Yes there needs to be a serious alternative presented to the joint Republicrat/Demoplican (Howard Dean is now on George W Bush’s side) vision of endless occupation in Iraq.
We need to admit that both sides of the single payer political party in the United States are the problem. Forget the Demoplicans, if you’re still waiting for them to “get their act together”. They’ve got it together : they’ve cut a deal with the corporate/pac money machine wherein they don’t even have to win elections anymore, all they have to do is foreclose any alternative to the present regime by taking up all the political room outside the Republicrat party, and they get paid just as though they were a real alternative party.
Wake up, realize that you’ve been betrayed enough, and work for a third way.
Or it will be 2008 and Hillary Clinton will be continuing the Iraqi occupation and doing what she’s told by the powers that be in Greater Israel.
Defending a basic injustice requires a fulltime occupation, in Palestine or in Iraq.
Posted by John Francis Lee on May 5, 2005 at 6:17 AM
Naomi,
If there is every a terrorist award show you should be the first recipient of the Al Zarqawi Humanitarian award.
You said:
** Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques—barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq.**
Earth to Naomi…your so called armed resistance targeting innocent civilians are what we call terrorists. If you believe a terrorist that kills Iraqi civilians applying for work or praying serves anybody’s interests except a bunch radical extremists hell bent on killing everybody not just like them, then you are delusional. I know the “I Hate America Thing” is big with Progressives, but I had no idea it was this extreme.
You fabricate so many points to make your argument that only a small segment of blind followers could rally behind your arguments. That’s why your movement has no traction. The same people who could follow this malarkey are the same people who can be convinced to strap on a bomb vest and go kill a group of innocent men, women and children while their leaders stand behind and snicker.
I hope for the good our country, the group you are trying to rally remains small and fractured.
Posted by U Scare Me on May 5, 2005 at 8:10 AM
Naomi, you dropped the ball with this one. You may or may not be right about the value of the US opposition adopting a pro-democracy platform in lieu of an anti-war one, but if so, that policy should be directed at restoring the US government, not Iraq’s. Your identification with the insurrection, no matter how you try to clean it up with the non-violent examples, is a built-in suicide machine for any group that adopts it. I have read a lot of your stuff, and you should know better.
Posted by old grey ent on May 5, 2005 at 9:15 AM
Naomi - Thank you for the continued thoughtful expose of this War Without Borders - Against Terrorism.
You are a favoruie always capable of sincere writing. I am opposed to the use of the term “Insurgents” to condemn the efforts of those fighting against the occupation of their country. Would we not do the same? Another favorite - Juan Cole - always uses the term “guerrillas” in his Informed Comment.
How many innocents will die in this slaughter?
Posted by Millie on May 5, 2005 at 9:30 AM
USM,
You’ve got it wrong, it’s “We Love Our Country” and are sick to death of the Republicans lying about every aspect of this “crusade”. If we ever really meant to build Iraq back up, then why is the reconstruction almost 100% foreigners? How is that aiding in job creation? Where’s the 9B dollars from the oil pumped under our jurisdiction? Where is the over 100M dollars “missing” from unregulated reconstruction efforts? History will show this to be the biggest boondoggle in US history.
I guess the same people who follow your malarkey are the ones who go to church recruiting events for the military. When you think about it, when they recruit from mosques to drive out the occupiers, they’re terrorists. When we recruit from churches to occupy, we’re patriots. There’s something very wrong with that picture.
And don’t you dare come back talking trash about how unpatriotic I am. I LOVE this country, and I am madder than heck about all the lies Bush Co. has and is spreading, to the detriment of our people and our economy. To me, people who blindly defend this farce are the traitors.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 9:51 AM
Naomi,
Well said.
By the way,U Scare Me,many right-wing posters make the accusation that left-wingers fabricate their arguments.In this case,since you’ve made this accusation,what has Naomi fabricated?
Posted by wwoods on May 5, 2005 at 9:53 AM
Bombing innocent people, children and woman in citys from billion dollar planes makes you a freedom fighter.
Using a $500 dollar car bomb makes you a vicious terrorist.
Such double standards make the rest of the world laugh at the U$ and it´s citizens who re-elected (supposedly) the neo-nazi, war hungry ignorant texas cow boy/ president.
americans are hated around the world, as they never were before.
Thank you(right wing, fascist, cons, born again christian terrorists) for you stupidity and good luck, you will need lot´s of it.
Posted by v on May 5, 2005 at 9:56 AM
p.s.
“I hope…the group you are trying to rally remains small and fractured.
this group is about 3- 4 billion strong, made up of the rest of the world.
Posted by vince on May 5, 2005 at 10:02 AM
“u scare me”:
(about the labeling of Iraqi violence perpetrators) If you honestly, without bias, choose to believe that people are not going to defend their country if attacked, then please read a book about it first. No, not “Treason”, by Ann Coulter, or I Told You So”, by Rush Limbaugh, but one with actual facts in it. I suggest Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” followed by something on nationalism, like “People Versus States”, by Tedd Robert Gurr. Then do some more reading on your own.
You’ll begin to find out, “u scare me”, that people do not care if it is the lousiest piece-of-crap country they have and if you just saved their ass from a dictator - they will want you out and they will defend their country, no matter what, to the death. Many more books with (facts in them and evidence, too!) like these, “u scare me”, will tell you why. For our purposes, we only need know the what.
Put in another way, “u scare me”, our occupation is kind of like this: if you and your freedom-lovin’ redneck pals came into my home, i would at first be really scared. Maybe I would thank you, depending on how bad my house was. Eventually, though, I would fight back - no matter how nice you were to me. I would kick you out or die tryin’. Did we not learn this in Vietnam, “u scare me”? Do you enjoy having half of every tax dollar you pay go to a cause that creates more bin Ladens by the day?
So go ahead, “u scare me”. Call them terrorists. What does a label matter? We went in, got rid of Saddam, and it’s now time to get out. This is their way of telling us to get the ‘f’ out. They will not ever back down until we are gone. How hard is this to realize? How much more violence, death, money? Wouldn’t you want the same thing - no matter how righteous you rednecks think the US is?
Let’s get the hell out of Iraq now, before we go bankrupt. And before we lose more young men and women to death, dismemberment, and psychological illness.
Posted by tw on May 5, 2005 at 10:17 AM
How to end the war?
Impeach Bush.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on May 5, 2005 at 11:26 AM
testing comment follow-up functionality.
Posted by test on May 5, 2005 at 11:49 AM
To anyone critical of Naomi Klien,and her observations and opinions,just remember that she went to Iraq and has seen for herself what’s going on over there.If any of you haven’t,then you’re just talking out of your fart factory,and your opinion means squat!
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 11:54 AM
I can’t say it surprises me that public opinion against the invasion of Iraq is mounting, but it also doesn’t surprise me that there hasn’t been mounting public pressure for an end to the occupation. Many of the Americans who initially supported the invasion did so out of fear and a desire for revenge due to 9/11 (which was exploited by the current administration).
The passion for blood is intense and short lived. Once that passion is exhausted, we are left a policy of mass murder that has to rationalized in order for its supporters to live with themselves. As with Vietnam, the supporters of the invasion are trying to justify our continued oppression of an occupied country on the basis that the situation needs to be “stabilized” and that we can’t “cut and run.”
These concerns represent nothing more than the American people’s refusal to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was, and is, wrong. It seems to me that we are using our military power as a means to avoid suffering the judgment of the world.
In the meantime, we are bankrupting our national resources pursuing a hunt for monsters without end, we are inspring terrorist attacks against our allies and ourselves, and we have allowed our government to diminish our freedoms based on the unfulfilled promise of security.
Posted by David RICE on May 5, 2005 at 12:02 PM
The U.S. is trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and on any further fronts they create, by the greed of “our” leaders only.
If “we” weren’t so frightened of losing (sharing) these “franchises” with the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, we could pull out many troops right now. As long as we followed the other suggestions in this article, such as switching from building permanent bases, stealing billions of dollars of oil money, and reconstruction money, to helping with actual reconstruction through advising skilled Iraqis as to what we’ll let them have their own money to build next. Still no electricity, water, phone over most of the country? No plumbing? God damn, people, what do we expect them to tolerate from our lying leaders in the fading name of their ex-dictator and public relations about the unknown freedoms they have never even tasted?
They want their f**king food to continue! Is that too much to ask??
Posted by B. Allan Ross on May 5, 2005 at 12:07 PM
And another thing,I’m sick and tired of listening to the disingenuious macho posturing from the ‘we support Bush cause we’re too scared of the world crowd’.You people are pussies!!So there,na nana nana na!Plbbbbbbt!...Damn,that felt good. Peace.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 12:23 PM
I think I know what they are looking for and it’s not what anyone thinks. They are looking for something which they value more than oil! I hope to God they don’t find it!
Posted by Rubytuesday on May 5, 2005 at 12:24 PM
Want to stop war? Stop funding it:
http://www.taxableincome.net/ read and follw through.
Use consituitional money: Silver and Gold.
libertydollar.org
e-gold.com pecunix.com 1mdc.com goldmoney.com
Posted by freedom lover on May 5, 2005 at 12:31 PM
“How to End the War” is a well-thought-out and insightful prescription of how to achieve democracy. The only problem is that it should be applied first to our country, then we can advise others to follow our example. Right now it is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Posted by One of Joy on May 5, 2005 at 12:48 PM
EXACTLY, One.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 12:52 PM
I don’t even know where to start, but I guess “The Occupation” is as good as any.
Because ones sees construction equipment fortifying a military base in Iraq doesn’t mean occupation. What Russia did with the Soviet States is an occupation. By your definition we occupied Europe and Japan after WW2, when the truth is we stayed long enough to stabilize the governments of these countries and left. South Korea was invaded by the communist North and we helped drive them back. The South Korean government asked us to maintain a military presence. By your definition this would be an occupation.
Can you point to any statement by anyone in this administration that has said occupation is our goal? No, you can’t. The stated goal is to be there long enough to stabilize the government and leave. You can read tea leaves or read tarot cards and cook up any theory you want, but these are the facts. Pointing to some conspiracy theorist that wrote a book doesn’t make it true either.
Here is another jewel from Naomi:
**Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our direction from them.**
The vast majority of Iraqis are against the terrorists. Remember the elections!! The “Iraqis fighting to end the occupation” are in fact Saddam loyalists and non-Iraqis, led by a top Al Qaeda operative continuing what occurred before the war and that is killing Iraqis who want a stable and free country. The people Naomi wants you to take direction from are stated enemies of both America and Iraq. Follow Naomi’s advice and YOU become an enemy of America. Ever hear of TREASON.
You can hate Bush, religious people, Southerners, Republicans or any other group you choose. You can protest, march and do any number of things to show your opposition and attempt to get a majority of Americans to agree with you. Following Naomi’s advice and taking “active and tangible solidarity” with stated enemies of our country is a dangerous and destructive path. And YES, it is unpatriotic.
Posted by U Scare Me on May 5, 2005 at 1:06 PM
USM,Naomi was there,you were’nt.you could start by getting a clue.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 1:20 PM
In Europe,we didn’t try to change them,we stayed long enough to help them after helping to defend them against a FOREIGN power.In Iraq,we are the foreign power.South Korea ASKED US to remain to help them.Did Iraq?USM,you’re comparing apples to oranges,but such is the ‘logic’ that allows Bush and company to keep perpetrating this farce….Just so much macho posturing.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 1:36 PM
An election where people didn’t even know the names of the candidates or their qualifications until they were at the polling booth. Where only a portion of the electorate voted, and , where they still don’t have a functioning governing body 5 months later with little hope of them doing so in the near future. What a joke!
Also, the Sunni’s are allied with Iran, not the USA. As soon as things get rolling, they’ll kick our butts out and pair up with Tehran. The Sunnis will pair up with Syria, Egypt and the other Sunni dominated states of the Middle East. It is a no win situation.
The people that support this war are the traitors.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 1:37 PM
To return to the actual article under discussion, I think that Naomi Klein is absolutely right in advocating support for the Iraqi resistance. She is dead-on when she says that “Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country.” We must cripple the American war machine and lend all possible material support to those suffering its wrath. We cannot pick-and-choose what resistance movements to support based on their use of violent tactics. To do so would be to take advantage of our position in the Empire and replicate capitalist inequalities within the global justice movement.
Klein’s position is in contrast to that of most of the anti-war “movement.” Most ‘liberals’ were against the war, but now think that the US needs to stay to pacify the unrest and create an environment suitable for “democracy.” There are a few obvious problems with this stance:
1) The occupation is the cause of, not solution to the violence.
2) The US is NOT establishing democracy in Iraq and it never will. If the American imperialist agressor stays, it will only be to establish a puppet government (that will enforce IMF agreements and follow Paul Bremer’s Neoliberal edicts, of course.) If it leaves, the country may well end up under a tyranny, but at least it will be an IRAQI tyranny that the Iraqis can one day dispose of. At least an Iraqi tyranny wouldn’t blast depleted uranium around the country, creating radioactive contamination to last for centuries. Iraq is part of a historical pattern of colonialism; the US NEVER allows democratic rule unless in accord with its own imperial interests. Always remember, to further US interests: democracy if possible, dictatorship if necessary. A cursory glance at the history of Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Middle East will show that dictatorship is almost always necessary to satisfy the Empire’s demands.
3) If a government that is even remotely accountable to the Iraqi people is established, it will be under constant pressure from the US to repress Iraqi dissent. It will be forced to repress unions and other resistance to the economic pillage of the country. This is similar to the situation in the Gaza Strip, where an imperialist Israel is forcing the Palestinian Authority to do its dirty work of repressing activism.
4) Although the US gov’t should pay reparations, Iraq doesn’t need us. Iraqis are intelligent, probably more intelligent than most Americans. To maintain that the Iraqis depend on the benevolent aid of a paternal Uncle Sam to establish self-rule and reconstruct the country is to fall into Orientalist, “White Man’s Burden” patterns of thinking that date back to the days of the original European colonialism. Get off your high horse, Westerner, and get the US out of Iraq NOW.
US out of EVERYWHERE!
Posted by Erik Forman on May 5, 2005 at 1:50 PM
Whats the truth?,
I wasn’t on Omaha Beach on D Day but I’ve read and seen many accounts of people who were, both German and American.
I didn’t need to be standing on a beach in Indonesia to understand the devastation of a tsunami.
Naomi isn’t the only person that has been to Iraq and written about what they witnessed.
Based on your standards, “you don’t have a clue if you weren’t there”, we can just can our educational system. Most of what you learn is taught by people who haven’t done it or been there.
Your argument is very weak at best.
Posted by U Scare Me on May 5, 2005 at 1:52 PM
U Scare Me: Actually, the president himself called the occupation of Iraq “the Occupation of Iraq”
and i would remind you that Thomas Jefferson himself said that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”
and if you think those elections were real then your only fooling yourself
How would you feel if we were invaded for the purpose of bringing “democracy” to america, meanwhile killing over 100K of our people?
you and i and everyone in their right mind would be “insurgents” against the invading forces
BTW - Is our Goverment truely concerned with “democracy”? The US funded Saddam’s rise into power against Iran and he was just as evil then as he is now
Our Government also continued to fund his government with up to 1 million dollars in “aid” all the way up till a year after Amnesty international reported that he had gassed over 5000 of his Kurdish citizens(men women children elderly) using chemicals that the US gave him during his rise to power
and if we are concerned with democracy, what about china? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? North Korea? What about all of the other tyrannical goverments in the world? (some of which we support through funding or helped bring into power)
Posted by boo on May 5, 2005 at 2:00 PM
Margaret,now there’s a fact that no one seems to understand,but I thought that it’s the shiites that are aligned with Iran.Anywho,it would be a cruel irony if we were to build a strong Iraq only to have them join with Iran if and when we invade them.Arabs band together against a common enemy,even if they were fighting amongst themselves.Our fearless leaders don’t seem to understand that,or anything about them.So even if this were a legitimate war,could we win it?A basic strategy of war is to understand your enemy.I guess it’s a reflection of the unbridled arrogance of our fearless leaders and their approach to affairs both foreign and domestic,and why it’s so important that we boot them out of office.Or so it seems to me.
Posted by whats the thuth? on May 5, 2005 at 2:02 PM
USM,what have you read from people that have been there that counters what Naomi claims she witnessed?As usual,your arguement is long on retoric,and rather short on facts.But don’t feel bad,there’s lots of people just like you.Kind of like lemmings.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 2:13 PM
few suggestions:
- Iraqi security should be handed over to a multinational arab force, lead by UN.
(according to the polls in Iraq, large majority wants US to leave.)Wouldn’t this be democracy?
- To do this people (especially in countries that have veto-power) should organize and pressure their governments to democratice the UN.
...well, maybe ain’t easy but you can always dream…
Posted by "old" european on May 5, 2005 at 2:25 PM
As a registered democrat I cannot help but be continually crushed by failure of my party to get it. All you have Ms Klein is an ideological hammer, and all you see are halliburton nails, made by the cato institute whose intention to you is merely to enrich (stockholders, themselves, 401k’s, WHO?)...in short, you have taken the kool aid of Vietnam, and can do nothing else but oppose, and hearing hoofbeats assume zebras parade about somewhere out of sight.
Beneath the new ‘insight’ is the same old same old…oil, Israel, Halliburton. How sad for an opposition. Barely loyal and plainly, outrun by reality.
The bitter truth for you is that like FDR whose moral opposition to germany in the spring of 1941 compelled him to put at risk the men of the US navy in escorting british ships while we were at peace, so today and for similar reasons another president has taken action just as controversial today as that was then. The difference is that that your actions analogize that of America First and the Bund.
This message is brought to you by the FDR HST wing of the democratic party.
Posted by epaminondas on May 5, 2005 at 2:35 PM
USM,
I’ll start with “Occupation” also. Our army in Post-WWII Europe was called “The Occupational Army.” That can’t get any clearer. I remember it well, my dad was part of it. We occupied it and guess what - We’re still there!
South Korea was occupied first by our military then followed closely by our commercial presence. Guess what - We’re still there! So much so, it has become our client state. Representatives of S. Korean government showed up recently at my son’s funeral in California with a plaque for his widow with a piece of the DMZ on it. My son worked for our government. By the way, I’m also a military dependent.
We definitely occupied Japan after WWII. That was also called the Occupational Forces. Guess what - We’re still there! Didn’t you see any old movies like Sayonara? This pattern has been our MO since WWII.
What are you? Very young or uneducated or something? You don’t have a clue as to what the truth is. On top of that, you are publically arguing against and trying to villify a person/people who has been there and seen what is happening.
My point is: We NEVER LEAVE! (unless we’re forced to leave as in Viet Nam) Why don’t you do yourself a favor and look up Occupational Army WWII on Google, the encyclopedia, anywhere. Enlighten yourself, please.
Bush absolutely will not state how long we intend to stay in Iraq. Doesn’t that give you a clue? Iraq is in the beginning stages of a civil war, just as Viet Nam was when we took over occupation (there’s that word again) from the Vichy French.
The unstated goal in Iraq is to get our corporations in there asap and hope their citizens become quickly addicted to capitalism, like we are. This goal was backed up by bringing in the IMF and World Bank just in case the addiction process was too slow. Those two organizations will ensure the money gets where it’s supposed to go. Maybe the corps couldn’t remember what happened when we did the same thing in Iran with the Shah. Perhaps it was either too long ago to matter or they didn’t believe it applied to Iraq. Nobody’s accusing these folks of using their brains - they’re too greedy for that.
Just because the Iraqis loved their elections doesn’t mean they also love our occupation any more than your vote or mine means we love everything going on in this country. Your oversimplifications and sweeping generalizations are dangerous. ALL Iraqi citizens want the end of our occupation, and only SOME of them are our enemies. Get it? All vs some?
By the way you don’t scare me. I’m hoping for your eventual enlightenment.
Posted by One of Joy on May 5, 2005 at 2:37 PM
Epa, what???Sounds like something out of a mental blender.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 2:41 PM
So I am curious, was it a good idea to overthrow Saddam? Naomi would you, right now, be in a better place if he were still there? I know there are a ton of other issues, but I feel it is important to answer that one easy question before you proceed to other things…A simple yes or no would do.
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 3:04 PM
A Terrorist is ‘An Army of One’
—————
The MISSION of the PEACE TRAIN to DC is to deliver a message of PEACE THROUGH CONSERVATION to the WORLD.
http://TantricTravel.com
The MISSION of the Drive 55 Conservation Project is to reduce petroleum consumption by 20%-50%.
http://Drive55.org
Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
SUV: 4,591
Air: 4,123
Bus: 3,729
Car: 3,672
Train: 2,138
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html
According to a 2004 Transportation Research Board report, public transportation:
* Reduces CO2 emissions by more than 7.4 million tons per year in the U.S.
* Produces 95% less CO, at least 92% fewer VOCs, and nearly half as much CO2 and NOx for every passenger mile traveled than private vehicles
The Mission of The NEW ATHENA PROJECT is to encourage a rational ENERGY POLICY
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Athena/
Posted by Tim Castleman on May 5, 2005 at 3:06 PM
Apparently the antiwar Left has forgotton the fact that we were attacked. America did not start this war, but we will finish it. Try to remember the horror of Sept 11, 2001. New York City. Washington DC. World Trade Center. Pentagon. As Pres Bush likes to say “War is want they wanted and war is what they got.” Now we need to go after the other evildoers before they hit us again. If N. Korea drops a nuke on San Francisco we’ll drop thirty on them. If Iran smuggles a nuke into Boston Harbor we’ll turn Mecca and Medina and Jedda (along with Teheran and any other Islam-city worthy of destruction).
Posted by dontbafraid on May 5, 2005 at 3:10 PM
Don’t Be Afraid,
No, Iraq did not attack us. That is another lie that even Bush and Cheney have stated was a wrong assumption. That being, Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11. Please read past articles on this site to become educated on the matter beyond the FOX News soundbite level.
