was constantly carrying on about Iranian aggression despite the fact that Saddam had invaded Iran, not the other way around.
I never expected another US president could damage your international standing like Reagan did. Boy, how wrong that was.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
The United States has become about 100 times as powerful with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. True power comes from the people, and terrorism has once again done the one thing you should not do, wake the giant and then use a sheep as an animal shield to protect yourself.
Not going to work, we after all, have more than one eye. With all those Predator UAVs around, our eyes are beyond counting, especially with the new generation, Dominators and what not.
What people like steve and confude do not understand, is how to solve human problems using human methods. Their solutions are inevitably, out of synch with reality in one respect or another.
If their beliefs or structures, philosophies and systems, were superior to the United States, then they’d be the superpower and the one gifted by the providence of whatever god you believe exists instead of the people of the United States of America.
The boss is the boss, is the boss.
However many times you argue, and complain, and produce wretched sickness of misery, the boss is still the boss and you still hold the same job as you did before you complained.
If I ever had to mold the US into the caricature of Confude and steve’s view of things, I’d have to tear up the Constitution and institute some special assassinations for VIPs.
The center cannot hold, with such a mishmash of bitebacks.
VDH has a writing on the biteback effect if you want to know more about it.
It is simply a person saying one thing, and the opposite is true. Sky is red, sky is blue. Americans kill civilians, American support dictators, and Americans conduct military adventures for profit.
In the end, the only question that matters is, can we kill them now? If we can kill them now, don’t tell me we’re evil for doing something we have not yet done but are still capable of doing.
The US can destroy the world 5 times over with nuclear submarine ballistic MIRVs alone. No other nation or people or coalition has proven themselves worthy of such power nor responsibility in the history of the human race.
The US is the ultimate example of meritorious gladiatorial combat to the death, he who survives wins.
People back in the 80s were writing about how nuclear fire will destroy the human race, because we have not become any better than our forefathers in our nature. While the thing about our human natures might be feel, it is not completely true that humanity has not advanced. One of the reasons, I believe, that prevents warfare is a direct line of communication between the potential enemies. Miscommunication, misunderstandings, and wars of “blood feuds” only occur if two people don’t speak the same language and don’t have diplomatic connections in order to resolve conflict.
Humans distrust each other, almost by instinct, if you don’t speak the same language, have