What’s the Truth- Oh, no, ME Bad! I did mean Shiite with Tehran. That’s what happens when you’re trying to get the paperwork ready to ink a deal and blog at the same time! But you got the drift, so I do appeciate you’re catching my hurried mistake. Thanks.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 3:16 PM
Margaret, not to belabor the point, but maybe you could you answer my question. Was it worth it to overthrow Saddam? I know there are more considerations out there, but it is a simple question. Yes or no….
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 3:21 PM
“When WE identify why WE really went to war . . .”
“. . . but are only able to impose in relative slow motion HERE AT HOME.”
“That means being the resistance OURSELVES IN OUR COUNTRY, demanding that the troops come home, that U.S. corporations come home . . .
Last time I checked (5 minutes ago), Ms. Klein is . . . CANADIAN. Born in MONTREAL and living in TORONTO.
As a fellow CANADIAN, I would like to appologize for Ms. Klein’s attempt to impose her imperial Canadian liberal ideas on our neighbours to the South.
Message to the US: Keep up the good work.
Posted by rwparks on May 5, 2005 at 3:21 PM
Curious,
NO.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 3:22 PM
Thanks for being honest Margaret. I am curious, no pun intended, to find out what are the major reasons behind your view that it was not worth it? Are the people suffering more, economic stability, safety, etc….
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 3:27 PM
Curious
I can not answer for Naomi, but I am not in a better place.
1600 of my American brothers and sisters are dead. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead…if you believe the Johns Hopkins study; as many as 100,000 Iraqis have been KILLED by the American invasion/occupation of the Cradle of Civilization.
We, the American tax paying public are out of pocket in excess of $300,000,000,000.00 dollars. Can you think one or two other things our government could do with 300 BILLION dollars? I can.
Saddam was a real son of a bitch. Bush should know, his daddy and that phucking asshole Raygun and Rumsfeld supported him in the 80’s. Raygun sold him weapons about a week after he actually used WMD against the Kurds. LOOK IT UP.
Every single bit of evidence shows that these chicken hawks planned the Iraqi invasion long before OSAMA had the SAUDIS’ fly planes into the World Trade Center.
Go to PNAC and read what this scum brigade had planned. Pay special attention to the part where they talk about world domination and the need for a “Pearl Harbor” type attack to institute the policy. LOOK IT UP.
What happened to getting OSAMA… DEAD OR ALIVE? Saudi
There is an admitted un-accounted $9,000,000,000.00 dollars. LOOK IT UP.
Just today there is another unaccounted $100,000,000.00 dollars. LOOK IT UP.
If you read/watch international news you will certainly see that the Iraqi people are living in squalor.
There is more, but that will be for another day.
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 3:32 PM
Realitybasedbob. Some interesting points. I tried to look up the various points you emphatically mentioned to “look up”. I googled “un-accounted $9,000,000,000.00 dollars” since you left little other direction, and only found two links. One to a crazy rambling tirade at ballaciao.org, here’s a taste:
“Let us purge alternate worlds and parallel universes from our lands, making extinct the sickness that has plagued us for years. We are the solution, not the problem, and inside each of us is the energy that has been imprisoned inside the dungeons of the human animal”
and another to the “Theos-Talk Archives”, apparently an interesting site with a pentagram background and little coherent discussion. I tried a similar search for the “unaccounted $100,000,000.00 dollars” and found three links. One to the Austin Texas city finance site…crazy stuff.
Regardless, I seriously doubt the Iraqi people care to much about purported missing funds on renegade internet sites. Your comment that “If you read/watch international news you will certainly see that the Iraqi people are living in squalor” struck me as the most interesting. What exactly do you think they were living with before? Were they all independently wealthy and vacationing in the Pocono’s? Or were their daughters being raped and family members falsely imprisoned? I wonder.
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 3:46 PM
Curious,
Personally, I’d have to say that my tax dollars could have been better spent than on taking out Saddam Hussain and 100,000+ other people and destroying a country.
Posted by Taxpayer on May 5, 2005 at 3:52 PM
This is the silliest thing I’ve read all day. I’ve got to be more careful about the links I follow. The only thing that really seems to be missing is the smoking gun that Karl Rove and the gang stole the persidential election from Dennis Kucinich in order to maintain control of former Soviet bloc missile silos, which could then be pointed at the dark people of the world.
Have a nice day, but try a cocktail of Haldol and Moban—it’ll do wonders for your paranoia.
Posted by Ken on May 5, 2005 at 3:53 PM
$100m gap’ in US Iraq spending BBC News 5/5/05
US handling of reconstruction has been heavily criticised
US civilian authorities in Iraq have been unable to account properly for nearly $100m (£53m) earmarked for rebuilding, US financial auditors say.
Two audits found signs of potential fraud regarding the money, which includes oil revenue and assets seized from Saddam Hussein’s government.
A third questioned the use of almost $18bn in US taxpayers’ money for reconstruction projects in Iraq.
The audits found “no assurance that fraud, waste and abuse did not occur”.
The US risks fostering a culture of corruption in Iraq
Senator Russ Feingold
Distribution of the funds was first the responsibility of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, and later of an organisation managed by the US embassy in Iraq.
The London Times 5/2/05 Blair confirmed factual.
The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush’s National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, who was there. O’Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to “take out” Saddam. Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb. Again, neither O’Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions. Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth.
This is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg for your skeptics. Would love to put more, but don’t want to clog site.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:09 PM
Taxpayer, I actually don’t disagree with you on that, sincerely. I also think that the government shouldn’t be spending:
$200 million for a bridge in Alaska that would serve an island with 50 residents and
$125 million for a bridge in Anchorage, Alaska
(Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (H.R. 3))
Also, $21.8 billion worth of student loans are in default due to fraud at the Department of Education
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1840.cfm)
And the worst in my opinion, up to $25 billion in “Unrecociled transactions” in the most recent Treasury report, which means that someone spent it, but they don’t know who or for what.
So if money is your only issue, these things should rank pretty high as well correct?
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:14 PM
Naomi:
Well said, well written, but should be labeled for what it is, fiction. I choose to believe the soldiers in the field and the people that I know for certain have been to Iraq. You America haters consider yourselves to be authorities on everything from diplomacy to how to reconstruct a devastated country, to how to run the oil industry, to how to hold elections, to how to fight the insurgents, wrong, terrorists, to what should be built first, as in your idea that there should be cranes in the center of Bahgdad before there is sufficient security built up.
If you dislaike the United States so much, get out, please, we’d be better off without you and your anti-American attitude.
Veteran.
Posted by Larry Clark on May 5, 2005 at 4:16 PM
curious
You should write to your peckerhead president and get one of the new internets. My google search brought up 992,000 links to 9 billion dollars missing in Iraq. The first link was this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
you might use you new internets to find this…i found it on my AOL news front page…yea aol…what about it?
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050504212709990006
whydoncha get back to me on this C
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 4:16 PM
Margaret, all legitimate news stories that should, and will, be flushed out. I agree. But we have gotten off of my original question; if you do think that it was wrong to overthrow Saddam, why do think that? What grounds are you basing that opinion on? Are the people in Iraq better off? Why are you personally so against it, it could not be just because of tax money, we all can find billions of that cash that is being mishandled by the gov….Would we all be better off with Saddam in power?
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:21 PM
Easy tiger, I was just using the words you gave me, nothing less. Don’t expect people to know what exactly you want them to “LOOK UP”. Plus, you don’t even answer the simple question I am asking…Look, I could find billions in government pork that you, me, Nader and everyone else doesn’t agree with. I don’t think that means a lot to the troops on the ground and the people in Iraq.
Maybe we should pose the question like this, if you were an Iraqi, what would you want, and why?? Would you be content with no US intervention and a Saddam regime?
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:26 PM
Much of this discourse is an unfortunate example of why the democrats lost the white house and lost the hill.
As for any missing money. If you ever have done business in the Arab world then you know bribery is the order of the business day. I know this is not a “PC” statement. And I am not attacking the Arab people as whole. It is simply a very real and accepted part of their business practice. If you know any arabs, ask them if there is any trusth the statement. This is very foreign concpet to us (the US), at least so wide spread and accepted.
(This last statement will probably bring a hail storm accusing me of naivety. Of course we have bibery that goes on in the US and certainly Europe, but it pales in comparison to the almost artistic mastery of the institution in the middle east).
I’m sure the US has spent millions, maybe, billions to grease the rails. Reconstruction is a big job. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s deabtable.
How should the US report this expense on the books?
A line item for bribery in the budget with a whole lot of zeros in it? Or report it missing?
Which one is the bigger crime? I’m not sure.
If my assumption is right, is it helping reconstruction and the future of the Iraqi people? I hope so.
Posted by Yo Jimbo on May 5, 2005 at 4:30 PM
Never said money was the primary motivation. I think a couple posts before me pointed out that we have actually killed as many, if not more, innocent civilians than Sadaam did. Not only that, you overlooked the point that Blair and Bush co-conspired to hoodwink their respective constituents with “tweaked” data. Go to <oldamericancentury.org> There’s enough data there to prove the point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
We first went to take out Sadaam because he was a “threat”. We now know that wasn’t true, and that, in fact, so did our administration. The recent Gallup/USA Today poll shows 57% of Americans now believe we were blatantly lied to, 63% think the war wasn’t worth it.
Then it changed to, bringing Democracy. Well, a fake election that has yet to yield viable leadership beyond a prime time news photo op is what we gave them.
We were going to create jobs and help them rebuild. 99% of reconstruction is done by non-Iraqi’s and profits mainly the USA corporate structure. I am a business owner, but I don’t condone cheating people.
Gross mismanagement is rampant, as shown in my prior post.
The following news article also shows we are being drug into a Vietnam not only in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.
Asia Times Online (based in India, our ally)
Taliban profit from US largesse
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - The US, content in the belief that all support systems for the Taliban had been withdrawn and their financial lifelines completely dried up - and with moderate Taliban being drawn into the mainstream political fold in Afghanistan - has been shocked by a new phase of fierce Taliban resistance this spring.
The visits of Lieutenant-General David Barno, commander of US troops in Afghanistan, and chief of US Central Command, General John Abizaid, to Islamabad and their insistence that Pakistan restart a powerful campaign against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is the result of a new realization that the Taliban problem is back to square one.
Not only are the Taliban primed in the latest techniques in guerrilla warfare, they have also got their hands on fresh resources - both in terms of personnel and supplies - which the US had believed were choked off.
Everything, EVERYTHING they told us was the basis for this war is and was a lie. And they weren’t ignorant, just determined.
Go to
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/archives/archive_sound.php
Listen to this interview with Scott Ritter, a retired Marine and former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq. More Bush Co. lies. You have been lied to, as has this whole nation, Curious.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:31 PM
C
In a word, yes
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 4:36 PM
I don’t think there will be a dynamic anti-war movement until there is a draft. THEN, more people will be personally involved. All the reasons to be against the war, of which Naomi is so right-on, are becoming more well-known, but we need more people. And lately I’ve come to think that until there is a draft, it is too easy for people to look the other way.
Posted by susan on May 5, 2005 at 4:37 PM
Curious,
Well, money is certainly one issue, and I would agree with you on the items you mention.
And of course, another issue is the killing.
Posted by Taxpayer on May 5, 2005 at 4:38 PM
TW - you said: “they will want you out and they will defend their country, no matter what, to the death.”
Then why are the “guerillas” blowing up Shia and Kurds 50 at a clip? Is this how Iraqis “defend” their country by killing civilians in the MAJORITY groups? Why are you siding with the MINORITY Sunnis and excusing their barbarity anyway? Is it natural or moral to have a MINORITY group brutally rule the MAJORITY for over 30 years? Were you supporting the MINORITY White Akrikaners against Mandela in South Africa as well? How very odd….
Margaret - I notice that many on the Left constantly repeat the “Bush Lied” mantra when discussing the war. Why do you suppose Bush would use WMD as one of his 3 core reasons for regime change (WMD, ME Democracy, Removing Saddam) if he KNEW it was a lie? If Bush was crafty enough to start a war based on lies, why wouldn’t he plant WMD’s if he KNEW it was a lie?
The problem with the anti-war crowd these days is that they have became so unhinged and their rhetoric has gotten too sloppy that no one can take them seriously anymore.
Posted by Paul on May 5, 2005 at 4:40 PM
Larry,
If you love America like I do, you’d work just as hard as getting leaders who care about the people more than the corporations. Never had a problem with the soldiers doing their job, just the CIC. The Iraq War is about OIL and POWER. I’m sorry that you were lied to and misused. Thank you for your patriotism.End of statement.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:41 PM
Hmmm, we have the White House, Congress, pretty soon the courts, the military, the military industrial complex, most businesses, and most of the guns. It really does not matter what you overly emotional Liberals / Socialists / Marxists / Communists say or do, but enjoy your freedom of speech as you must.
Posted by JAH on May 5, 2005 at 4:43 PM
Paul,
You do not offer one fact, written or otherwise. The problem with people who didn’t research their candidate’s record before they blindly voted is that they have only emotions to rely on. Where’s your proof he didn’t know the truth. All the documents I provided show otherwise. Sorry you have to defend your poor choice for Commander in Chief with nothing but rhetoric.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:44 PM
TW:
If there was any logic to your argument, then we would have lost WWII, Germany would still be Nazi, and Japan would still be run by the militarists, instead of both being democracies today. Of course, if there was any logic behind your argument, then neither Germany nor Japan could have conquered any other nation themselves. Using only Vietnam for comparison is a selective reading of history—good for a cheap point, but unlikely to illuminate anything.
(BTW, I hope you make an exception for any firefighters who might mistakenly think you would be glad of their assistance, even if it involved coming into your home. Perhaps their safest course would to be to simply prevent other houses from catching fire and let you deal with getting yourself our alive.)
Posted by BobC on May 5, 2005 at 4:45 PM
Margaret, thanks for being civil here, unlike others. My problem is this: it is so very easy on either point of view to produce articles, accusations and documents to support your side. I could point to blogs and sites such as Jihadwatch and Democraticwings to 100% refute your thoughts on Afganistan and Iraq. In fact, I just need to turn to today’s news to do that:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200505050807.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1475994,00.html (aghast! A UK paper!)
But we both know it is a pointless endeavor. There will always be papers and blogs and websites that say the complete opposite on this topic. It is so pointless to direct people to this blather….
What I am interested in is personal thoughts, real people, opinions and views not influenced by Fox News or Move On….
Now, in your heart, if you were an Iraqi, how do you think you would feel?!?! We are there now, it is a sunk cost, as the accountants would say, so now let’s just think about it….would they be better off if we just left right now??? Don’t dwell on these conspiracy theories cooked up by these sensationalist sites (on both sides) think in terms of the future!
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:46 PM
Jah,
Do you think you’re god? What’s with Jah? Too much ganga, I guess.
By the way, the Republicans are eliminating democracy and destroying the Constitution, if you haven’t been reading the papers for the last 4 1/2 years. We have only been trying to retain democracy, but I guess you’re another one of those that want the Libertarian view of chaos.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:47 PM
Taxpayer, I agree again. What amount of killing can you “justify”. It is difficult, and only history will tell….
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:49 PM
Realitybasedbob, I can only accept your stance on that. It is more a “macro” disagreement that we will unlikely solve. But I hope those on both of our sides will figure out a way to work together on issues outside Iraq that we do agree on…
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:54 PM
If I were an Iraqi, I would want us out. I would be very angry that I’d been lied to about creating new jobs, stopping the murder and torture. Now we fly them to other countries to do so.
It was an unjustified war. It was a purposeful lie. I’m sorry that you find the London Times, a very conservative, Blair/Bush-supporting paper, sensationalist. But it’s all over the press, all over the world, just not here. Here, we heard about the runaway bride. What a cover up!
But if you’re persuaded that it is the right thing to do, no fact, even if I brought Jesus Christ in here to tell you himself, would not be enough. Seeing that you seem to only wish to invalidate any evidence (Conversational Terrorism 101)as “unworthy”, there is no point in continuing our discussion.
However, much has been gained because the non-neocons (trolls) who come on this site can now see firm data provided for my viewpoint, and little to none to justify what we have done.
Curious, there is no flag big enough to cover the blood of the innocents we have murdered in the name of $.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:54 PM
Margaret, indeed, invoking Jesus Christ is probably a good place to stop this discussion. I would just urge you to continue to read the New York Times, but when it comes to making decisions and taking a stance, use your heart and use your head. Take yourself out of the box we all live in, the over hyped, over sensationalized media box, and think about what is right, and what (in 10-20 years) would you be proud to support. I will sign off for now….
Posted by Curious on May 5, 2005 at 4:59 PM
I love my country
I am ashamed of my country
Tourtue in Abu Graib, Afganastan, Cuba, rendering (out sourcing) tortue to other counties
It is not a good time here in the home of the free
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:00 PM
Curious,
Some would say NO killing is justified. I take a more moderate viewing. I think killing in the name of self-defense is justified (which clearly wasn’t the case in Iraq). I could have easily turned my head and silently assented to an assassination of Saddam Hussain, if that was the true intent of the Iraq invasion (which clearly it wasn’t). Would have been a hell of lot cheaper too! I could justify that based on all the people he has killed.
What has REALLY happened is exactly what Naomi speaks of. This war has nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with controlling oil, establishing military bases, opening new corporate markets, and taxpayer subsidization of corporate-military-industrial profits.
As advanced as our military is, don’t you think they could have taken out Saddam if that was their sole objective?
Posted by Taxpayer on May 5, 2005 at 5:03 PM
Paul,Bush lied to us,period.It’s not a mantra,that’s just a label you use to deny the truth. Curious,there are a lot of dispicable people in the world that we’d be better off without.Why Saddam? Larry,if what Naomi says is fiction,could you please elaborate?Or is this just more broad based assertions unbacked by facts?Why are you Bush/war supporters so averse to fact based debate?Is it because your opinions are based more on what you want to believe than on what’s real?Just curious.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 5:03 PM
I am ashamed of my spelling
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:03 PM
amen taxpayer
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:05 PM
In case you didn’t notice over the last millenium or so there has always been an empire looking to control the world and its resources might as well be a benevolent American empire in my book. a world organized under our capitalist system will only benefit the masses just as it created the most affluent and prosperous people in the world, the Americans! I love left wing wackos like Naomi and the rest of these socialist pigs, they are playing right into our capitalist neo-con hands the more visable and vocal they become the more elections we will win. Did any of you left wing wackos notice that for the first time since the end of the Vietnam war the head of that country is coming to America to bow at the Capitalist alter? I wonder why? Could it be that they finally took a look at the prosperity of Japan, South Korea and other nations we occupied and wished they hadn’t sided with international socialists like Naomi and comrads. Instead they live in a socialist country where everyone being equal means they are all equally impoverished. Now take to streets comrads!
Posted by Robert Scarzino on May 5, 2005 at 5:08 PM
robert
you might want to check your screws
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:10 PM
robert
So when did neo-con capitalist begin evoking Stalinist salutations like comrade?
Why do you hate America?
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:18 PM
Not long after we entered WW2,it became obvious it was the right thing to do.The whole country realized it.And saw it through to the end.Not exactly whats happening today.And by the way,was ‘post traumatic stress syndrome’ a problem for those veterans like it is today?If not,why?Could it be because the WW2 vets never doubted that what they were doing was right?Not exactly whats happening today.To compare WW2 with Iraq is a pathetic and desperate attempt to justify a bad choice.Iraq didn’t attack us.We went to war with them based on a lie.Thats the truth,and all you “we support Bush cause we’re too scared of the world crowd” need to wake up and smell the coffee.You are all scared little pussies!!!
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 5:24 PM
Robert,what empire in history has ever been benevolent?Your comments showcase the arrogance that define empires,and what ultimately results in their downfall.EVERYTIME.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 5:32 PM
truth
I think PTSS is very much evident in WW2 vets. Ever hear of alcoholism? Ever hear about the vets who just don’t/won’t talk about the war….even with their family?
But I think you have a good point.
Did you know that the repuglicans fought tooth and nail to keep us out of the war, to keep the Jewish refugees from coming to America, even when they were on a ship coming here?
Did you know that the great Dem. leader FDR sidestepped the repuglicans in congress by devising “Lend/Lease” with Churchill so that England could re-arm itself?
Think back…when was the last war a repuglican president won? These people are greedy imperialist nothing more, nothing less.
As for scared little pussies, I don’t know, they do have big balls though.
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:36 PM
Michael Kazin on Zinn, cited on this thread, from Dissent, the democratic socialist mag.,
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/kazin.htm
Zinn does reveal a few moments of democratic glory-occasions when “the people,” or at least a politically conscious fraction of them, temporarily broke through the elite’s thick web of lies and coercion. Agrarian rebels formed cooperatives, allied with radical unionists, and charted their own financial system, the subtreasury, which they hoped would break the grip of heartless bankers. But, alas, the Populists were seduced in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan, who sold out their movement to the retrograde Democratic Party. During the Great Depression, wage earners across the industrial Midwest staged heroic sit-down strikes that demonstrated their ability to shut down the economy. But, for unexplained reasons, these working-class heroes allowed CIO unions and the New Deal state to smother their discontent within long-term contracts and bureaucratic procedures. Similarly, the civil rights movement toppled the Southern citadel of Jim Crow without taking on the capitalist system that kept the black masses mired in poverty.
This is history as cynicism. Zinn omits the real choices our left ancestors faced and the true pathos, and drama, of their decisions. In fact, most Populists cheered Bryan and voted for him because he shared their enemies and their vision of a producers’ republic. Unlike Zinn, they grasped the dilemma of third parties in the American electoral system, which Richard Hofstadter likened to honeybees, “once they have stung, they die.” And to bewail the fact that liberal Democrats saw an advantage to supporting rights for unions and minorities is a stunning feat of historical naiveté. Short of revolution, a strategic alliance with one element of “the Establishment” is the only way social movements ever make lasting changes in law and public policy.
Zinn’s conception of American elites is akin to the medieval church’s image of the Devil. For him, a governing class is motivated solely by its appetite for riches and power-and by its fear of losing them. Numerous historians may regard George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton as astute, if seriously flawed, men who erected a structure for the new nation that has endured for over two centuries. But Zinn curtly dismisses them as “leaders of the new aristocracy” and regards the nation-state itself as a cunning device to lull ordinary folks with “the fanfare of patriotism and unity.”
<SNIP>
cont. @
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/kazin.htm
Posted by Michael Pugliese on May 5, 2005 at 5:52 PM
For all neo-con peckerheads, the end is near. Your chicken hawk president is on his way down.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/11574258.htm
2006 is closer than you think.
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 5:54 PM
Have any of you who so fondly accuse the USA of wrongness, and exult in chomskyesque orgasms ever been consistently on an ARAB FORUM? Do you have the slightest CLUE?
I have, I am, and I am sorry to say, many of you are quite childish. So sorry.
Only now, NOW, is there the slightest dent and thought about what the washing away of the enire status quo MIGHT mean.
If there is anyone here with the facts to point out ANY difference politically between what Bush has done in Iraq, and what FDR did with the Neutrality Patrol 9 months before Pearl Harbor, when 79% of this nation did not want us involved in any foreign war, and 3 months after the draft pased BY ONE VOTE, I’d like to see it. Yet that little twist of policy in the face of congressional opposition, and public opinion which resulted immediately in hundreds of american deaths is today regarded as an act of clear morality and rightness. But it certainly wasn’t so clear in 1941.
I see very little difference. As EVEN Max hastings of the Guardian, no less, has now stated, if america will not act, no one will.
Posted by epaminondas on May 5, 2005 at 5:57 PM
Bob, you could be right,although alchoholism has been a problem throughout history.I didn’t know about your other points though,thanx.As far as the Bush/war supporters being scared,I stand by that.Bush used that fear to get reelected.If you doubt that,just ask yourself this,since the election,have you heard of even 1 terror alert being given?They just magically disappeared off the radar screen.They weren’t needed anymore.Curious,wouldn’t you say?Not to mention the fact that all of our ‘fearless leaders’chickened out of the vietnam war.Everyone of them.Even though they believed the war was justified.SCARED LITTLE PUSSIES!!!
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 5:57 PM
Margaret>... Go to
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/archives/archi ive_sound.php
Aargh.Randi Rhodes, as The New Republic reported a while ago has had on the air LaRoucheite neo-fascist conspiranoid, Webster Tarpley on her show hawking his book on the Bush family,
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
Other lefties on Pacifica Radio were takin’ in by John Bircher Soc. far rightists during the Gulf War
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html
Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected
Chip Berlet
Political Research Associates
Posted by Michael Pugliese on May 5, 2005 at 6:03 PM
Epa,do you have any facts,or are you just treating us to more of your mental margaritas?
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 6:05 PM
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0409progiraq.html
FPIF Policy Report
September 2004
Who Are the Progressives in Iraq? The Left, the Right, and the Islamists
www.fpif.org
By Frank Smyth
Frank Smyth is a freelance journalist who has “embedded” with leftist guerrillas in El Salvador, Iraq, and Rwanda. He covered the 1991 uprisings against Saddam Hussein’s regime, and was later captured and held for two weeks inside Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. He wrote this policy report for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). His clips are posted at www.franksmyth.com.
Posted by Michael Pugliese on May 5, 2005 at 6:07 PM
epaminoslsidhgnalkdu:
FDR and the neutrality act:
UNITED STATES - SEPTEMBER 1939
Neutrality Announced - On the 5th, President Roosevelt declares the neutrality of the United States in accordance with the 1937 Neutrality Act. This includes a ban on the sale of arms and munitions to all belligerents.
Military Strength - On the 8th, he proclaims a “limited national emergency” and increases the strength of the armed forces. This includes naval enlisted men from 110,000 to 145,000 and Marine Corps from 18,000 to 25,000. Retired Navy and Marine officers and men can also be recalled to active duty as needed.
Neutrality Patrol - The President also orders the organization of a Neutrality Patrol to protect the neutrality of the Americas and report any movement of belligerent forces towards the coasts of the United States or the West Indies. The Neutrality Patrol is formed on the 12th under the command of Commander Atlantic Squadron (Rear-Adm A W Johnson). Organized into eight groups consisting mainly of cruisers and destroyers, some with patrol aircraft support, it covers the coast from Canada down to the Caribbean. Battleships and a carrier are held in reserve.
Where are you going with this connection epamisldasdkia?
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 6:08 PM
epaminisasdlkfoidu…
FDR and the neutrality act:
UNITED STATES - SEPTEMBER 1939
Neutrality Announced - On the 5th, President Roosevelt declares the neutrality of the United States in accordance with the 1937 Neutrality Act. This includes a ban on the sale of arms and munitions to all belligerents.
Military Strength - On the 8th, he proclaims a “limited national emergency” and increases the strength of the armed forces. This includes naval enlisted men from 110,000 to 145,000 and Marine Corps from 18,000 to 25,000. Retired Navy and Marine officers and men can also be recalled to active duty as needed.
Neutrality Patrol - The President also orders the organization of a Neutrality Patrol to protect the neutrality of the Americas and report any movement of belligerent forces towards the coasts of the United States or the West Indies. The Neutrality Patrol is formed on the 12th under the command of Commander Atlantic Squadron (Rear-Adm A W Johnson). Organized into eight groups consisting mainly of cruisers and destroyers, some with patrol aircraft support, it covers the coast from Canada down to the Caribbean. Battleships and a carrier are held in reserve.
Where ya going with the Patrol reference?
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 6:12 PM
sorry about the re post
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 6:13 PM
Maybe you ought to google the name??? One might have thought some curious enought to wonder…rather than ridicule
FDR used the Navy under the guise of the Neutrality Patrol to escort british merchants from the spring of 1941 (after the draft passed by one vote in 12/40) in order to both support a belligerent, and help get war goods TO that belligerent. But we were neutral. The Germans then sank the USS Reuben James. The Gallup poll started right then…79% of americans did not want us involved in this war for any reason. FDR made clear he felt we needed to be in it against the nazis (Conrad Black’s gr8 biography). In other words, depsite the polls, despite congressional opposition, despite the legalities he took those actions needed to get us into the war. He failed at that point.
Moral?
Absolutely
Today we have seen a situation where the entire status quo of the middle east HAD TO GO. Despite all the claims for 50 years of the ‘left’ (and I am a registered dem), it is the USA who is a revolutionary power, a force for change. And we acted. Left alone the actions of a national security only foreign policy (Mossadegh) only create more problems. The USA found after 9/11 that only way to greater security was democracies. If needs be at the point of a gun (just like 1945). The arab nations did have some nascent democratic movements, but they could never succeed . More overt action is called for, for these tiny groups to succeed. There is no choice. There is no way back. No way. Halliburton isnt even a ripple in these tidal forces.
Nor is it a big deal if the arabs in one of these nations vote in a govt which despises us. That govt, in a democracy will be interested in improving the roads, schools, and jobs, or they will be voted out. Get it? They will be fighting over whether their govt should boost aid for prescriptions by 5% or 8%..that is the way it works. What did we do when the turks told us to take the 4th ID and jam it? NOTHING. Why? Because the decision was representative of the people, and we knew it, and the cameras were ON.
Get on an arab forum site and stay there. You’ll understand WHY there is no alternative, and why these theories about Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton, Israel are absolute trash…might as well be whining about the masons and templars.
Posted by epaminondas on May 5, 2005 at 6:30 PM
Great article, Ms. Klein. Those opposed to the war do need to understand the motives of the Bush administration and follow their course through policy, as you noted. One part of the article, however, seems simplistic—supporting democracy. If democracy were implemented, Iraq would probably split into three countries, along ethnic-religious lines. I would encourage more emphasis on an international solution—placing Iraq under the supervision of the United Nations, as politically difficult as this may seem.
Posted by Roger Peace on May 5, 2005 at 6:50 PM
Gosh, if only you had your way, Saddam could still be in power, the Syrians could be slaughtering the Lebanese demonstrators, women could be wearing burkhas in Afghanistan, the Intifada could still be blowing up Israeli school children…
Wouldn’t the world be a brighter place?
Posted by JoeS on May 5, 2005 at 6:54 PM
This whole debate is silly since it is on a very silly polemic.
The way the left spouts endlessly a libel until it becomes accepted as truth is almost comical if it were not kind of serious.
“The administration says the war was about fighting for democracy. That was the big lie they resorted to when they were caught in the other lies. But it’s a different kind of a lie in the sense that it’s a useful lie. The lie that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy not just to Iraq but, as it turns out, to the whole world, is tremendously useful—because we can first expose it as a lie and then we can join with Iraqis to try to make it true.”
Take that passage, she uses the word ‘lie’ six times in one paragraph. What is silly is that it is in itself a lie. See this article from the NYT Magazine 2002 on Paul Wolfowitz. [Yes I know he’s considered on the left as being the devil incarnate but that is only because they have demonised him]
In this article he lays out a long standing theory that democratising ‘rogue’ countries which harbour and sponsor terrorism is the best long term way of dealing with the problem
Several commenters have written dispagagingly about the US being in Germany, Japan, S Korea. Why don’t you ask the people of those countries if they are better off now than they were, and in the case of Germany and Japan, two of the most militaristic countries the world has seen, they are now peaceful democracies. And how ignore the difference between North and South Korea! And you see why I call this debate silly.
There is a very apt name for the likes of Naomi Klein, [I was going to abbreviate it to NK but thought it might cause confusion] and those who defend the article here, dingbats. I use it not as an epithet but as a fact, people who are blinded to any rational thinking by ideology and hatred.
They are the same people who hold candlelight vigils for condemned murderers but pass over the horrible beheadings of innocent people by the ‘insurgents’. Remember Margaret Passan who spent thirty years doing humanitarian work for the Iraqi people. Remember what your ‘insurgents’ did to her. You make me sick.
Posted by ligneus on May 5, 2005 at 6:55 PM
Naomi,
Great article. I have an idea how to start getting free media on NBC at least. Without fanfare, get a large group of anti-war returned and wounded vets to casually crowd around the “Today” show sidewalk window and very quietly raise signs condemning the war. A guy in a wheel chair is a pretty powerful image and needs to be seen nationally. Even better to time it for an appearance by Bill Frist or RUMSFELD! Yeah.
Posted by Bradical on May 5, 2005 at 7:10 PM
Al Gore’s internet tells me that ole Epa was not very socially adept as he was a hot head and he trained in ascetic ways. (he wore a lot of old clothes and begged for his dinner)
He argued with King Agesilaus and got his ass kicked out of the peace counsel in Sparta.
Epa invented guerilla warfare when he had his phalanxs attack from the side instead of straight on, like the old guys had always done.
He did some conquering as a young man, but upon his return to Thebes he was charged with abusing his office, he got off on a technicality, he saved Thebes.
While blogging in the month of May, he was found blathering on about nascent democratic movements, and American Empire and such. Expounding on the need for American world domination, there by insuring world peace. Epa seemingly ignores that conservation and alternative fuels would completely negate any relevance of middle eastern oil reserves and the need to for America to own them.
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 7:11 PM
Well,I scanned various arab forums,anti american sentiment is rising rapidly,ranging anywhere between 80% to 98%.Due to our foreign policies toward Palistine and Iraq,and not our culture.Pretty convincing stuff Epalyingtous.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 7:12 PM
U Scare Me is absolutely right about our educational system in this country. He’s a perfect example.
Posted by Bradical on May 5, 2005 at 7:18 PM
I also read about how some Iraqis have declared fatwah against the terrorists.Arabs fighting Arabs.There’s something new under the sun…Same old same old.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 7:18 PM
Please, ligneus , you can’t use Wolfowitz as a source for a long standing theory…for god’s sake, it was HIS OWN long standing theory concocted and written up by the good folks over at PNAC. Remember that the good Margaret Passan was not bothered for all those years…it wasn’t until the US invaded and occupied Iraq that she and others were so disgustingly killed.
Bush said WMD. Powell showed us the pictures, Tennet said slam dunk, Rumsfeld backed them all up. IT WAS A LIE. Peckerhead bush was going to Iraq come hell or high water and its all over the news.
We are there now, we have to find a way to stabilize the cradle of civilazion and we have to get out.
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 7:27 PM
Ligneus,the debate became silly when you logged on.Ligneus is a silly name.Isn’t that,like half a word?
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 7:28 PM
Let’s answer one question at a time, who attacked us on September 11?
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 7:34 PM
Considering that most of the 9/11 terrorists were saudis,I would say,hmmm,SATAN!!!!
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 7:46 PM
Sorry,I had a church lady flashback.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 7:49 PM
condemning all Saudis’ as satan is a little harsh
osama bin laden (once supported by raygun/bush 1 and rumsfleld and cheney) and 19 terrorists…mostly saudi’s
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 7:49 PM
Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to bring him back dead or alive….how did that work out?
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 7:51 PM
I’ll answer the question was it worth it to overthrow Saddam. It depends on who you are asking. If you ask an Iraqi family who has lost children, brothers, sisters, parents, what would they say? If you ask the 57% of Americans who now say it wasn’t worth it, what would they say? If you ask the parents of slain American soldiers, what would they say? If you ask Halliburton or Bechtel who have gained billions, what would they say? If you ask most of the rest of the world what would they say?
I can tell you from my standpoint that of course it was not worth it. It in no way made the world safer - to the contrary. It is now proven that Saddam was totally contained, THERE WERE NO WMDS.
But this sure has been a great recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden (remember him?)And what exactly did it accomplish for the Iraqis? A destroyed country, no jobs, little electriciy, continued chaos, occupation…...
Make no mistake, the reason we went into Iraq is simple. Oil is running out and the US has decided to meet that challenge militarily. Given that Iraq is sitting on a motherlode of oil and just as importantly it is situated in exactly the right location for the US to establish military bases to police the rest of the middle east so that as oil supplies continue to decline we can use our military power to wrest what we need.
There is no exit plan becuase the US does not plan to exit - ever - or as long as oil exists in the middle east. The stakes are way too big. And our life style,as Cheney said, is non-negotiable.
Posted by bilbo on May 5, 2005 at 7:52 PM
Thank you Bilbo
But I can’t discern if you support American imperialism or not.
But you are correct; the premise for the Iraq war was/is a lie.
We ARE there for the oil and to have a US military force in the Middle East.
We are the ugly Americans once again, killing tens of thousands of innocents to hold on to our non negotiable life style.
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 8:00 PM
How to stop the war?
Why stop there? Let’s stop the whole big lie behind this totally illegitimate criminal enterprise called the Bush Cheney administration.
9/11 was a U.S. Military attack overseen by our intellegence and Cheney. Until this sinks in and is made known to all, the rest of everthing said above is useless.
Posted by greg on May 5, 2005 at 8:17 PM
End the war by convincing everyone in the United States to commit suicide for our sins against humanity. That way we won’t consume 25% of the world’s oil each day, we won’t try to force our political system onto the poor, unsuspecting victims of tyrants, dictatorships and oligarchies everywhere. That way we won’t turn the Earth into a massive hot potato of incandescent CO2. And outer space won’t be militarized. The sea lanes will be open for all the peaceful people of the world (and dolphins!) to use like a giant, liquid playground.
If only we can convince all those stupid religious people that there’s no heaven above us, no hell below (Lennon, not Lenin). If they have nothing to fear for their soul then that would get us quite a way along the road. I mean, how can anybody justify the existence of this country? We need to give all of our wealth to the poor so they can have all the things necessary for a good life. Heck they can have my house. Come on over right now! We can all smoke some reefer, do a few electronic banking transactions into the U.N.‘s Oil For Food account and then O.D. on Viagra.
Thanks for really changing the world. Answer the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex murder with murder (a suicide is just an introverted murderer as Monty Python says). I’m hoping for your eventual enlightenment. Get ‘er done.
Posted by PD Quig on May 5, 2005 at 8:38 PM
PD
whats so funny about peace, love and understanding?
Elvis not Elvis
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 5, 2005 at 8:42 PM
Very funny, Mr. Quig. You are a sorry excuse for a human being. We’re trying to be serious here and find a way to END THE WAR. Since you obviously find this an amusing topic, why don’t you just go back to the right-wing, hate-mongering website that directed you to us peace-loving, gentle people—who hate, disdain, marginalize, patronize or ignore at least 51% of our fellow countrymen? We’re utopians—we cannot be proved wrong. We measure our political enemies against what could possibly happen some day in our perfect conception of the world. However, do ignore that little failed experiment of our past political infatuation that resulted in the slaughter of over 100 million innocents (communism). It really wasn’t done properly, you know. Next time our ideas for a better world really will work. Trust us.
Posted by Larry Larson on May 5, 2005 at 8:47 PM
The satan comment was a joke Bob.I guess my point is that since the 9/11 terrorists were saudis,who were members of Al Quaida,(damn,how do you spell that?)who was linked to the taliban in Afganistan,who has been linked to Quadaffi in Libya,who has been linked with hezbolah,who has been linked with Hamas,who has been linked with Osama bin Hiding,who has been linked with madonna,who has been linked with britany,(I saw the pictures)who knows who’s responsible for 9/11.Hmmmm,maybe there was a link with Saddam.OH MY GOD,I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT!BUSH REALLY IS TALKING TO GOD.HE’S TOLD BUSH TO BRING DEMOCRACY,APPLE PIE,AND SEXY LINGERIE TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST!And in return,we get all their oil.I guess it’s worth the lives of our brave soldiers after all.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 8:54 PM
The topic 9/11 has come up several times in this comment section. It is painfully clear how many are still in the dark. Please see link for further reading
http://www.911truth.org/
Posted by Greg Nixon on May 5, 2005 at 9:00 PM
PD:
33% - we consume 33% of the worlds oil supply and account for less than ten percent of the population
Posted by boo on May 5, 2005 at 9:02 PM
Right Greg,all kidding aside,when Bush @ company start feeling that they’re losing their grip on power,and they will,it’s already starting to happen,where do you think they’ll set off the nuke?After that, any pretence of democracy and freedom will fall away like the thin veneer that it is.We’ll be begging them to impose marshall law and protect us from them barbarians.People cannot even conceive the possibility that it was our own leaders that did this to us.Remember Pearl Harbor.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 9:22 PM
I hope I’m wrong.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 5, 2005 at 9:34 PM
tw,
Let’s say the U.S was controlled by a dictator for 35 years who enforced his will through mass graves. Let’s also say that a foreign power, say Canada, came in and overthrew him. Then Canada gets caught up fighting the 10% of the U.S citizens that supported that dictator.
No, I would not fight against the Canadian troops trying to put down the dictator supporters. No, I would not drive car bombs into crowds of fellow U.S citizens at a market. No, I would not attack fellow U.S citizens trying to sign up for security forces. No, I would not chop off the heads of U.S. citizens who are helping the Canadians. Yes, I would vote in the election made possible by the Canadian invasion.
I guess I wouldn’t be helping the “resistance” much
Posted by A poor example of an insurgent on May 5, 2005 at 10:39 PM
Dear: “U Scare Me”
Why do you willfully choose to ignore facts and support traitors and usurpers of our republic? of war criminals?
Foolish one, the USA attacked Iraq because we needed to find a new home for US troops (we had to get out of Saudi Arabia - home of the 9/11 terrorists). It was supposed to be easy and cheap - ideas of those who never went to war.
We win and go home!???? Germany? Italy? Japan? Korea?
Foolish one, read a book, any book, or visit one of these countries. We always maintain bases and forces, eh, if we win (or reach a stalemate).
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi’s are against the terrorists.
But at the same time the vast majority of Iraqi’s want the USA out.
Iraqi = Terrorist
Foolish one, those a president supports are “Freedom Fighters”, those a president doesn’t support are “Terrorists”.
Dear: epaminondas
“... spring of 1941 while we were at peace ...”
Foolish one, the USA’s manufacturing sector had been gearing up for war and was supplying Britain with much needed arms, food and other necessities years earlier. Yes, you could say that US military personnel were used for private enterprise, but what’s new? That production capability won that war and gave us the wonderful 50’s.
“... brought to you by FDR HST wing of the…”
Foolish one, no such wing exists, except for wing-nuts.
Dear: Curious
“was it a good idea to overthrow Saddam? ... a simple yes or no would do.”
Foolish one, you are neither curious nor respectful of truth. Answer “yes or no” is not a question, but an ultimatum by a parent to a child or a bully to a geek. Simplistic answers to complicated questions are why the USA is bankrupt both financially and morally. This is the rhetoric-style of the corporacrats of the media and the neo-con/fake-christian right, and it never solves problems. It draws lines in the sand.
Dear: dontbafraid
“America did not start this war, but we will finish it…”
O-so-foolish one, yes we did. We started this war in Iraq. Saudi Arabians started the one on 9/11, so we will leave Saudi Arabia and use our tax dollars to pay Halliburton to build permanent bases in Iraq. Cause we be macho, son!
O-so-foolish one - your rant about ‘nukes’ staggers the imagination. What you see as a solution is evil-doing at its damnedest. Heaven is open to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and non-denominational-walk-ins alike. So is hell.
Dear: Ken
“This is the silliest thing I’ve read… ”
O-silly-and-foolish one, you resound of limbaugh - off the hill-billly heroin.
One smoking gun has been published in the Times of London and not mentioned in our press. The memo confirming cooking the intell one year before we attacked. By the way, America’s librul media has just been voted the 24th freest press in the world. Keep drinking the kool-aide Kenny-boy.
Dearest Naomi,
Thank you for your contributions to truth and understanding of US actions and motives vs the rhetoric. Most Americans will not be proud once they are informed. Greedy liars, right-wing traitors and publicly-pious hypocrites have stolen the language of “peace” “democracy” “freedom” “faith” “patriotism” etc., and it will take some time to restore these good words.
Let those of goodwill use these words with impunity.
Posted by Pleiku on May 5, 2005 at 11:24 PM
The US doesn’t need to get out of Iraq only, it needs to get out of the US as well.
Posted by DivideSpace on May 5, 2005 at 11:32 PM
I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH TREASONOUS LIES
IT READS LIKE A SCIEMCE FICTION STORY FOR THE LEFT
YEAH WE ARE THERE BECAUSE OF ALL THE OIL WE ARE GETIING
ALL THE MONEY WE ARE MAKING YEAH
YOU MIUST HAVE FLUNKED ECONOMICS
Posted by d.berkland on May 5, 2005 at 11:49 PM
For the right-wing doubters, it was spelled out years ago. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out the agenda in his book The Grand Chessboard. Of interest from said tome is the following:
“The exercise of American global primacy must be sensitive to the fact that political geography remains a critical consideration in international affairs. Napoleon reportedly once said that to know a nation’s geography was to know its foreign policy. Our understanding of the importance of political geography, however, must adapt to the new realities of power.
For most of the history of international affairs, territorial control was the focus of political conflict. Either national self-gratification over the acquisition of larger territory or the sense of national deprivation over the loss of “sacred” land has been the cause of most of the bloody wars fought since the rise of nationalism. It is no exaggeration to say that the territorial imperative has been the main impulse driving the aggressive behaviour of nation-states. Empires were also built through the careful seizure and retention of vital geographic assets, such as Gibraltar or the Suez Canal or Singapore, which served as key choke points or linchpins in a system of imperial control.”
“In that context, how America `manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”
Rather than mere speculation, it would seem Naomi’s observations might more accurately be termed a progress report.
—-B Q Hempshackle
Posted by B Q Hempshackle on May 6, 2005 at 12:09 AM
In 1967, Ernesto Guevara wrote a famous pamphlet, “Create Two, Three, Many Viet Nams”. Multiple convicts, spread throughout the world, meant to stretch, drain, and exhaust the military capabilities of the United States. Appears we took the bait. Where are we so far, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Columbia, the Balkans? And next? How long does anyone believe we can sustain the toll in blood and treasure
Posted by troubled in the heartland on May 6, 2005 at 12:30 AM
I think all true liberals and dumocrats should get behind this campaign to support the patriotic resistance of Iraq. Perhaps Ms. Klein would be willing to donate her car to such an obviously worthy cause.
I found it especially heartwarming to listen to her complaint about how John Kerry had been completely outfoxed in the debates by the reputedly dimwitted GW Bush, a man universally lampooned as a complete moron.
But, speaking of morons, it was that other moron, the one who ended the dark career of that other liberal icon- the empire of evil- that had something apropos to say about this subject. I refer, of course to the future fifth face on the mountain, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who made the observation that liberals always seem to blame America first, a position undoubtedly held by Ms. Klein.
It is America’s fault, for example, that the recent Iraqi elections featured a slate of anonymous candidates and not that of the patriotic Iraqi resistance who murdered every candidate they could get their hands on. Speaking of Ms. Klein’s “patriotic Iraqi resistance”, let’s just call them the Patriotic Iraqi Guardians, or PIGS for short.
It is America’s fault that 500,000 jobs in Saddam’s Wehrmacht and SS were eliminated.
It is America’s fault that the power plants and oil pipelines are blown up. We simply aren’t guarding them well enough from the PIGS.
It is America’s fault that ordinary Iraqis are being executed by the PIGS for such “crimes” as standing on the sidewalk or wanting a job or driving a car.
It is America’s fault that the number of ordinary Iraqis being executed by the PIGS on a daily basis during this period of liberation, modernization, and democratization has fallen far below the number of ordinary Iraqis executed on any given day by the PIGS in their former jobs with the previous regime.
It is America’s fault that Saddam looted and pillaged and robbed the country and spent every last penny on himself, his worthless offspring, his vile henchmen and on a series of disastrously- foolish wars that lasted decades and impoverished the nation. Now, bankrupt and exhausted, Iraq tries to rebuild, only to be foiled by the PIGS who blow up anything that gets fixed and cut the heads off of anybody who tries to fix it.
It is America’s fault that Iraq must borrow the money it could otherwise easily earn through oil sales. Too bad that the PIGS keep blowing up the Iraqi people’s sole means of sustenance and recovery. It is not America that is throwing Iraq into the arms of the bankers but the PIGS.
It is America’s fault that we sold weapons to Saddam. My only complaint is that we didn’t sell him more. What a perfect way to acheive world peace. Sell arms to Saddam’s sand nazis. Sell arms to Khomeini’s gulag theocrats. Let them trade their valuable oil for weapons to stab each other into extinction with. Ah, Ronnie, we miss you. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Yes, there is a way to end this war, or at least to drastically shorten it and bring our victorious boys home sooner rather than later. The PIGS could stop murdering their innocent and defenceless fellow countrymen who want nothing more than an opportunity to live in peace and start building the future. Stop killing for a week and we could all go home. But, as long as they have hope that their campaign to reconquer Iraq will eventually succeed, they will continue to kill. And we will continue to stay until either the faint-hearted and foolish become a majority or until the PIGS lose hope. So long as they believe that the American will to assist the Iraqi people might eventually falter, they will continue to kill. Way to go, Ms.Klein.
bataan@elpasotel.net
Posted by Kevin Simolke on May 6, 2005 at 12:37 AM
Dear: epaminondas
Had to go? Claims of the left? US is only revolutionary power? just like 1945? Theories?
O-Almighty-Emperialistic-Troll-one, I bow to thy wisdom.
Freedom at the point of a gun is freedom after all. Selling off the national assets of an occupied nation is capitalism - it is not stealing and it is not a crime. Why don’t the fools see it? Oh, now I get it. Only you wise-guys know what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should mean to the entire earth. No, I really get it. Only war will keep us at peace, keep us safe. Everything is going as planned. Democracy for all! Give us your sons.
Dear: JoeS
Saddam? Syrians slaughtering? Afghan women? Intifada?
O-Stringing-togetherer-of-sentences, 1+1+1+1=4
1. We, Americans, weren’t asked if wanted to spend our treasure to remove Saddam. We were told he was within minutes of hitting us with WMD. That he was behind 9/11.
2. Lebanese fury over the murder of Hariri demanded Syrians leave, as they did the French, British, Israelis, and that’s a good thing. The best chance of democracy in the entire region is Lebanon. Let’s hope we don’t screw it up.
3. Most women still wear burkhas outside of downtown Kabul. Others are stoned to death.
4. Incidents of slaughter on both sides are down, but not a thing of the past. We all hope both sides seek a reasonable and lasting way to live and let live.
Dear: d.berkland
You flunked 3rd grade spelling and reading comprehension.
No one said the things you say. Try night school and flush that kool-aide.
Dear: Larry Larson
O-funny-funny-troll.
Your cranky cause that kool-aide straw should be in your mouth, not up your nose. Offer something or crawl back into your hole.
Pleiku’69
Posted by Pleiku on May 6, 2005 at 1:15 AM
We went to war for 3000 reason. We went to war because the American people decided to declare war after we were attacked. I could care less what you liberal’s think because you are starting to become the friend of our enemies and you might hate us because we can do what we want to do anytime or anywhere but just remember it is because of what you said that has made us to be able to be head and shoulders above you liberals. You are nothing more than looters of the backs of hard working people and just remember this one thing, these nice polite people who usually are meek and mild manner, who tend to stay to themselves is going to have a long memory. I will never forgive the left for putting my life in jeopardy. You are going to pay and you are going to pay bad because after we are done with these Islamo fascist, then it is your turn to be dismantled in the world. Don’t worry we will be coming after you next as long as I live in this world I will never forgive your treason. Let don’t forget that you people on the left let Hitler come to power and you people on the left killed more people in the name of socialism than any other ism in the world. Stalin and Mao, do those name ring a death bell???
Posted by James A. Kaplin on May 6, 2005 at 1:35 AM
Here’s a link detailing some of the vast reconstruction work going on in Iraq. It should make any reasonable person question Naomi Klein’s credibility.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
Posted by Mr. Burns on May 6, 2005 at 2:00 AM
What’s Cranky? “Posted by James A. Kaplin” .
That’s Cranky.
I hate it when posters start with the name calling…
Posted by Nannie on May 6, 2005 at 2:04 AM
Dear James A. Kaplin,
I have a long memory, too. It’s numbskulls like you that ruined my “other priorities” and sent me to Vietnam for a lie.
Treason? This administration is guilty of the highest crimes and misdemeanors - time to impeach and imprison the lot of ‘em.
The left put your life in jeopardy? What drugs are you on Kaplin? It’s your mindless, simplistic view of existence, of black and white, right or wrong, that puts all life in jeopardy.
The right put Hitler into power. Stalin? Mao? They were communist dictators. Your point is pointless. The communist Chinese are now the good buddies of corporate America. Not Americans. Afterall, they keep the treasury and Wall Street afloat.
I’ve been where you chicken-hawks, liars and button-pushing-murderers-from-secured-bunkers have never been. Typical of you neo-fascist cranks to threaten people and ideas over the web.
Present ideas. Drop the threats. You are vastly outnumbered.
Get this - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Repeat NOTHING!
What 3000 reasons? Name three.
Pleiku ‘69
Posted by Pleiku on May 6, 2005 at 2:35 AM
At 12:39AM, ‘A poor example of an insurgent’ wrote:
“Let’s say the U.S was controlled by a dictator for 35 years who enforced his will through mass graves. Let’s also say that a foreign power, say Canada, came in and overthrew him. Then Canada gets caught up fighting the 10% of the U.S citizens that supported that dictator.
No, I would not fight against the Canadian troops trying to put down the dictator supporters. No, I would not drive car bombs into crowds of fellow U.S citizens at a market. No, I would not attack fellow U.S citizens trying to sign up for security forces. No, I would not chop off the heads of U.S. citizens who are helping the Canadians. Yes, I would vote in the election made possible by the Canadian invasion.
I guess I wouldn’t be helping the “resistance” much”
————-
That comment has made me begin to think more. I’ve always identified with the resistance in Iraq with the belief that if someone invaded the US I would be the first one to fight. Yet it is not really the same situation at all. My head is swirling right now.
Posted by Second Thoughts on May 6, 2005 at 3:02 AM
Pleiku
Follow me carefully.. I talk to arabs in the gulf every day
1) You can deny it all you want but here is the botom line..we are where we are because we do not follow god’s laws..we make up our own as we go along. Get it?
The law, the word of god was given to muhammad and we do what we want in denial of this perfect word. We are fornicating, adulterized, jew led, zionist, alchoholic, las vegas living capitalistic yadda yadda ..
2) You can call me a troll all you want but PRIOR to 9/11 not only were we down the line dems, but had Bradley workers sleeping in our house in 2000
3) I organized and took part in anti vietnam action from 1967 onwards..THIS AIN’T THAT
4) If there had been no 9/11 there would have been no Iraq
5) Just as FDR spun around his reasons for usurping the neutrality acts to have THIS neutral nation commit acts of war to support Britain (and rightly so) while opposed by the vast majority of americans and congress, so we have today.
Halliburton is not controlling america.
Iraq was not committed for corporate profits for who…stockholders?
Israel’s ‘protection’ did not committ american troops to war. That remains the heart of Ms. Klein’s (and many other frantic opposer’s) thesis. Every day brings them and the crazy sunni zarquoid ginstu wielders closer in thought. People who blow others up waiting in line for jobs are not the people who stood against the redcoats in 1775. They are the children of Ibn Tamiyya (know who he is and why that has meaning? If not, you don’t know enough about what is going on)
We faced a status quo partly of the making of people like Allen Dulles, and John Foster Dulles. There is a straight line from Mossadegh to Khomeini. That way of doing business, based stricly on self seeking national security in the way of the 19th century lead us to where we are. That way lead to a west locked into the hideous Al Saud.
It simply ALL had/has to change.
And there is no way back to the world of 9/10/2001
No way back to Khe Sanh or Pleiku or A Shau, or Parrot’s Beak. No way back.
Vietnam is not Iraq. This is not then. The stakes as vastly higher than a trumped up August 1965 made up incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, made by a President who thought Ho was George Meany.
More americans died than in pearl harbor. Americans who merely showed up at work.
2001 = 1941, not 1965, and Iraq is Guadalcanal. The road will fork to one side or the other from there.
(BTW it was Blair who asserted we were minutes from WMD not Bush)
Posted by epaminondas on May 6, 2005 at 3:13 AM
All this BS about following ideals, and following construction machinery, “sounds wonderful”, but in reality does nothing at all. Want to stop a war? stem the flow of bodies willing to pick up a gun, drive their tanks, drop their bombs. There is already a sign of a shortage. Its starting to get worse too. Reinstating a draft is a very frightening idea to those in power. Why? because it will cause the very politicians who are now keeping their jobs and constituancy by following the lockstep orders from the administration to tell their constituancy, “your children are the ones who now have to fight”, who have to set the next few years of college aside, and breathe that Depleted Uranium dust over there. Then see just how enthusiastic they are about the war then! How will they feel about supporting the leadership’s idea of creating a new nation with an economic dream?Once you are forced to tell them it will be built on their own childs blood, all hell will breal loose.
Posted by Brad S. on May 6, 2005 at 3:36 AM
To anyone critical of Naomi Klien,and her observations and opinions,just remember that she went to Iraq and has seen for herself what’s going on over there.If any of you haven’t,then you’re just talking out of your fart factory,and your opinion means squat!
Oh?
By that logic the only people who can criticize wars are veterans, the only people who can criticise esthetics are artists, and the only people who can criticize politics are politicians.
I suggest you take your own advice- *I* will be busy excercising my 1st Amendment rights and criticize anything I see fit- especially idiots like yourself.
Posted by rosignol on May 6, 2005 at 3:51 AM
At no time do you, in your slanted article, even mention the horrors of 9/11 - I sure wish you had to jump from 100 floors rather than burn.
Posted by James Robbins on May 6, 2005 at 3:59 AM
You lefties need to stop seeing it as an “occupation,” and in addition, stop searching for the “real motives.” All you can do is hypothesize, you’ll never prove anything. Why are some people ont the left so willing to condemn the U.S. or Israel for going after ill-motivated terrorists and despots when the autocratic Husseins and Assads of this world have killed 100,000s of innocent people? It disgusts me that many on the left have been quick to stand up for these horrible tyrants, all while labeling President George W. Bush a “fascist” or comparing him to Adolf Hitler. Oh, and one more thing, get your heads out of 2003, it’s 2005 now. Look on the bright side, the wonderful spirit of democracy IS spreading throughout the world. It’s a great thing, regardless of upon which side of the fence you sit.
Posted by The Anti-Commie on May 6, 2005 at 4:50 AM
For dontbafraid and U Scare Me: “The mass murder of 100,000 men, women and children, even if the result is so-called free elections, is still MASS MURDER”. I hope you are proud of this, but for myself, as a former veteran, I find this whole, despicable campaign a lie, a disgrace to our great country, and this administration, and those who believe this B.S., totally unworthy of the blood being sacrificed by our sons and daughters in the name of democracy…...they are not fighting for your freedom if they’re killing innocent people, in a sovereign nation, who did nothing to us. You idiots better open your eyes…..according to the British Press, the decision for this war was made early in 2002 and excuses trumped up to support the idea of WMD being a threat to our so-called security to attempt to justify this murderous, illegal action…...You are completely uninformed, out of touch, naive, uneducated rubes to believe otherwise in the face of all we’ve heard over the last 4 years. I, for one, proclaim that all that is being done, is not in my name, and represents nothing but the worst that our society/country has ever promoted in the name of democracy…...think about these:
We were lied to, over and over again. This is undeniable:
“We’re going to war because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that threatens our freedom & security”, “The United States doesn’t believe in torture”, “Pat Tillman was a war hero who was killed during a courageous firefight”, “The insurgents are a small, fractious group trying to deny their country freedom”, “We have over 100,000 trained Iraqi forces”, “What happened to the missing $9 Billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction funds may be due to mismanagement!” “Those journalists were killed accidentally”, “The italian intelligence officer’s car was speeding and did not acknowledge signals”
This is but a small sampling of the B.S. you and your misinformed colleagues have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Our press is controlled by those whose corporate interests also include munitions, bombs, guns, and the machinery of war. Press conferences are scripted, campaign speeches are controlled leaving the candidates talking only to those who bear an allegiance to the Republican party. Free-speech zones have been created (I thought this entire country was a free-speech zone). President Bush said “You can fool some of the people all of the time and this is the group we should concentrate on”.........I fear for this wonderful country and am saddened by all of the irreparable damage this group of renegades has been allowed to do to it….........God help us!!!
Posted by Splasher on May 6, 2005 at 4:51 AM
The question is, was it worth the cost to put Saddam Husein in power?
“his first contacts
with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part
of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with
assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-
Karim Qasim.
In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy
in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be
identified, described as “a horrible orgy of
bloodshed.”
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
Posted by Allen Dulles on May 6, 2005 at 5:05 AM
Dear Plieku,
Take a stroll back through some of these posts and you realize that, indeed, a question from a parent to a child is appropriate. Sorry it didn’t meet your lofty intellectual standards.
As an aside, the US is financially bankrupt? I better call my broker…
Posted by Curious on May 6, 2005 at 5:35 AM
This has certainly been an invigorating debate. I can always tell how close you are to the truth by the volume and shrillness of the Progressive posts. When stupid, redneck, peckerhead and religion bashing start you know you are where you need to be.
I do however appreciate your letting opposing views appear on your blog. Who wants to sit around patting each other on the back. I disagree with you but appreciate you all the same. I’m off to a Mother’s Day thing this weekend but will return to play target for you another day.
By the way…I’m driving my pickup truck to the airport and flying a private plane from Virginia Beach to Charlotte, NC…if the weather clears that is. It will be a big fuel consumption weekend in the RED South for this stupid Redneck. Bye Yall.
Posted by U Scare Me on May 6, 2005 at 5:38 AM
To all the whiners, complainers, hair-splitters, conservatives, capitalists, religious nuts and generally lonely computer nerds I say at once to each of you…..
F U C K O F F
I am sick and tired of searching for articles, papers, studies and surveys which are tarnished by bickering BULLSHIT that outweighs the expert’s piece. You don’t like Naomi Klien - great…Go read Fox News. You don’t wanna hear criticism of miss America from that pussy Canada. FUck you again, she and every other Canadian have every fucking right to tell you sickly Star-and-Stripers exactly what hole to crawl back into…..Pompous pricks…!
You capitalist pigs took over this world WITHOUT permission from any of the rest of this shared planet and have spent every waking moment since plundering and pushing around our dear mother(earth) and her children. We live next to your disgraceful trasheap and your angry fucking flag and are forced to wake up every day, wondering whether or not AMERICA is gonna get drunk on power and blow something up. You’re all fucking coporate terrorists, complicit in your crimes through addicts to goddamn possessions and products.
My fucked up electronic children, it is you who are out of line - you and that criminal country you pledge your allegiance to in the name of god. Divine right, World Superpower, Defenders of Freedom etc. Defend it anyway you want - you are a bunch of blind-eyed murders who will continue to be scrutinized from all angles each time you blink. Sit still miss America - the world is angry at you for good fucking reason and soon you’re gonna stretch just a little too thin to keep your guard. I hope Hell and Hiroshima comes to find you at that point. I shall dance on your tombstones and wave my maple leaf high - the true symbol of freedom.
Posted by Polly.tea.CaL Pesticide on May 6, 2005 at 6:02 AM
as long as Polly has opened up the FUCK box and I can’t say I disagree with him
http://www.fuckthesouth.com/
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 6, 2005 at 6:20 AM
<You lefties need to stop seeing it as an “occupation,” and in addition, stop searching for the “real motives.”>
well there you go again Anti commie
your peckerheaded president calls it an occupation as do most of the of the rest world and since WMD was not found and by many accounts WMD was gone long ago…searching for the real motives seems like a noble thing to do
<All you can do is hypothesize, you’ll never prove anything.>
sounds a little guilty to me sounds like old time gansters talking back to G men
slowly but surely you shrub is getting cut down
Posted by realitybasedbob on May 6, 2005 at 6:28 AM
All this name-calling and threats are indicative of the this hot topic and people have really short fuses.
Self-evident are the truly violent hearts and they are beyond hearing anything conflicting with their world-view.
Especially disturbing:
You lefties need to stop seeing it as an “occupation,” and in addition, stop searching for the “real motives.”
........“You lefties” ....i stopped right there
......stop searching…..don’t question authority
the entire post by James A. Kaplin ......you are a psychopath
blah blah blah and on and on
This was right on:
“Want to stop a war? stem the flow of bodies willing to pick up a gun, drive their tanks, drop their bombs.”
This war has been bogus. Let’s get out. Let the Iraqiis deal with themselves.
Our gov’t has become completely untrustworthy, they are so covert, our young men and women in the service deserve better.
Good luck maintaining civility, y’all. God loves ya.
Posted by pick of the litter on May 6, 2005 at 6:47 AM
U Scare Me,
I must applaud you.you are one of thge few right-wing posts to attempt toanswer a challenge to support your statements with an argument rather than sophistry.nonetheless,I still find your argument to be wrong,hung up on shades of definition.
We are not merely fortifying our bases,we are building new ones as well,permanent bases.Why?Occupation.
Read Von Clausewitz.Why does one country invade another?to make that country do what you want or to use their resources for yourself.
We captured Saddam.Well done.However,I’ll wager that he dies of a"heart attack"before his trial rahter than describe the U.S.‘s role in that region.
We’ve had elections.Great.Let’s hope the Iraqis got the leader they want.Yet,I’ll wager again that their new leader is one we put into place,someone who’ll wholeheartedly support our “energy policy”.If we can beieve that our elections can be subject to cheating,what are the odds the Iraqi elections were rigged.
Stable government in Iraq.Ah,there’s the vagary.
that statement alone can justify our presence in Iraq for the next fifty years,just like Korea.As long as there is any resistance,we can justify our presence in Iraq.The question,why stay there for decades,can be summed up in one word:oil.
We will not leave until it’s no longer profitable to stay or until we get leaders who are not working for the interests of big business.
Posted by wwoods on May 6, 2005 at 6:51 AM
To the critics,
This was not a very good article. The conclusions were… naive? Unfortunately, the premises were wholely accurate.
A lot of people have been unjustly slaughtered by our sophisticated war machine and the terrorists’ car bombs. People left defending this aggregious assault on humanity are in a lurch, scrambling for abstracts like “Democracy” and “Freedom” - ideals that are difficult to argue against - even when they are insincere.
Some advocates have even stooped so low as to say, “Well, this is for the benefit of future generations - for our children. We need to secure middle eastern oil for America’s future”. The truth of course is that we’ve made it impossible for ANY middle eastern country to have good relations with the U.S. Furthermore, I can’t think of a more morally soiled argument to justify what America has just done in the name of Democracy and Freedom. We’ve soiled our our own face, our ideals, and lost the respect of the civilized world.
Posted by Operation Iraqi Liberation - O.I.L. on May 6, 2005 at 7:17 AM
Ouch Rosignol,that really hurt.But keep talking out of your fart factory,you have that right,at least for now.
Posted by whats the truth? on May 6, 2005 at 7:23 AM
Margaret/Whats the Truth
Again - you are banging the “Bush Lied” drum and even accusing me of not having “proof” that he didn’t lie. Take off your partisan blinders and think this through with logic and less emotion.
Why would Bush, Blair, Aznar use the WMD argument if they all KNEW it was a lie and would be found out in the end? Bush (and Blair) almost lost the election due to this fact. Hell - even those countries who supported the continued rule of Saddam and the MINORITY Baathists argued against regime change fearing that Saddam would use his WMD’s. Saddam’s own Generals are now on record believing they had WMD’s.
There are plenty of legitimate arguments against this war, but the continued use of sloppy rhetoric is further marginalizing your cause.
Posted by Paul on May 6, 2005 at 7:43 AM
Democratic Suicide
When will the Dems start winning again? When they start living and speaking like normal folks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200505060805.asp
We are in unsure times amid a controversial war. Yet the American people are not swayed by the universities, the major networks, the New York Times, Hollywood, the major foundations, and NPR. All these bastions of doctrinaire liberal thinking have done their best to convince America that George W. Bush, captive to right-wing nuts and Christian fanatics, is leading the country into an abyss. In fact, a close look at a map of red/blue counties nationwide suggests that the Democrats are in deepening trouble.
Why? In a word, Democratic ideology and rhetoric have not evolved from the 1960s, although the vast majority of Americans has — and an astute Republican leadership knows it.
Class
The old class warfare was effective for two reasons: Americans did not have unemployment insurance, disability protection, minimum wages, social security, or health coverage. Much less were they awash in cheap material goods from China that offer the less well off the semblance of consumer parity with those far wealthier. Second, the advocates of such rights looked authentic, like they came off the docks, the union hall, the farm, or the shop, primed to battle those in pin-stripes and coiffed hair.
Today entitlement is far more complicated. Poverty is not so much absolute as relative: “I have a nice Kia, but he has a Mercedes,” or “I have a student loan to go to Stanislaus State, but her parents sent her to Yale.” Unfortunately for the Democrats, Kias and going to Stanislaus State aren’t too bad, especially compared to the alternatives in the 1950s.
A Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, George Soros, or Al Gore looks — no, acts — like he either came out of a hairstylist’s salon or got off a Gulfstream. Those who show up at a Moveon.org rally and belong to ANSWER don’t seem to have spent much time in Bakersfield or Logan, but lots in Seattle and Westwood. When most Americans have the semblance of wealth — televisions, cell phones, cars, laptops, and iPods as well as benefits on the job — it is hard to keep saying that “children are starving.” Obesity not emaciation is the great plague of the poorer.
So the Democrats need a little more humility, a notion that the country is not so much an us/them dichotomy, but rather all of us together under siege to maintain our privileges in a tough global world — and at least one spokesman who either didn’t go to prep school or isn’t a lawyer.
Race
The Democrats, at least in the north, were right on the great civil-rights debate of 1960s. Yet ever since, they have lost credibility as they turned to the harder task of trying to legislate an equality of result — something that transcends government prejudice and guarantying a fair playing field, and hinges on contemporary culture, behavior, values, and disciple.
The country is also no longer white and black, but brown, yellow, black, white, and mixed. When a liberal UC Berkeley chancellor remonstrates about “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” lamenting that his merit-based entrance requirements have sadly resulted in too few “Hispanics” and “African-Americans” (he ignores that whites at Berkeley also enroll in numbers less than their percentages in the state population), what he really means — but won’t say — is that there are apparently too many Asians, about 45 percent enrolled in Berkeley versus about 12 percent in the state population.
Posted by Iago on May 6, 2005 at 7:46 AM
“4) If there had been no 9/11 there would have been no Iraq”
Hmmm…how is it, then, as Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury, revealed, that at Bush’s VERY FIRST Cabinet meeting, just days after his first inauguration, one of the chief topics of discussion was “regime change” in Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein?
You may be right, though; their problem prior to 9/11 was in how to persuade Americans of the necessity to go to war to remove Hussein. 9/11, cynically used by Bush to create panic in the public and to foment general anti-Arab sentiment, was the perfect event, a gift to the Bushies, a gift they exploited to justify one of their earliest policy objectives, one the neo-cons had written papers about before Bush was even a candidate for President, and which they otherwise lacked any justification to pursue.
As to the earlier question,“Was it worth it to remove Hussein?” I must ask, “Worth it” to whom? “Worth it” defined HOW?
The more pertinent question is: Did we have either a legal basis or defensive need to remove Hussein?
NO.
The ends do not justify the means, as the saying goes, at least not in a society where rule of law prevails. That Hussein was a despot is undisputed; that we helped him achieve much of his power is also undisputed. That we turned against him has nothing to do with his brutality to his own people, about whom we cared not a bit in all the years we engaged his services as our bully boy in the region, but has entirely to do with geopolitical concerns: access to Iraq’s oil, getting a military foothold in the region, etc. If we had been desirous of removing Hussein based on humanitarian grounds, to “free” the Iraqis and relieve them of Hussein’s tyranny, that is the argument we should have presented to the UN and to Congress to justify the argument for war. We didn’t make that argument because we knew it would be unconvincing as a rationale for war, because we didn’t really care about Hussein’s violations against his people, and because, in itself, it would not have been a legal basis for pre-emptive war.
I post this knowing how futile it is to argue with zealots, as facts mean as little to them as the Constitution does to this administration. To such emotionally childish true believers, it’s enough that “America was attacked. We have to strike back, defend ourselves. Bush says attacking Iraq is necessary to defend ourselves. Let’s go!”
I watched the destruction of the World Trade Towers from 9 blocks away. Not once has my proximity to that grievous act of mass murder fogged my mind such that I have been fooled by Bush’s lies and propaganda, his cynical fear-mongering, his detestable utterance of the words “freedom” and “democracy” as if he had the slightest respect for or even understanding of what those concepts actually mean.
To those who who refute the truth that Bush lied by asserting, “Bush really BELIEVED Hussein had WMD!”
Well, we don’t know that for a fact, but I accept he probably had some underlying belief that Hussein had WMD. What he lacked, though, was evidence. A President does not commit our nation to war simply on the basis of belief, particularly belief lacking supportive evidence, or belief contradicted by existing evidence. To the extent—whis was very great—that Bush and his co-conspirators insisted repeatedly that there was “no doubt” Hussein had WMD, that the case was “bulletproof,” etc. etc. etc., they LIED.
Posted by RBC on May 6, 2005 at 7:46 AM
Sad….....Not only Naomi’s left gatekeeper article, distracted by symptoms of 9-11 but also everyones’ comments that follow; false logic of self delusion. What is true is that all roads to peace lead to 9-11. If we do not expose our governments involvment and complicity in that event, no amount of arguing over the resultant effects will bare out anyones position.
Read 3 books: David R. Griffins “The 9-11 Report-Ommissions and Distortions” or “The New Pearl Harbor-Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11.
Mike Rupperts “Crossing the Rubicon-The Decline of American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil”
Then we may truely understand how wars are and have been started, who benefits, the Project for the New American Century and how Cheney was in control of the events of that day. War is a lie, war is a racket, and war is necessary to fund the Military-corporate complex. PNAC called for a “new pearl harbor” to expidite their plans to control Central Asia and the resources there. Oil, nat. gas, drugs and banking. Someday we may wake up to realize our Defense/Intelligence forces think in terms of acceptible losses, endless warmaking, creating/encouraging threats, and facilitating events to galvanize the public into war. Robert Stinnets book “Day of Deceit” exposes FDR’s goading of the Japanese into attacking us. He and DOD knew well in advance they would attack. Sucks huh?
Posted by JB on May 6, 2005 at 7:56 AM
Yep the National Review is so unbiased.
“When will the Dems start winning again? When they start living and speaking like normal folks.” Duh?!?! Rhetoric! Divisive crap. Neither party have a lock on sanity.
BTW, The “blame America first crowd” has become the new (and already tired) mantra for those who desire to silence the critics. What is so unpatriotic about wanting to see the U.S. of A. be truthful, peaceful, and regarded as admirable around the globe?
Posted by pick of the litter on May 6, 2005 at 8:07 AM
Mr Burns, my dear:
Maybe while you chant praise to the ‘reconstruction efforts’ in Iraq in response to this nasty l’il article, it might be interesting to learn about the massive shortfalls of the reconstruction industry - the lucrative industry which works hand in hand with the World Bank to hogtie suffering nations to foreign corporate power.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050502&s=klein
Or how ‘bout open up any major newspaper to learn about how Halliburton tried fleecing the US government for $108 million worth of over-billing, double-billing and general white-collared deception in proportions almost never before seen.
Read up, Burnsie….. You’d be surprised at the disgusting lack of work being done worldwide. And don’t read corporate dossiers to learn about their success. Ask the people who should benefit from this work…and thus far have not.
Posted by Polly.tea.CaL Pesticide on May 6, 2005 at 8:17 AM
The Republicans just can’t get it that they were LIED to. No, Paul, I am not presenting “sloppy rhetoric”. Read the London Times. Not a liberal paper at all. 86 U.S. Congresspersons just sent a letter to the Pres today demanding an explanation of the British released report.
No, just the facts, my friend. Ultimately, history will show Bush and Cheney to be the greatest con men in US history, and you the fool that was hoodwinked by them.
Posted by Margaret on May 6, 2005 at 8:33 AM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Yes there needs to be a serious alternative presented to the joint Republicrat/Demoplican (Howard Dean is now on George W Bush’s side) vision of endless occupation in Iraq.
We need to admit that both sides of the single payer political party in the United States are the problem. Forget the Demoplicans, if you’re still waiting for them to “get their act together”. They’ve got it together : they’ve cut a deal with the corporate/pac money machine wherein they don’t even have to win elections anymore, all they have to do is foreclose any alternative to the present regime by taking up all the political room outside the Republicrat party, and they get paid just as though they were a real alternative party.
Wake up, realize that you’ve been betrayed enough, and work for a third way.
Or it will be 2008 and Hillary Clinton will be continuing the Iraqi occupation and doing what she’s told by the powers that be in Greater Israel.
Defending a basic injustice requires a fulltime occupation, in Palestine or in Iraq.
Naomi,
If there is every a terrorist award show you should be the first recipient of the Al Zarqawi Humanitarian award.
You said:
** Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques—barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq.**
Earth to Naomi…your so called armed resistance targeting innocent civilians are what we call terrorists. If you believe a terrorist that kills Iraqi civilians applying for work or praying serves anybody’s interests except a bunch radical extremists hell bent on killing everybody not just like them, then you are delusional. I know the “I Hate America Thing” is big with Progressives, but I had no idea it was this extreme.
You fabricate so many points to make your argument that only a small segment of blind followers could rally behind your arguments. That’s why your movement has no traction. The same people who could follow this malarkey are the same people who can be convinced to strap on a bomb vest and go kill a group of innocent men, women and children while their leaders stand behind and snicker.
I hope for the good our country, the group you are trying to rally remains small and fractured.
Naomi, you dropped the ball with this one. You may or may not be right about the value of the US opposition adopting a pro-democracy platform in lieu of an anti-war one, but if so, that policy should be directed at restoring the US government, not Iraq’s. Your identification with the insurrection, no matter how you try to clean it up with the non-violent examples, is a built-in suicide machine for any group that adopts it. I have read a lot of your stuff, and you should know better.
Naomi - Thank you for the continued thoughtful expose of this War Without Borders - Against Terrorism.
You are a favoruie always capable of sincere writing. I am opposed to the use of the term “Insurgents” to condemn the efforts of those fighting against the occupation of their country. Would we not do the same? Another favorite - Juan Cole - always uses the term “guerrillas” in his Informed Comment.
How many innocents will die in this slaughter?
USM,
You’ve got it wrong, it’s “We Love Our Country” and are sick to death of the Republicans lying about every aspect of this “crusade”. If we ever really meant to build Iraq back up, then why is the reconstruction almost 100% foreigners? How is that aiding in job creation? Where’s the 9B dollars from the oil pumped under our jurisdiction? Where is the over 100M dollars “missing” from unregulated reconstruction efforts? History will show this to be the biggest boondoggle in US history.
I guess the same people who follow your malarkey are the ones who go to church recruiting events for the military. When you think about it, when they recruit from mosques to drive out the occupiers, they’re terrorists. When we recruit from churches to occupy, we’re patriots. There’s something very wrong with that picture.
And don’t you dare come back talking trash about how unpatriotic I am. I LOVE this country, and I am madder than heck about all the lies Bush Co. has and is spreading, to the detriment of our people and our economy. To me, people who blindly defend this farce are the traitors.
Naomi,
Well said.
By the way,U Scare Me,many right-wing posters make the accusation that left-wingers fabricate their arguments.In this case,since you’ve made this accusation,what has Naomi fabricated?
Bombing innocent people, children and woman in citys from billion dollar planes makes you a freedom fighter.
Using a $500 dollar car bomb makes you a vicious terrorist.
Such double standards make the rest of the world laugh at the U$ and it´s citizens who re-elected (supposedly) the neo-nazi, war hungry ignorant texas cow boy/ president.
americans are hated around the world, as they never were before.
Thank you(right wing, fascist, cons, born again christian terrorists) for you stupidity and good luck, you will need lot´s of it.
p.s.
“I hope…the group you are trying to rally remains small and fractured.
this group is about 3- 4 billion strong, made up of the rest of the world.
“u scare me”:
(about the labeling of Iraqi violence perpetrators) If you honestly, without bias, choose to believe that people are not going to defend their country if attacked, then please read a book about it first. No, not “Treason”, by Ann Coulter, or I Told You So”, by Rush Limbaugh, but one with actual facts in it. I suggest Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” followed by something on nationalism, like “People Versus States”, by Tedd Robert Gurr. Then do some more reading on your own.
You’ll begin to find out, “u scare me”, that people do not care if it is the lousiest piece-of-crap country they have and if you just saved their ass from a dictator - they will want you out and they will defend their country, no matter what, to the death. Many more books with (facts in them and evidence, too!) like these, “u scare me”, will tell you why. For our purposes, we only need know the what.
Put in another way, “u scare me”, our occupation is kind of like this: if you and your freedom-lovin’ redneck pals came into my home, i would at first be really scared. Maybe I would thank you, depending on how bad my house was. Eventually, though, I would fight back - no matter how nice you were to me. I would kick you out or die tryin’. Did we not learn this in Vietnam, “u scare me”? Do you enjoy having half of every tax dollar you pay go to a cause that creates more bin Ladens by the day?
So go ahead, “u scare me”. Call them terrorists. What does a label matter? We went in, got rid of Saddam, and it’s now time to get out. This is their way of telling us to get the ‘f’ out. They will not ever back down until we are gone. How hard is this to realize? How much more violence, death, money? Wouldn’t you want the same thing - no matter how righteous you rednecks think the US is?
Let’s get the hell out of Iraq now, before we go bankrupt. And before we lose more young men and women to death, dismemberment, and psychological illness.
How to end the war?
Impeach Bush.
testing comment follow-up functionality.
To anyone critical of Naomi Klien,and her observations and opinions,just remember that she went to Iraq and has seen for herself what’s going on over there.If any of you haven’t,then you’re just talking out of your fart factory,and your opinion means squat!
I can’t say it surprises me that public opinion against the invasion of Iraq is mounting, but it also doesn’t surprise me that there hasn’t been mounting public pressure for an end to the occupation. Many of the Americans who initially supported the invasion did so out of fear and a desire for revenge due to 9/11 (which was exploited by the current administration).
The passion for blood is intense and short lived. Once that passion is exhausted, we are left a policy of mass murder that has to rationalized in order for its supporters to live with themselves. As with Vietnam, the supporters of the invasion are trying to justify our continued oppression of an occupied country on the basis that the situation needs to be “stabilized” and that we can’t “cut and run.”
These concerns represent nothing more than the American people’s refusal to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was, and is, wrong. It seems to me that we are using our military power as a means to avoid suffering the judgment of the world.
In the meantime, we are bankrupting our national resources pursuing a hunt for monsters without end, we are inspring terrorist attacks against our allies and ourselves, and we have allowed our government to diminish our freedoms based on the unfulfilled promise of security.
The U.S. is trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and on any further fronts they create, by the greed of “our” leaders only.
If “we” weren’t so frightened of losing (sharing) these “franchises” with the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, we could pull out many troops right now. As long as we followed the other suggestions in this article, such as switching from building permanent bases, stealing billions of dollars of oil money, and reconstruction money, to helping with actual reconstruction through advising skilled Iraqis as to what we’ll let them have their own money to build next. Still no electricity, water, phone over most of the country? No plumbing? God damn, people, what do we expect them to tolerate from our lying leaders in the fading name of their ex-dictator and public relations about the unknown freedoms they have never even tasted?
They want their f**king food to continue! Is that too much to ask??
And another thing,I’m sick and tired of listening to the disingenuious macho posturing from the ‘we support Bush cause we’re too scared of the world crowd’.You people are pussies!!So there,na nana nana na!Plbbbbbbt!...Damn,that felt good. Peace.
I think I know what they are looking for and it’s not what anyone thinks. They are looking for something which they value more than oil! I hope to God they don’t find it!
Want to stop war? Stop funding it:
http://www.taxableincome.net/ read and follw through.
Use consituitional money: Silver and Gold.
libertydollar.org
e-gold.com pecunix.com 1mdc.com goldmoney.com
“How to End the War” is a well-thought-out and insightful prescription of how to achieve democracy. The only problem is that it should be applied first to our country, then we can advise others to follow our example. Right now it is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
EXACTLY, One.
I don’t even know where to start, but I guess “The Occupation” is as good as any.
Because ones sees construction equipment fortifying a military base in Iraq doesn’t mean occupation. What Russia did with the Soviet States is an occupation. By your definition we occupied Europe and Japan after WW2, when the truth is we stayed long enough to stabilize the governments of these countries and left. South Korea was invaded by the communist North and we helped drive them back. The South Korean government asked us to maintain a military presence. By your definition this would be an occupation.
Can you point to any statement by anyone in this administration that has said occupation is our goal? No, you can’t. The stated goal is to be there long enough to stabilize the government and leave. You can read tea leaves or read tarot cards and cook up any theory you want, but these are the facts. Pointing to some conspiracy theorist that wrote a book doesn’t make it true either.
Here is another jewel from Naomi:
**Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our direction from them.**
The vast majority of Iraqis are against the terrorists. Remember the elections!! The “Iraqis fighting to end the occupation” are in fact Saddam loyalists and non-Iraqis, led by a top Al Qaeda operative continuing what occurred before the war and that is killing Iraqis who want a stable and free country. The people Naomi wants you to take direction from are stated enemies of both America and Iraq. Follow Naomi’s advice and YOU become an enemy of America. Ever hear of TREASON.
You can hate Bush, religious people, Southerners, Republicans or any other group you choose. You can protest, march and do any number of things to show your opposition and attempt to get a majority of Americans to agree with you. Following Naomi’s advice and taking “active and tangible solidarity” with stated enemies of our country is a dangerous and destructive path. And YES, it is unpatriotic.
USM,Naomi was there,you were’nt.you could start by getting a clue.
In Europe,we didn’t try to change them,we stayed long enough to help them after helping to defend them against a FOREIGN power.In Iraq,we are the foreign power.South Korea ASKED US to remain to help them.Did Iraq?USM,you’re comparing apples to oranges,but such is the ‘logic’ that allows Bush and company to keep perpetrating this farce….Just so much macho posturing.
An election where people didn’t even know the names of the candidates or their qualifications until they were at the polling booth. Where only a portion of the electorate voted, and , where they still don’t have a functioning governing body 5 months later with little hope of them doing so in the near future. What a joke!
Also, the Sunni’s are allied with Iran, not the USA. As soon as things get rolling, they’ll kick our butts out and pair up with Tehran. The Sunnis will pair up with Syria, Egypt and the other Sunni dominated states of the Middle East. It is a no win situation.
The people that support this war are the traitors.
To return to the actual article under discussion, I think that Naomi Klein is absolutely right in advocating support for the Iraqi resistance. She is dead-on when she says that “Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country.” We must cripple the American war machine and lend all possible material support to those suffering its wrath. We cannot pick-and-choose what resistance movements to support based on their use of violent tactics. To do so would be to take advantage of our position in the Empire and replicate capitalist inequalities within the global justice movement.
Klein’s position is in contrast to that of most of the anti-war “movement.” Most ‘liberals’ were against the war, but now think that the US needs to stay to pacify the unrest and create an environment suitable for “democracy.” There are a few obvious problems with this stance:
1) The occupation is the cause of, not solution to the violence.
2) The US is NOT establishing democracy in Iraq and it never will. If the American imperialist agressor stays, it will only be to establish a puppet government (that will enforce IMF agreements and follow Paul Bremer’s Neoliberal edicts, of course.) If it leaves, the country may well end up under a tyranny, but at least it will be an IRAQI tyranny that the Iraqis can one day dispose of. At least an Iraqi tyranny wouldn’t blast depleted uranium around the country, creating radioactive contamination to last for centuries. Iraq is part of a historical pattern of colonialism; the US NEVER allows democratic rule unless in accord with its own imperial interests. Always remember, to further US interests: democracy if possible, dictatorship if necessary. A cursory glance at the history of Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Middle East will show that dictatorship is almost always necessary to satisfy the Empire’s demands.
3) If a government that is even remotely accountable to the Iraqi people is established, it will be under constant pressure from the US to repress Iraqi dissent. It will be forced to repress unions and other resistance to the economic pillage of the country. This is similar to the situation in the Gaza Strip, where an imperialist Israel is forcing the Palestinian Authority to do its dirty work of repressing activism.
4) Although the US gov’t should pay reparations, Iraq doesn’t need us. Iraqis are intelligent, probably more intelligent than most Americans. To maintain that the Iraqis depend on the benevolent aid of a paternal Uncle Sam to establish self-rule and reconstruct the country is to fall into Orientalist, “White Man’s Burden” patterns of thinking that date back to the days of the original European colonialism. Get off your high horse, Westerner, and get the US out of Iraq NOW.
US out of EVERYWHERE!
Whats the truth?,
I wasn’t on Omaha Beach on D Day but I’ve read and seen many accounts of people who were, both German and American.
I didn’t need to be standing on a beach in Indonesia to understand the devastation of a tsunami.
Naomi isn’t the only person that has been to Iraq and written about what they witnessed.
Based on your standards, “you don’t have a clue if you weren’t there”, we can just can our educational system. Most of what you learn is taught by people who haven’t done it or been there.
Your argument is very weak at best.
U Scare Me: Actually, the president himself called the occupation of Iraq “the Occupation of Iraq”
and i would remind you that Thomas Jefferson himself said that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”
and if you think those elections were real then your only fooling yourself
How would you feel if we were invaded for the purpose of bringing “democracy” to america, meanwhile killing over 100K of our people?
you and i and everyone in their right mind would be “insurgents” against the invading forces
BTW - Is our Goverment truely concerned with “democracy”? The US funded Saddam’s rise into power against Iran and he was just as evil then as he is now
Our Government also continued to fund his government with up to 1 million dollars in “aid” all the way up till a year after Amnesty international reported that he had gassed over 5000 of his Kurdish citizens(men women children elderly) using chemicals that the US gave him during his rise to power
and if we are concerned with democracy, what about china? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? North Korea? What about all of the other tyrannical goverments in the world? (some of which we support through funding or helped bring into power)
Margaret,now there’s a fact that no one seems to understand,but I thought that it’s the shiites that are aligned with Iran.Anywho,it would be a cruel irony if we were to build a strong Iraq only to have them join with Iran if and when we invade them.Arabs band together against a common enemy,even if they were fighting amongst themselves.Our fearless leaders don’t seem to understand that,or anything about them.So even if this were a legitimate war,could we win it?A basic strategy of war is to understand your enemy.I guess it’s a reflection of the unbridled arrogance of our fearless leaders and their approach to affairs both foreign and domestic,and why it’s so important that we boot them out of office.Or so it seems to me.
USM,what have you read from people that have been there that counters what Naomi claims she witnessed?As usual,your arguement is long on retoric,and rather short on facts.But don’t feel bad,there’s lots of people just like you.Kind of like lemmings.
few suggestions:
- Iraqi security should be handed over to a multinational arab force, lead by UN.
(according to the polls in Iraq, large majority wants US to leave.)Wouldn’t this be democracy?
- To do this people (especially in countries that have veto-power) should organize and pressure their governments to democratice the UN.
...well, maybe ain’t easy but you can always dream…
As a registered democrat I cannot help but be continually crushed by failure of my party to get it. All you have Ms Klein is an ideological hammer, and all you see are halliburton nails, made by the cato institute whose intention to you is merely to enrich (stockholders, themselves, 401k’s, WHO?)...in short, you have taken the kool aid of Vietnam, and can do nothing else but oppose, and hearing hoofbeats assume zebras parade about somewhere out of sight.
Beneath the new ‘insight’ is the same old same old…oil, Israel, Halliburton. How sad for an opposition. Barely loyal and plainly, outrun by reality.
The bitter truth for you is that like FDR whose moral opposition to germany in the spring of 1941 compelled him to put at risk the men of the US navy in escorting british ships while we were at peace, so today and for similar reasons another president has taken action just as controversial today as that was then. The difference is that that your actions analogize that of America First and the Bund.
This message is brought to you by the FDR HST wing of the democratic party.
USM,
I’ll start with “Occupation” also. Our army in Post-WWII Europe was called “The Occupational Army.” That can’t get any clearer. I remember it well, my dad was part of it. We occupied it and guess what - We’re still there!
South Korea was occupied first by our military then followed closely by our commercial presence. Guess what - We’re still there! So much so, it has become our client state. Representatives of S. Korean government showed up recently at my son’s funeral in California with a plaque for his widow with a piece of the DMZ on it. My son worked for our government. By the way, I’m also a military dependent.
We definitely occupied Japan after WWII. That was also called the Occupational Forces. Guess what - We’re still there! Didn’t you see any old movies like Sayonara? This pattern has been our MO since WWII.
What are you? Very young or uneducated or something? You don’t have a clue as to what the truth is. On top of that, you are publically arguing against and trying to villify a person/people who has been there and seen what is happening.
My point is: We NEVER LEAVE! (unless we’re forced to leave as in Viet Nam) Why don’t you do yourself a favor and look up Occupational Army WWII on Google, the encyclopedia, anywhere. Enlighten yourself, please.
Bush absolutely will not state how long we intend to stay in Iraq. Doesn’t that give you a clue? Iraq is in the beginning stages of a civil war, just as Viet Nam was when we took over occupation (there’s that word again) from the Vichy French.
The unstated goal in Iraq is to get our corporations in there asap and hope their citizens become quickly addicted to capitalism, like we are. This goal was backed up by bringing in the IMF and World Bank just in case the addiction process was too slow. Those two organizations will ensure the money gets where it’s supposed to go. Maybe the corps couldn’t remember what happened when we did the same thing in Iran with the Shah. Perhaps it was either too long ago to matter or they didn’t believe it applied to Iraq. Nobody’s accusing these folks of using their brains - they’re too greedy for that.
Just because the Iraqis loved their elections doesn’t mean they also love our occupation any more than your vote or mine means we love everything going on in this country. Your oversimplifications and sweeping generalizations are dangerous. ALL Iraqi citizens want the end of our occupation, and only SOME of them are our enemies. Get it? All vs some?
By the way you don’t scare me. I’m hoping for your eventual enlightenment.
Epa, what???Sounds like something out of a mental blender.
So I am curious, was it a good idea to overthrow Saddam? Naomi would you, right now, be in a better place if he were still there? I know there are a ton of other issues, but I feel it is important to answer that one easy question before you proceed to other things…A simple yes or no would do.
A Terrorist is ‘An Army of One’
—————
The MISSION of the PEACE TRAIN to DC is to deliver a message of PEACE THROUGH CONSERVATION to the WORLD.
http://TantricTravel.com
The MISSION of the Drive 55 Conservation Project is to reduce petroleum consumption by 20%-50%.
http://Drive55.org
Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
SUV: 4,591
Air: 4,123
Bus: 3,729
Car: 3,672
Train: 2,138
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html
According to a 2004 Transportation Research Board report, public transportation:
* Reduces CO2 emissions by more than 7.4 million tons per year in the U.S.
* Produces 95% less CO, at least 92% fewer VOCs, and nearly half as much CO2 and NOx for every passenger mile traveled than private vehicles
The Mission of The NEW ATHENA PROJECT is to encourage a rational ENERGY POLICY
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Athena/
Apparently the antiwar Left has forgotton the fact that we were attacked. America did not start this war, but we will finish it. Try to remember the horror of Sept 11, 2001. New York City. Washington DC. World Trade Center. Pentagon. As Pres Bush likes to say “War is want they wanted and war is what they got.” Now we need to go after the other evildoers before they hit us again. If N. Korea drops a nuke on San Francisco we’ll drop thirty on them. If Iran smuggles a nuke into Boston Harbor we’ll turn Mecca and Medina and Jedda (along with Teheran and any other Islam-city worthy of destruction).
Don’t Be Afraid,
No, Iraq did not attack us. That is another lie that even Bush and Cheney have stated was a wrong assumption. That being, Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11. Please read past articles on this site to become educated on the matter beyond the FOX News soundbite level.
What’s the Truth- Oh, no, ME Bad! I did mean Shiite with Tehran. That’s what happens when you’re trying to get the paperwork ready to ink a deal and blog at the same time! But you got the drift, so I do appeciate you’re catching my hurried mistake. Thanks.
Margaret, not to belabor the point, but maybe you could you answer my question. Was it worth it to overthrow Saddam? I know there are more considerations out there, but it is a simple question. Yes or no….
“When WE identify why WE really went to war . . .”
“. . . but are only able to impose in relative slow motion HERE AT HOME.”
“That means being the resistance OURSELVES IN OUR COUNTRY, demanding that the troops come home, that U.S. corporations come home . . .
Last time I checked (5 minutes ago), Ms. Klein is . . . CANADIAN. Born in MONTREAL and living in TORONTO.
As a fellow CANADIAN, I would like to appologize for Ms. Klein’s attempt to impose her imperial Canadian liberal ideas on our neighbours to the South.
Message to the US: Keep up the good work.
Curious,
NO.
Thanks for being honest Margaret. I am curious, no pun intended, to find out what are the major reasons behind your view that it was not worth it? Are the people suffering more, economic stability, safety, etc….
Curious
I can not answer for Naomi, but I am not in a better place.
1600 of my American brothers and sisters are dead. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead…if you believe the Johns Hopkins study; as many as 100,000 Iraqis have been KILLED by the American invasion/occupation of the Cradle of Civilization.
We, the American tax paying public are out of pocket in excess of $300,000,000,000.00 dollars. Can you think one or two other things our government could do with 300 BILLION dollars? I can.
Saddam was a real son of a bitch. Bush should know, his daddy and that phucking asshole Raygun and Rumsfeld supported him in the 80’s. Raygun sold him weapons about a week after he actually used WMD against the Kurds. LOOK IT UP.
Every single bit of evidence shows that these chicken hawks planned the Iraqi invasion long before OSAMA had the SAUDIS’ fly planes into the World Trade Center.
Go to PNAC and read what this scum brigade had planned. Pay special attention to the part where they talk about world domination and the need for a “Pearl Harbor” type attack to institute the policy. LOOK IT UP.
What happened to getting OSAMA… DEAD OR ALIVE? Saudi
There is an admitted un-accounted $9,000,000,000.00 dollars. LOOK IT UP.
Just today there is another unaccounted $100,000,000.00 dollars. LOOK IT UP.
If you read/watch international news you will certainly see that the Iraqi people are living in squalor.
There is more, but that will be for another day.
Realitybasedbob. Some interesting points. I tried to look up the various points you emphatically mentioned to “look up”. I googled “un-accounted $9,000,000,000.00 dollars” since you left little other direction, and only found two links. One to a crazy rambling tirade at ballaciao.org, here’s a taste:
“Let us purge alternate worlds and parallel universes from our lands, making extinct the sickness that has plagued us for years. We are the solution, not the problem, and inside each of us is the energy that has been imprisoned inside the dungeons of the human animal”
and another to the “Theos-Talk Archives”, apparently an interesting site with a pentagram background and little coherent discussion. I tried a similar search for the “unaccounted $100,000,000.00 dollars” and found three links. One to the Austin Texas city finance site…crazy stuff.
Regardless, I seriously doubt the Iraqi people care to much about purported missing funds on renegade internet sites. Your comment that “If you read/watch international news you will certainly see that the Iraqi people are living in squalor” struck me as the most interesting. What exactly do you think they were living with before? Were they all independently wealthy and vacationing in the Pocono’s? Or were their daughters being raped and family members falsely imprisoned? I wonder.
Curious,
Personally, I’d have to say that my tax dollars could have been better spent than on taking out Saddam Hussain and 100,000+ other people and destroying a country.
This is the silliest thing I’ve read all day. I’ve got to be more careful about the links I follow. The only thing that really seems to be missing is the smoking gun that Karl Rove and the gang stole the persidential election from Dennis Kucinich in order to maintain control of former Soviet bloc missile silos, which could then be pointed at the dark people of the world.
Have a nice day, but try a cocktail of Haldol and Moban—it’ll do wonders for your paranoia.
$100m gap’ in US Iraq spending BBC News 5/5/05
US handling of reconstruction has been heavily criticised
US civilian authorities in Iraq have been unable to account properly for nearly $100m (£53m) earmarked for rebuilding, US financial auditors say.
Two audits found signs of potential fraud regarding the money, which includes oil revenue and assets seized from Saddam Hussein’s government.
A third questioned the use of almost $18bn in US taxpayers’ money for reconstruction projects in Iraq.
The audits found “no assurance that fraud, waste and abuse did not occur”.
The US risks fostering a culture of corruption in Iraq
Senator Russ Feingold
Distribution of the funds was first the responsibility of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, and later of an organisation managed by the US embassy in Iraq.
The London Times 5/2/05 Blair confirmed factual.
The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush’s National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, who was there. O’Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to “take out” Saddam. Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb. Again, neither O’Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions. Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth.
This is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg for your skeptics. Would love to put more, but don’t want to clog site.
Taxpayer, I actually don’t disagree with you on that, sincerely. I also think that the government shouldn’t be spending:
$200 million for a bridge in Alaska that would serve an island with 50 residents and
$125 million for a bridge in Anchorage, Alaska
(Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (H.R. 3))
Also, $21.8 billion worth of student loans are in default due to fraud at the Department of Education
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1840.cfm)
And the worst in my opinion, up to $25 billion in “Unrecociled transactions” in the most recent Treasury report, which means that someone spent it, but they don’t know who or for what.
So if money is your only issue, these things should rank pretty high as well correct?
Naomi:
Well said, well written, but should be labeled for what it is, fiction. I choose to believe the soldiers in the field and the people that I know for certain have been to Iraq. You America haters consider yourselves to be authorities on everything from diplomacy to how to reconstruct a devastated country, to how to run the oil industry, to how to hold elections, to how to fight the insurgents, wrong, terrorists, to what should be built first, as in your idea that there should be cranes in the center of Bahgdad before there is sufficient security built up.
If you dislaike the United States so much, get out, please, we’d be better off without you and your anti-American attitude.
Veteran.
curious
You should write to your peckerhead president and get one of the new internets. My google search brought up 992,000 links to 9 billion dollars missing in Iraq. The first link was this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
you might use you new internets to find this…i found it on my AOL news front page…yea aol…what about it?
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050504212709990006
whydoncha get back to me on this C
Margaret, all legitimate news stories that should, and will, be flushed out. I agree. But we have gotten off of my original question; if you do think that it was wrong to overthrow Saddam, why do think that? What grounds are you basing that opinion on? Are the people in Iraq better off? Why are you personally so against it, it could not be just because of tax money, we all can find billions of that cash that is being mishandled by the gov….Would we all be better off with Saddam in power?
Easy tiger, I was just using the words you gave me, nothing less. Don’t expect people to know what exactly you want them to “LOOK UP”. Plus, you don’t even answer the simple question I am asking…Look, I could find billions in government pork that you, me, Nader and everyone else doesn’t agree with. I don’t think that means a lot to the troops on the ground and the people in Iraq.
Maybe we should pose the question like this, if you were an Iraqi, what would you want, and why?? Would you be content with no US intervention and a Saddam regime?
Much of this discourse is an unfortunate example of why the democrats lost the white house and lost the hill.
As for any missing money. If you ever have done business in the Arab world then you know bribery is the order of the business day. I know this is not a “PC” statement. And I am not attacking the Arab people as whole. It is simply a very real and accepted part of their business practice. If you know any arabs, ask them if there is any trusth the statement. This is very foreign concpet to us (the US), at least so wide spread and accepted.
(This last statement will probably bring a hail storm accusing me of naivety. Of course we have bibery that goes on in the US and certainly Europe, but it pales in comparison to the almost artistic mastery of the institution in the middle east).
I’m sure the US has spent millions, maybe, billions to grease the rails. Reconstruction is a big job. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s deabtable.
How should the US report this expense on the books?
A line item for bribery in the budget with a whole lot of zeros in it? Or report it missing?
Which one is the bigger crime? I’m not sure.
If my assumption is right, is it helping reconstruction and the future of the Iraqi people? I hope so.
Never said money was the primary motivation. I think a couple posts before me pointed out that we have actually killed as many, if not more, innocent civilians than Sadaam did. Not only that, you overlooked the point that Blair and Bush co-conspired to hoodwink their respective constituents with “tweaked” data. Go to <oldamericancentury.org> There’s enough data there to prove the point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
We first went to take out Sadaam because he was a “threat”. We now know that wasn’t true, and that, in fact, so did our administration. The recent Gallup/USA Today poll shows 57% of Americans now believe we were blatantly lied to, 63% think the war wasn’t worth it.
Then it changed to, bringing Democracy. Well, a fake election that has yet to yield viable leadership beyond a prime time news photo op is what we gave them.
We were going to create jobs and help them rebuild. 99% of reconstruction is done by non-Iraqi’s and profits mainly the USA corporate structure. I am a business owner, but I don’t condone cheating people.
Gross mismanagement is rampant, as shown in my prior post.
The following news article also shows we are being drug into a Vietnam not only in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.
Asia Times Online (based in India, our ally)
Taliban profit from US largesse
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - The US, content in the belief that all support systems for the Taliban had been withdrawn and their financial lifelines completely dried up - and with moderate Taliban being drawn into the mainstream political fold in Afghanistan - has been shocked by a new phase of fierce Taliban resistance this spring.
The visits of Lieutenant-General David Barno, commander of US troops in Afghanistan, and chief of US Central Command, General John Abizaid, to Islamabad and their insistence that Pakistan restart a powerful campaign against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is the result of a new realization that the Taliban problem is back to square one.
Not only are the Taliban primed in the latest techniques in guerrilla warfare, they have also got their hands on fresh resources - both in terms of personnel and supplies - which the US had believed were choked off.
Everything, EVERYTHING they told us was the basis for this war is and was a lie. And they weren’t ignorant, just determined.
Go to
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/archives/archive_sound.php
Listen to this interview with Scott Ritter, a retired Marine and former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq. More Bush Co. lies. You have been lied to, as has this whole nation, Curious.
C
In a word, yes
I don’t think there will be a dynamic anti-war movement until there is a draft. THEN, more people will be personally involved. All the reasons to be against the war, of which Naomi is so right-on, are becoming more well-known, but we need more people. And lately I’ve come to think that until there is a draft, it is too easy for people to look the other way.
Curious,
Well, money is certainly one issue, and I would agree with you on the items you mention.
And of course, another issue is the killing.
TW - you said: “they will want you out and they will defend their country, no matter what, to the death.”
Then why are the “guerillas” blowing up Shia and Kurds 50 at a clip? Is this how Iraqis “defend” their country by killing civilians in the MAJORITY groups? Why are you siding with the MINORITY Sunnis and excusing their barbarity anyway? Is it natural or moral to have a MINORITY group brutally rule the MAJORITY for over 30 years? Were you supporting the MINORITY White Akrikaners against Mandela in South Africa as well? How very odd….
Margaret - I notice that many on the Left constantly repeat the “Bush Lied” mantra when discussing the war. Why do you suppose Bush would use WMD as one of his 3 core reasons for regime change (WMD, ME Democracy, Removing Saddam) if he KNEW it was a lie? If Bush was crafty enough to start a war based on lies, why wouldn’t he plant WMD’s if he KNEW it was a lie?
The problem with the anti-war crowd these days is that they have became so unhinged and their rhetoric has gotten too sloppy that no one can take them seriously anymore.
Larry,
If you love America like I do, you’d work just as hard as getting leaders who care about the people more than the corporations. Never had a problem with the soldiers doing their job, just the CIC. The Iraq War is about OIL and POWER. I’m sorry that you were lied to and misused. Thank you for your patriotism.End of statement.
Hmmm, we have the White House, Congress, pretty soon the courts, the military, the military industrial complex, most businesses, and most of the guns. It really does not matter what you overly emotional Liberals / Socialists / Marxists / Communists say or do, but enjoy your freedom of speech as you must.
Paul,
You do not offer one fact, written or otherwise. The problem with people who didn’t research their candidate’s record before they blindly voted is that they have only emotions to rely on. Where’s your proof he didn’t know the truth. All the documents I provided show otherwise. Sorry you have to defend your poor choice for Commander in Chief with nothing but rhetoric.
TW:
If there was any logic to your argument, then we would have lost WWII, Germany would still be Nazi, and Japan would still be run by the militarists, instead of both being democracies today. Of course, if there was any logic behind your argument, then neither Germany nor Japan could have conquered any other nation themselves. Using only Vietnam for comparison is a selective reading of history—good for a cheap point, but unlikely to illuminate anything.
(BTW, I hope you make an exception for any firefighters who might mistakenly think you would be glad of their assistance, even if it involved coming into your home. Perhaps their safest course would to be to simply prevent other houses from catching fire and let you deal with getting yourself our alive.)
Margaret, thanks for being civil here, unlike others. My problem is this: it is so very easy on either point of view to produce articles, accusations and documents to support your side. I could point to blogs and sites such as Jihadwatch and Democraticwings to 100% refute your thoughts on Afganistan and Iraq. In fact, I just need to turn to today’s news to do that:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200505050807.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1475994,00.html (aghast! A UK paper!)
But we both know it is a pointless endeavor. There will always be papers and blogs and websites that say the complete opposite on this topic. It is so pointless to direct people to this blather….
What I am interested in is personal thoughts, real people, opinions and views not influenced by Fox News or Move On….
Now, in your heart, if you were an Iraqi, how do you think you would feel?!?! We are there now, it is a sunk cost, as the accountants would say, so now let’s just think about it….would they be better off if we just left right now??? Don’t dwell on these conspiracy theories cooked up by these sensationalist sites (on both sides) think in terms of the future!
Jah,
Do you think you’re god? What’s with Jah? Too much ganga, I guess.
By the way, the Republicans are eliminating democracy and destroying the Constitution, if you haven’t been reading the papers for the last 4 1/2 years. We have only been trying to retain democracy, but I guess you’re another one of those that want the Libertarian view of chaos.
Taxpayer, I agree again. What amount of killing can you “justify”. It is difficult, and only history will tell….
Realitybasedbob, I can only accept your stance on that. It is more a “macro” disagreement that we will unlikely solve. But I hope those on both of our sides will figure out a way to work together on issues outside Iraq that we do agree on…
If I were an Iraqi, I would want us out. I would be very angry that I’d been lied to about creating new jobs, stopping the murder and torture. Now we fly them to other countries to do so.
It was an unjustified war. It was a purposeful lie. I’m sorry that you find the London Times, a very conservative, Blair/Bush-supporting paper, sensationalist. But it’s all over the press, all over the world, just not here. Here, we heard about the runaway bride. What a cover up!
But if you’re persuaded that it is the right thing to do, no fact, even if I brought Jesus Christ in here to tell you himself, would not be enough. Seeing that you seem to only wish to invalidate any evidence (Conversational Terrorism 101)as “unworthy”, there is no point in continuing our discussion.
However, much has been gained because the non-neocons (trolls) who come on this site can now see firm data provided for my viewpoint, and little to none to justify what we have done.
Curious, there is no flag big enough to cover the blood of the innocents we have murdered in the name of $.
Margaret, indeed, invoking Jesus Christ is probably a good place to stop this discussion. I would just urge you to continue to read the New York Times, but when it comes to making decisions and taking a stance, use your heart and use your head. Take yourself out of the box we all live in, the over hyped, over sensationalized media box, and think about what is right, and what (in 10-20 years) would you be proud to support. I will sign off for now….
I love my country
I am ashamed of my country
Tourtue in Abu Graib, Afganastan, Cuba, rendering (out sourcing) tortue to other counties
It is not a good time here in the home of the free
Curious,
Some would say NO killing is justified. I take a more moderate viewing. I think killing in the name of self-defense is justified (which clearly wasn’t the case in Iraq). I could have easily turned my head and silently assented to an assassination of Saddam Hussain, if that was the true intent of the Iraq invasion (which clearly it wasn’t). Would have been a hell of lot cheaper too! I could justify that based on all the people he has killed.
What has REALLY happened is exactly what Naomi speaks of. This war has nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with controlling oil, establishing military bases, opening new corporate markets, and taxpayer subsidization of corporate-military-industrial profits.
As advanced as our military is, don’t you think they could have taken out Saddam if that was their sole objective?
Paul,Bush lied to us,period.It’s not a mantra,that’s just a label you use to deny the truth. Curious,there are a lot of dispicable people in the world that we’d be better off without.Why Saddam? Larry,if what Naomi says is fiction,could you please elaborate?Or is this just more broad based assertions unbacked by facts?Why are you Bush/war supporters so averse to fact based debate?Is it because your opinions are based more on what you want to believe than on what’s real?Just curious.
I am ashamed of my spelling
amen taxpayer
In case you didn’t notice over the last millenium or so there has always been an empire looking to control the world and its resources might as well be a benevolent American empire in my book. a world organized under our capitalist system will only benefit the masses just as it created the most affluent and prosperous people in the world, the Americans! I love left wing wackos like Naomi and the rest of these socialist pigs, they are playing right into our capitalist neo-con hands the more visable and vocal they become the more elections we will win. Did any of you left wing wackos notice that for the first time since the end of the Vietnam war the head of that country is coming to America to bow at the Capitalist alter? I wonder why? Could it be that they finally took a look at the prosperity of Japan, South Korea and other nations we occupied and wished they hadn’t sided with international socialists like Naomi and comrads. Instead they live in a socialist country where everyone being equal means they are all equally impoverished. Now take to streets comrads!
robert
you might want to check your screws
robert
So when did neo-con capitalist begin evoking Stalinist salutations like comrade?
Why do you hate America?
Not long after we entered WW2,it became obvious it was the right thing to do.The whole country realized it.And saw it through to the end.Not exactly whats happening today.And by the way,was ‘post traumatic stress syndrome’ a problem for those veterans like it is today?If not,why?Could it be because the WW2 vets never doubted that what they were doing was right?Not exactly whats happening today.To compare WW2 with Iraq is a pathetic and desperate attempt to justify a bad choice.Iraq didn’t attack us.We went to war with them based on a lie.Thats the truth,and all you “we support Bush cause we’re too scared of the world crowd” need to wake up and smell the coffee.You are all scared little pussies!!!
Robert,what empire in history has ever been benevolent?Your comments showcase the arrogance that define empires,and what ultimately results in their downfall.EVERYTIME.
truth
I think PTSS is very much evident in WW2 vets. Ever hear of alcoholism? Ever hear about the vets who just don’t/won’t talk about the war….even with their family?
But I think you have a good point.
Did you know that the repuglicans fought tooth and nail to keep us out of the war, to keep the Jewish refugees from coming to America, even when they were on a ship coming here?
Did you know that the great Dem. leader FDR sidestepped the repuglicans in congress by devising “Lend/Lease” with Churchill so that England could re-arm itself?
Think back…when was the last war a repuglican president won? These people are greedy imperialist nothing more, nothing less.
As for scared little pussies, I don’t know, they do have big balls though.
Michael Kazin on Zinn, cited on this thread, from Dissent, the democratic socialist mag.,
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/kazin.htm
Zinn does reveal a few moments of democratic glory-occasions when “the people,” or at least a politically conscious fraction of them, temporarily broke through the elite’s thick web of lies and coercion. Agrarian rebels formed cooperatives, allied with radical unionists, and charted their own financial system, the subtreasury, which they hoped would break the grip of heartless bankers. But, alas, the Populists were seduced in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan, who sold out their movement to the retrograde Democratic Party. During the Great Depression, wage earners across the industrial Midwest staged heroic sit-down strikes that demonstrated their ability to shut down the economy. But, for unexplained reasons, these working-class heroes allowed CIO unions and the New Deal state to smother their discontent within long-term contracts and bureaucratic procedures. Similarly, the civil rights movement toppled the Southern citadel of Jim Crow without taking on the capitalist system that kept the black masses mired in poverty.
This is history as cynicism. Zinn omits the real choices our left ancestors faced and the true pathos, and drama, of their decisions. In fact, most Populists cheered Bryan and voted for him because he shared their enemies and their vision of a producers’ republic. Unlike Zinn, they grasped the dilemma of third parties in the American electoral system, which Richard Hofstadter likened to honeybees, “once they have stung, they die.” And to bewail the fact that liberal Democrats saw an advantage to supporting rights for unions and minorities is a stunning feat of historical naiveté. Short of revolution, a strategic alliance with one element of “the Establishment” is the only way social movements ever make lasting changes in law and public policy.
Zinn’s conception of American elites is akin to the medieval church’s image of the Devil. For him, a governing class is motivated solely by its appetite for riches and power-and by its fear of losing them. Numerous historians may regard George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton as astute, if seriously flawed, men who erected a structure for the new nation that has endured for over two centuries. But Zinn curtly dismisses them as “leaders of the new aristocracy” and regards the nation-state itself as a cunning device to lull ordinary folks with “the fanfare of patriotism and unity.”
<SNIP>
cont. @
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/kazin.htm
For all neo-con peckerheads, the end is near. Your chicken hawk president is on his way down.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/11574258.htm
2006 is closer than you think.
Have any of you who so fondly accuse the USA of wrongness, and exult in chomskyesque orgasms ever been consistently on an ARAB FORUM? Do you have the slightest CLUE?
I have, I am, and I am sorry to say, many of you are quite childish. So sorry.
Only now, NOW, is there the slightest dent and thought about what the washing away of the enire status quo MIGHT mean.
If there is anyone here with the facts to point out ANY difference politically between what Bush has done in Iraq, and what FDR did with the Neutrality Patrol 9 months before Pearl Harbor, when 79% of this nation did not want us involved in any foreign war, and 3 months after the draft pased BY ONE VOTE, I’d like to see it. Yet that little twist of policy in the face of congressional opposition, and public opinion which resulted immediately in hundreds of american deaths is today regarded as an act of clear morality and rightness. But it certainly wasn’t so clear in 1941.
I see very little difference. As EVEN Max hastings of the Guardian, no less, has now stated, if america will not act, no one will.
Bob, you could be right,although alchoholism has been a problem throughout history.I didn’t know about your other points though,thanx.As far as the Bush/war supporters being scared,I stand by that.Bush used that fear to get reelected.If you doubt that,just ask yourself this,since the election,have you heard of even 1 terror alert being given?They just magically disappeared off the radar screen.They weren’t needed anymore.Curious,wouldn’t you say?Not to mention the fact that all of our ‘fearless leaders’chickened out of the vietnam war.Everyone of them.Even though they believed the war was justified.SCARED LITTLE PUSSIES!!!
Margaret>... Go to
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/archives/archi ive_sound.php
Aargh.Randi Rhodes, as The New Republic reported a while ago has had on the air LaRoucheite neo-fascist conspiranoid, Webster Tarpley on her show hawking his book on the Bush family,
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
Other lefties on Pacifica Radio were takin’ in by John Bircher Soc. far rightists during the Gulf War
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html
Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected
Chip Berlet
Political Research Associates
Epa,do you have any facts,or are you just treating us to more of your mental margaritas?
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0409progiraq.html
FPIF Policy Report
September 2004
Who Are the Progressives in Iraq? The Left, the Right, and the Islamists
www.fpif.org
By Frank Smyth
Frank Smyth is a freelance journalist who has “embedded” with leftist guerrillas in El Salvador, Iraq, and Rwanda. He covered the 1991 uprisings against Saddam Hussein’s regime, and was later captured and held for two weeks inside Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. He wrote this policy report for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). His clips are posted at www.franksmyth.com.
epaminoslsidhgnalkdu:
FDR and the neutrality act:
UNITED STATES - SEPTEMBER 1939
Neutrality Announced - On the 5th, President Roosevelt declares the neutrality of the United States in accordance with the 1937 Neutrality Act. This includes a ban on the sale of arms and munitions to all belligerents.
Military Strength - On the 8th, he proclaims a “limited national emergency” and increases the strength of the armed forces. This includes naval enlisted men from 110,000 to 145,000 and Marine Corps from 18,000 to 25,000. Retired Navy and Marine officers and men can also be recalled to active duty as needed.
Neutrality Patrol - The President also orders the organization of a Neutrality Patrol to protect the neutrality of the Americas and report any movement of belligerent forces towards the coasts of the United States or the West Indies. The Neutrality Patrol is formed on the 12th under the command of Commander Atlantic Squadron (Rear-Adm A W Johnson). Organized into eight groups consisting mainly of cruisers and destroyers, some with patrol aircraft support, it covers the coast from Canada down to the Caribbean. Battleships and a carrier are held in reserve.
Where are you going with this connection epamisldasdkia?
epaminisasdlkfoidu…
FDR and the neutrality act:
UNITED STATES - SEPTEMBER 1939
Neutrality Announced - On the 5th, President Roosevelt declares the neutrality of the United States in accordance with the 1937 Neutrality Act. This includes a ban on the sale of arms and munitions to all belligerents.
Military Strength - On the 8th, he proclaims a “limited national emergency” and increases the strength of the armed forces. This includes naval enlisted men from 110,000 to 145,000 and Marine Corps from 18,000 to 25,000. Retired Navy and Marine officers and men can also be recalled to active duty as needed.
Neutrality Patrol - The President also orders the organization of a Neutrality Patrol to protect the neutrality of the Americas and report any movement of belligerent forces towards the coasts of the United States or the West Indies. The Neutrality Patrol is formed on the 12th under the command of Commander Atlantic Squadron (Rear-Adm A W Johnson). Organized into eight groups consisting mainly of cruisers and destroyers, some with patrol aircraft support, it covers the coast from Canada down to the Caribbean. Battleships and a carrier are held in reserve.
Where ya going with the Patrol reference?
sorry about the re post
Maybe you ought to google the name??? One might have thought some curious enought to wonder…rather than ridicule
FDR used the Navy under the guise of the Neutrality Patrol to escort british merchants from the spring of 1941 (after the draft passed by one vote in 12/40) in order to both support a belligerent, and help get war goods TO that belligerent. But we were neutral. The Germans then sank the USS Reuben James. The Gallup poll started right then…79% of americans did not want us involved in this war for any reason. FDR made clear he felt we needed to be in it against the nazis (Conrad Black’s gr8 biography). In other words, depsite the polls, despite congressional opposition, despite the legalities he took those actions needed to get us into the war. He failed at that point.
Moral?
Absolutely
Today we have seen a situation where the entire status quo of the middle east HAD TO GO. Despite all the claims for 50 years of the ‘left’ (and I am a registered dem), it is the USA who is a revolutionary power, a force for change. And we acted. Left alone the actions of a national security only foreign policy (Mossadegh) only create more problems. The USA found after 9/11 that only way to greater security was democracies. If needs be at the point of a gun (just like 1945). The arab nations did have some nascent democratic movements, but they could never succeed . More overt action is called for, for these tiny groups to succeed. There is no choice. There is no way back. No way. Halliburton isnt even a ripple in these tidal forces.
Nor is it a big deal if the arabs in one of these nations vote in a govt which despises us. That govt, in a democracy will be interested in improving the roads, schools, and jobs, or they will be voted out. Get it? They will be fighting over whether their govt should boost aid for prescriptions by 5% or 8%..that is the way it works. What did we do when the turks told us to take the 4th ID and jam it? NOTHING. Why? Because the decision was representative of the people, and we knew it, and the cameras were ON.
Get on an arab forum site and stay there. You’ll understand WHY there is no alternative, and why these theories about Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton, Israel are absolute trash…might as well be whining about the masons and templars.
Great article, Ms. Klein. Those opposed to the war do need to understand the motives of the Bush administration and follow their course through policy, as you noted. One part of the article, however, seems simplistic—supporting democracy. If democracy were implemented, Iraq would probably split into three countries, along ethnic-religious lines. I would encourage more emphasis on an international solution—placing Iraq under the supervision of the United Nations, as politically difficult as this may seem.
Gosh, if only you had your way, Saddam could still be in power, the Syrians could be slaughtering the Lebanese demonstrators, women could be wearing burkhas in Afghanistan, the Intifada could still be blowing up Israeli school children…
Wouldn’t the world be a brighter place?
This whole debate is silly since it is on a very silly polemic.
The way the left spouts endlessly a libel until it becomes accepted as truth is almost comical if it were not kind of serious.
“The administration says the war was about fighting for democracy. That was the big lie they resorted to when they were caught in the other lies. But it’s a different kind of a lie in the sense that it’s a useful lie. The lie that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy not just to Iraq but, as it turns out, to the whole world, is tremendously useful—because we can first expose it as a lie and then we can join with Iraqis to try to make it true.”
Take that passage, she uses the word ‘lie’ six times in one paragraph. What is silly is that it is in itself a lie. See this article from the NYT Magazine 2002 on Paul Wolfowitz. [Yes I know he’s considered on the left as being the devil incarnate but that is only because they have demonised him]
In this article he lays out a long standing theory that democratising ‘rogue’ countries which harbour and sponsor terrorism is the best long term way of dealing with the problem
Several commenters have written dispagagingly about the US being in Germany, Japan, S Korea. Why don’t you ask the people of those countries if they are better off now than they were, and in the case of Germany and Japan, two of the most militaristic countries the world has seen, they are now peaceful democracies. And how ignore the difference between North and South Korea! And you see why I call this debate silly.
There is a very apt name for the likes of Naomi Klein, [I was going to abbreviate it to NK but thought it might cause confusion] and those who defend the article here, dingbats. I use it not as an epithet but as a fact, people who are blinded to any rational thinking by ideology and hatred.
They are the same people who hold candlelight vigils for condemned murderers but pass over the horrible beheadings of innocent people by the ‘insurgents’. Remember Margaret Passan who spent thirty years doing humanitarian work for the Iraqi people. Remember what your ‘insurgents’ did to her. You make me sick.
Naomi,
Great article. I have an idea how to start getting free media on NBC at least. Without fanfare, get a large group of anti-war returned and wounded vets to casually crowd around the “Today” show sidewalk window and very quietly raise signs condemning the war. A guy in a wheel chair is a pretty powerful image and needs to be seen nationally. Even better to time it for an appearance by Bill Frist or RUMSFELD! Yeah.
Al Gore’s internet tells me that ole Epa was not very socially adept as he was a hot head and he trained in ascetic ways. (he wore a lot of old clothes and begged for his dinner)
He argued with King Agesilaus and got his ass kicked out of the peace counsel in Sparta.
Epa invented guerilla warfare when he had his phalanxs attack from the side instead of straight on, like the old guys had always done.
He did some conquering as a young man, but upon his return to Thebes he was charged with abusing his office, he got off on a technicality, he saved Thebes.
While blogging in the month of May, he was found blathering on about nascent democratic movements, and American Empire and such. Expounding on the need for American world domination, there by insuring world peace. Epa seemingly ignores that conservation and alternative fuels would completely negate any relevance of middle eastern oil reserves and the need to for America to own them.
Well,I scanned various arab forums,anti american sentiment is rising rapidly,ranging anywhere between 80% to 98%.Due to our foreign policies toward Palistine and Iraq,and not our culture.Pretty convincing stuff Epalyingtous.
U Scare Me is absolutely right about our educational system in this country. He’s a perfect example.
I also read about how some Iraqis have declared fatwah against the terrorists.Arabs fighting Arabs.There’s something new under the sun…Same old same old.
Please, ligneus , you can’t use Wolfowitz as a source for a long standing theory…for god’s sake, it was HIS OWN long standing theory concocted and written up by the good folks over at PNAC. Remember that the good Margaret Passan was not bothered for all those years…it wasn’t until the US invaded and occupied Iraq that she and others were so disgustingly killed.
Bush said WMD. Powell showed us the pictures, Tennet said slam dunk, Rumsfeld backed them all up. IT WAS A LIE. Peckerhead bush was going to Iraq come hell or high water and its all over the news.
We are there now, we have to find a way to stabilize the cradle of civilazion and we have to get out.
Ligneus,the debate became silly when you logged on.Ligneus is a silly name.Isn’t that,like half a word?
Let’s answer one question at a time, who attacked us on September 11?
Considering that most of the 9/11 terrorists were saudis,I would say,hmmm,SATAN!!!!
Sorry,I had a church lady flashback.
condemning all Saudis’ as satan is a little harsh
osama bin laden (once supported by raygun/bush 1 and rumsfleld and cheney) and 19 terrorists…mostly saudi’s
Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to bring him back dead or alive….how did that work out?
I’ll answer the question was it worth it to overthrow Saddam. It depends on who you are asking. If you ask an Iraqi family who has lost children, brothers, sisters, parents, what would they say? If you ask the 57% of Americans who now say it wasn’t worth it, what would they say? If you ask the parents of slain American soldiers, what would they say? If you ask Halliburton or Bechtel who have gained billions, what would they say? If you ask most of the rest of the world what would they say?
I can tell you from my standpoint that of course it was not worth it. It in no way made the world safer - to the contrary. It is now proven that Saddam was totally contained, THERE WERE NO WMDS.
But this sure has been a great recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden (remember him?)And what exactly did it accomplish for the Iraqis? A destroyed country, no jobs, little electriciy, continued chaos, occupation…...
Make no mistake, the reason we went into Iraq is simple. Oil is running out and the US has decided to meet that challenge militarily. Given that Iraq is sitting on a motherlode of oil and just as importantly it is situated in exactly the right location for the US to establish military bases to police the rest of the middle east so that as oil supplies continue to decline we can use our military power to wrest what we need.
There is no exit plan becuase the US does not plan to exit - ever - or as long as oil exists in the middle east. The stakes are way too big. And our life style,as Cheney said, is non-negotiable.
Thank you Bilbo
But I can’t discern if you support American imperialism or not.
But you are correct; the premise for the Iraq war was/is a lie.
We ARE there for the oil and to have a US military force in the Middle East.
We are the ugly Americans once again, killing tens of thousands of innocents to hold on to our non negotiable life style.
How to stop the war?
Why stop there? Let’s stop the whole big lie behind this totally illegitimate criminal enterprise called the Bush Cheney administration.
9/11 was a U.S. Military attack overseen by our intellegence and Cheney. Until this sinks in and is made known to all, the rest of everthing said above is useless.
End the war by convincing everyone in the United States to commit suicide for our sins against humanity. That way we won’t consume 25% of the world’s oil each day, we won’t try to force our political system onto the poor, unsuspecting victims of tyrants, dictatorships and oligarchies everywhere. That way we won’t turn the Earth into a massive hot potato of incandescent CO2. And outer space won’t be militarized. The sea lanes will be open for all the peaceful people of the world (and dolphins!) to use like a giant, liquid playground.
If only we can convince all those stupid religious people that there’s no heaven above us, no hell below (Lennon, not Lenin). If they have nothing to fear for their soul then that would get us quite a way along the road. I mean, how can anybody justify the existence of this country? We need to give all of our wealth to the poor so they can have all the things necessary for a good life. Heck they can have my house. Come on over right now! We can all smoke some reefer, do a few electronic banking transactions into the U.N.‘s Oil For Food account and then O.D. on Viagra.
Thanks for really changing the world. Answer the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex murder with murder (a suicide is just an introverted murderer as Monty Python says). I’m hoping for your eventual enlightenment. Get ‘er done.
PD
whats so funny about peace, love and understanding?
Elvis not Elvis
Very funny, Mr. Quig. You are a sorry excuse for a human being. We’re trying to be serious here and find a way to END THE WAR. Since you obviously find this an amusing topic, why don’t you just go back to the right-wing, hate-mongering website that directed you to us peace-loving, gentle people—who hate, disdain, marginalize, patronize or ignore at least 51% of our fellow countrymen? We’re utopians—we cannot be proved wrong. We measure our political enemies against what could possibly happen some day in our perfect conception of the world. However, do ignore that little failed experiment of our past political infatuation that resulted in the slaughter of over 100 million innocents (communism). It really wasn’t done properly, you know. Next time our ideas for a better world really will work. Trust us.
The satan comment was a joke Bob.I guess my point is that since the 9/11 terrorists were saudis,who were members of Al Quaida,(damn,how do you spell that?)who was linked to the taliban in Afganistan,who has been linked to Quadaffi in Libya,who has been linked with hezbolah,who has been linked with Hamas,who has been linked with Osama bin Hiding,who has been linked with madonna,who has been linked with britany,(I saw the pictures)who knows who’s responsible for 9/11.Hmmmm,maybe there was a link with Saddam.OH MY GOD,I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT!BUSH REALLY IS TALKING TO GOD.HE’S TOLD BUSH TO BRING DEMOCRACY,APPLE PIE,AND SEXY LINGERIE TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST!And in return,we get all their oil.I guess it’s worth the lives of our brave soldiers after all.
The topic 9/11 has come up several times in this comment section. It is painfully clear how many are still in the dark. Please see link for further reading
http://www.911truth.org/
PD:
33% - we consume 33% of the worlds oil supply and account for less than ten percent of the population
Right Greg,all kidding aside,when Bush @ company start feeling that they’re losing their grip on power,and they will,it’s already starting to happen,where do you think they’ll set off the nuke?After that, any pretence of democracy and freedom will fall away like the thin veneer that it is.We’ll be begging them to impose marshall law and protect us from them barbarians.People cannot even conceive the possibility that it was our own leaders that did this to us.Remember Pearl Harbor.
I hope I’m wrong.
tw,
Let’s say the U.S was controlled by a dictator for 35 years who enforced his will through mass graves. Let’s also say that a foreign power, say Canada, came in and overthrew him. Then Canada gets caught up fighting the 10% of the U.S citizens that supported that dictator.
No, I would not fight against the Canadian troops trying to put down the dictator supporters. No, I would not drive car bombs into crowds of fellow U.S citizens at a market. No, I would not attack fellow U.S citizens trying to sign up for security forces. No, I would not chop off the heads of U.S. citizens who are helping the Canadians. Yes, I would vote in the election made possible by the Canadian invasion.
I guess I wouldn’t be helping the “resistance” much
Dear: “U Scare Me”
Why do you willfully choose to ignore facts and support traitors and usurpers of our republic? of war criminals?
Foolish one, the USA attacked Iraq because we needed to find a new home for US troops (we had to get out of Saudi Arabia - home of the 9/11 terrorists). It was supposed to be easy and cheap - ideas of those who never went to war.
We win and go home!???? Germany? Italy? Japan? Korea?
Foolish one, read a book, any book, or visit one of these countries. We always maintain bases and forces, eh, if we win (or reach a stalemate).
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi’s are against the terrorists.
But at the same time the vast majority of Iraqi’s want the USA out.
Iraqi = Terrorist
Foolish one, those a president supports are “Freedom Fighters”, those a president doesn’t support are “Terrorists”.
Dear: epaminondas
“... spring of 1941 while we were at peace ...”
Foolish one, the USA’s manufacturing sector had been gearing up for war and was supplying Britain with much needed arms, food and other necessities years earlier. Yes, you could say that US military personnel were used for private enterprise, but what’s new? That production capability won that war and gave us the wonderful 50’s.
“... brought to you by FDR HST wing of the…”
Foolish one, no such wing exists, except for wing-nuts.
Dear: Curious
“was it a good idea to overthrow Saddam? ... a simple yes or no would do.”
Foolish one, you are neither curious nor respectful of truth. Answer “yes or no” is not a question, but an ultimatum by a parent to a child or a bully to a geek. Simplistic answers to complicated questions are why the USA is bankrupt both financially and morally. This is the rhetoric-style of the corporacrats of the media and the neo-con/fake-christian right, and it never solves problems. It draws lines in the sand.
Dear: dontbafraid
“America did not start this war, but we will finish it…”
O-so-foolish one, yes we did. We started this war in Iraq. Saudi Arabians started the one on 9/11, so we will leave Saudi Arabia and use our tax dollars to pay Halliburton to build permanent bases in Iraq. Cause we be macho, son!
O-so-foolish one - your rant about ‘nukes’ staggers the imagination. What you see as a solution is evil-doing at its damnedest. Heaven is open to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and non-denominational-walk-ins alike. So is hell.
Dear: Ken
“This is the silliest thing I’ve read… ”
O-silly-and-foolish one, you resound of limbaugh - off the hill-billly heroin.
One smoking gun has been published in the Times of London and not mentioned in our press. The memo confirming cooking the intell one year before we attacked. By the way, America’s librul media has just been voted the 24th freest press in the world. Keep drinking the kool-aide Kenny-boy.
Dearest Naomi,
Thank you for your contributions to truth and understanding of US actions and motives vs the rhetoric. Most Americans will not be proud once they are informed. Greedy liars, right-wing traitors and publicly-pious hypocrites have stolen the language of “peace” “democracy” “freedom” “faith” “patriotism” etc., and it will take some time to restore these good words.
Let those of goodwill use these words with impunity.
The US doesn’t need to get out of Iraq only, it needs to get out of the US as well.
I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH TREASONOUS LIES
IT READS LIKE A SCIEMCE FICTION STORY FOR THE LEFT
YEAH WE ARE THERE BECAUSE OF ALL THE OIL WE ARE GETIING
ALL THE MONEY WE ARE MAKING YEAH
YOU MIUST HAVE FLUNKED ECONOMICS
For the right-wing doubters, it was spelled out years ago. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out the agenda in his book The Grand Chessboard. Of interest from said tome is the following:
“The exercise of American global primacy must be sensitive to the fact that political geography remains a critical consideration in international affairs. Napoleon reportedly once said that to know a nation’s geography was to know its foreign policy. Our understanding of the importance of political geography, however, must adapt to the new realities of power.
For most of the history of international affairs, territorial control was the focus of political conflict. Either national self-gratification over the acquisition of larger territory or the sense of national deprivation over the loss of “sacred” land has been the cause of most of the bloody wars fought since the rise of nationalism. It is no exaggeration to say that the territorial imperative has been the main impulse driving the aggressive behaviour of nation-states. Empires were also built through the careful seizure and retention of vital geographic assets, such as Gibraltar or the Suez Canal or Singapore, which served as key choke points or linchpins in a system of imperial control.”
“In that context, how America `manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”
Rather than mere speculation, it would seem Naomi’s observations might more accurately be termed a progress report.
—-B Q Hempshackle
In 1967, Ernesto Guevara wrote a famous pamphlet, “Create Two, Three, Many Viet Nams”. Multiple convicts, spread throughout the world, meant to stretch, drain, and exhaust the military capabilities of the United States. Appears we took the bait. Where are we so far, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Columbia, the Balkans? And next? How long does anyone believe we can sustain the toll in blood and treasure
I think all true liberals and dumocrats should get behind this campaign to support the patriotic resistance of Iraq. Perhaps Ms. Klein would be willing to donate her car to such an obviously worthy cause.
I found it especially heartwarming to listen to her complaint about how John Kerry had been completely outfoxed in the debates by the reputedly dimwitted GW Bush, a man universally lampooned as a complete moron.
But, speaking of morons, it was that other moron, the one who ended the dark career of that other liberal icon- the empire of evil- that had something apropos to say about this subject. I refer, of course to the future fifth face on the mountain, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who made the observation that liberals always seem to blame America first, a position undoubtedly held by Ms. Klein.
It is America’s fault, for example, that the recent Iraqi elections featured a slate of anonymous candidates and not that of the patriotic Iraqi resistance who murdered every candidate they could get their hands on. Speaking of Ms. Klein’s “patriotic Iraqi resistance”, let’s just call them the Patriotic Iraqi Guardians, or PIGS for short.
It is America’s fault that 500,000 jobs in Saddam’s Wehrmacht and SS were eliminated.
It is America’s fault that the power plants and oil pipelines are blown up. We simply aren’t guarding them well enough from the PIGS.
It is America’s fault that ordinary Iraqis are being executed by the PIGS for such “crimes” as standing on the sidewalk or wanting a job or driving a car.
It is America’s fault that the number of ordinary Iraqis being executed by the PIGS on a daily basis during this period of liberation, modernization, and democratization has fallen far below the number of ordinary Iraqis executed on any given day by the PIGS in their former jobs with the previous regime.
It is America’s fault that Saddam looted and pillaged and robbed the country and spent every last penny on himself, his worthless offspring, his vile henchmen and on a series of disastrously- foolish wars that lasted decades and impoverished the nation. Now, bankrupt and exhausted, Iraq tries to rebuild, only to be foiled by the PIGS who blow up anything that gets fixed and cut the heads off of anybody who tries to fix it.
It is America’s fault that Iraq must borrow the money it could otherwise easily earn through oil sales. Too bad that the PIGS keep blowing up the Iraqi people’s sole means of sustenance and recovery. It is not America that is throwing Iraq into the arms of the bankers but the PIGS.
It is America’s fault that we sold weapons to Saddam. My only complaint is that we didn’t sell him more. What a perfect way to acheive world peace. Sell arms to Saddam’s sand nazis. Sell arms to Khomeini’s gulag theocrats. Let them trade their valuable oil for weapons to stab each other into extinction with. Ah, Ronnie, we miss you. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Yes, there is a way to end this war, or at least to drastically shorten it and bring our victorious boys home sooner rather than later. The PIGS could stop murdering their innocent and defenceless fellow countrymen who want nothing more than an opportunity to live in peace and start building the future. Stop killing for a week and we could all go home. But, as long as they have hope that their campaign to reconquer Iraq will eventually succeed, they will continue to kill. And we will continue to stay until either the faint-hearted and foolish become a majority or until the PIGS lose hope. So long as they believe that the American will to assist the Iraqi people might eventually falter, they will continue to kill. Way to go, Ms.Klein.
bataan@elpasotel.net
Dear: epaminondas
Had to go? Claims of the left? US is only revolutionary power? just like 1945? Theories?
O-Almighty-Emperialistic-Troll-one, I bow to thy wisdom.
Freedom at the point of a gun is freedom after all. Selling off the national assets of an occupied nation is capitalism - it is not stealing and it is not a crime. Why don’t the fools see it? Oh, now I get it. Only you wise-guys know what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should mean to the entire earth. No, I really get it. Only war will keep us at peace, keep us safe. Everything is going as planned. Democracy for all! Give us your sons.
Dear: JoeS
Saddam? Syrians slaughtering? Afghan women? Intifada?
O-Stringing-togetherer-of-sentences, 1+1+1+1=4
1. We, Americans, weren’t asked if wanted to spend our treasure to remove Saddam. We were told he was within minutes of hitting us with WMD. That he was behind 9/11.
2. Lebanese fury over the murder of Hariri demanded Syrians leave, as they did the French, British, Israelis, and that’s a good thing. The best chance of democracy in the entire region is Lebanon. Let’s hope we don’t screw it up.
3. Most women still wear burkhas outside of downtown Kabul. Others are stoned to death.
4. Incidents of slaughter on both sides are down, but not a thing of the past. We all hope both sides seek a reasonable and lasting way to live and let live.
Dear: d.berkland
You flunked 3rd grade spelling and reading comprehension.
No one said the things you say. Try night school and flush that kool-aide.
Dear: Larry Larson
O-funny-funny-troll.
Your cranky cause that kool-aide straw should be in your mouth, not up your nose. Offer something or crawl back into your hole.
Pleiku’69
We went to war for 3000 reason. We went to war because the American people decided to declare war after we were attacked. I could care less what you liberal’s think because you are starting to become the friend of our enemies and you might hate us because we can do what we want to do anytime or anywhere but just remember it is because of what you said that has made us to be able to be head and shoulders above you liberals. You are nothing more than looters of the backs of hard working people and just remember this one thing, these nice polite people who usually are meek and mild manner, who tend to stay to themselves is going to have a long memory. I will never forgive the left for putting my life in jeopardy. You are going to pay and you are going to pay bad because after we are done with these Islamo fascist, then it is your turn to be dismantled in the world. Don’t worry we will be coming after you next as long as I live in this world I will never forgive your treason. Let don’t forget that you people on the left let Hitler come to power and you people on the left killed more people in the name of socialism than any other ism in the world. Stalin and Mao, do those name ring a death bell???
Here’s a link detailing some of the vast reconstruction work going on in Iraq. It should make any reasonable person question Naomi Klein’s credibility.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
What’s Cranky? “Posted by James A. Kaplin” .
That’s Cranky.
I hate it when posters start with the name calling…
Dear James A. Kaplin,
I have a long memory, too. It’s numbskulls like you that ruined my “other priorities” and sent me to Vietnam for a lie.
Treason? This administration is guilty of the highest crimes and misdemeanors - time to impeach and imprison the lot of ‘em.
The left put your life in jeopardy? What drugs are you on Kaplin? It’s your mindless, simplistic view of existence, of black and white, right or wrong, that puts all life in jeopardy.
The right put Hitler into power. Stalin? Mao? They were communist dictators. Your point is pointless. The communist Chinese are now the good buddies of corporate America. Not Americans. Afterall, they keep the treasury and Wall Street afloat.
I’ve been where you chicken-hawks, liars and button-pushing-murderers-from-secured-bunkers have never been. Typical of you neo-fascist cranks to threaten people and ideas over the web.
Present ideas. Drop the threats. You are vastly outnumbered.
Get this - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Repeat NOTHING!
What 3000 reasons? Name three.
Pleiku ‘69
At 12:39AM, ‘A poor example of an insurgent’ wrote:
“Let’s say the U.S was controlled by a dictator for 35 years who enforced his will through mass graves. Let’s also say that a foreign power, say Canada, came in and overthrew him. Then Canada gets caught up fighting the 10% of the U.S citizens that supported that dictator.
No, I would not fight against the Canadian troops trying to put down the dictator supporters. No, I would not drive car bombs into crowds of fellow U.S citizens at a market. No, I would not attack fellow U.S citizens trying to sign up for security forces. No, I would not chop off the heads of U.S. citizens who are helping the Canadians. Yes, I would vote in the election made possible by the Canadian invasion.
I guess I wouldn’t be helping the “resistance” much”
————-
That comment has made me begin to think more. I’ve always identified with the resistance in Iraq with the belief that if someone invaded the US I would be the first one to fight. Yet it is not really the same situation at all. My head is swirling right now.
Pleiku
Follow me carefully.. I talk to arabs in the gulf every day
1) You can deny it all you want but here is the botom line..we are where we are because we do not follow god’s laws..we make up our own as we go along. Get it?
The law, the word of god was given to muhammad and we do what we want in denial of this perfect word. We are fornicating, adulterized, jew led, zionist, alchoholic, las vegas living capitalistic yadda yadda ..
2) You can call me a troll all you want but PRIOR to 9/11 not only were we down the line dems, but had Bradley workers sleeping in our house in 2000
3) I organized and took part in anti vietnam action from 1967 onwards..THIS AIN’T THAT
4) If there had been no 9/11 there would have been no Iraq
5) Just as FDR spun around his reasons for usurping the neutrality acts to have THIS neutral nation commit acts of war to support Britain (and rightly so) while opposed by the vast majority of americans and congress, so we have today.
Halliburton is not controlling america.
Iraq was not committed for corporate profits for who…stockholders?
Israel’s ‘protection’ did not committ american troops to war. That remains the heart of Ms. Klein’s (and many other frantic opposer’s) thesis. Every day brings them and the crazy sunni zarquoid ginstu wielders closer in thought. People who blow others up waiting in line for jobs are not the people who stood against the redcoats in 1775. They are the children of Ibn Tamiyya (know who he is and why that has meaning? If not, you don’t know enough about what is going on)
We faced a status quo partly of the making of people like Allen Dulles, and John Foster Dulles. There is a straight line from Mossadegh to Khomeini. That way of doing business, based stricly on self seeking national security in the way of the 19th century lead us to where we are. That way lead to a west locked into the hideous Al Saud.
It simply ALL had/has to change.
And there is no way back to the world of 9/10/2001
No way back to Khe Sanh or Pleiku or A Shau, or Parrot’s Beak. No way back.
Vietnam is not Iraq. This is not then. The stakes as vastly higher than a trumped up August 1965 made up incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, made by a President who thought Ho was George Meany.
More americans died than in pearl harbor. Americans who merely showed up at work.
2001 = 1941, not 1965, and Iraq is Guadalcanal. The road will fork to one side or the other from there.
(BTW it was Blair who asserted we were minutes from WMD not Bush)
All this BS about following ideals, and following construction machinery, “sounds wonderful”, but in reality does nothing at all. Want to stop a war? stem the flow of bodies willing to pick up a gun, drive their tanks, drop their bombs. There is already a sign of a shortage. Its starting to get worse too. Reinstating a draft is a very frightening idea to those in power. Why? because it will cause the very politicians who are now keeping their jobs and constituancy by following the lockstep orders from the administration to tell their constituancy, “your children are the ones who now have to fight”, who have to set the next few years of college aside, and breathe that Depleted Uranium dust over there. Then see just how enthusiastic they are about the war then! How will they feel about supporting the leadership’s idea of creating a new nation with an economic dream?Once you are forced to tell them it will be built on their own childs blood, all hell will breal loose.
To anyone critical of Naomi Klien,and her observations and opinions,just remember that she went to Iraq and has seen for herself what’s going on over there.If any of you haven’t,then you’re just talking out of your fart factory,and your opinion means squat!
Oh?
By that logic the only people who can criticize wars are veterans, the only people who can criticise esthetics are artists, and the only people who can criticize politics are politicians.
I suggest you take your own advice- *I* will be busy excercising my 1st Amendment rights and criticize anything I see fit- especially idiots like yourself.
At no time do you, in your slanted article, even mention the horrors of 9/11 - I sure wish you had to jump from 100 floors rather than burn.
You lefties need to stop seeing it as an “occupation,” and in addition, stop searching for the “real motives.” All you can do is hypothesize, you’ll never prove anything. Why are some people ont the left so willing to condemn the U.S. or Israel for going after ill-motivated terrorists and despots when the autocratic Husseins and Assads of this world have killed 100,000s of innocent people? It disgusts me that many on the left have been quick to stand up for these horrible tyrants, all while labeling President George W. Bush a “fascist” or comparing him to Adolf Hitler. Oh, and one more thing, get your heads out of 2003, it’s 2005 now. Look on the bright side, the wonderful spirit of democracy IS spreading throughout the world. It’s a great thing, regardless of upon which side of the fence you sit.
For dontbafraid and U Scare Me: “The mass murder of 100,000 men, women and children, even if the result is so-called free elections, is still MASS MURDER”. I hope you are proud of this, but for myself, as a former veteran, I find this whole, despicable campaign a lie, a disgrace to our great country, and this administration, and those who believe this B.S., totally unworthy of the blood being sacrificed by our sons and daughters in the name of democracy…...they are not fighting for your freedom if they’re killing innocent people, in a sovereign nation, who did nothing to us. You idiots better open your eyes…..according to the British Press, the decision for this war was made early in 2002 and excuses trumped up to support the idea of WMD being a threat to our so-called security to attempt to justify this murderous, illegal action…...You are completely uninformed, out of touch, naive, uneducated rubes to believe otherwise in the face of all we’ve heard over the last 4 years. I, for one, proclaim that all that is being done, is not in my name, and represents nothing but the worst that our society/country has ever promoted in the name of democracy…...think about these:
We were lied to, over and over again. This is undeniable:
“We’re going to war because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that threatens our freedom & security”, “The United States doesn’t believe in torture”, “Pat Tillman was a war hero who was killed during a courageous firefight”, “The insurgents are a small, fractious group trying to deny their country freedom”, “We have over 100,000 trained Iraqi forces”, “What happened to the missing $9 Billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction funds may be due to mismanagement!” “Those journalists were killed accidentally”, “The italian intelligence officer’s car was speeding and did not acknowledge signals”
This is but a small sampling of the B.S. you and your misinformed colleagues have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Our press is controlled by those whose corporate interests also include munitions, bombs, guns, and the machinery of war. Press conferences are scripted, campaign speeches are controlled leaving the candidates talking only to those who bear an allegiance to the Republican party. Free-speech zones have been created (I thought this entire country was a free-speech zone). President Bush said “You can fool some of the people all of the time and this is the group we should concentrate on”.........I fear for this wonderful country and am saddened by all of the irreparable damage this group of renegades has been allowed to do to it….........God help us!!!
The question is, was it worth the cost to put Saddam Husein in power?
“his first contacts
with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part
of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with
assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-
Karim Qasim.
In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy
in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be
identified, described as “a horrible orgy of
bloodshed.”
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
Dear Plieku,
Take a stroll back through some of these posts and you realize that, indeed, a question from a parent to a child is appropriate. Sorry it didn’t meet your lofty intellectual standards.
As an aside, the US is financially bankrupt? I better call my broker…
This has certainly been an invigorating debate. I can always tell how close you are to the truth by the volume and shrillness of the Progressive posts. When stupid, redneck, peckerhead and religion bashing start you know you are where you need to be.
I do however appreciate your letting opposing views appear on your blog. Who wants to sit around patting each other on the back. I disagree with you but appreciate you all the same. I’m off to a Mother’s Day thing this weekend but will return to play target for you another day.
By the way…I’m driving my pickup truck to the airport and flying a private plane from Virginia Beach to Charlotte, NC…if the weather clears that is. It will be a big fuel consumption weekend in the RED South for this stupid Redneck. Bye Yall.
To all the whiners, complainers, hair-splitters, conservatives, capitalists, religious nuts and generally lonely computer nerds I say at once to each of you…..
F U C K O F F
I am sick and tired of searching for articles, papers, studies and surveys which are tarnished by bickering BULLSHIT that outweighs the expert’s piece. You don’t like Naomi Klien - great…Go read Fox News. You don’t wanna hear criticism of miss America from that pussy Canada. FUck you again, she and every other Canadian have every fucking right to tell you sickly Star-and-Stripers exactly what hole to crawl back into…..Pompous pricks…!
You capitalist pigs took over this world WITHOUT permission from any of the rest of this shared planet and have spent every waking moment since plundering and pushing around our dear mother(earth) and her children. We live next to your disgraceful trasheap and your angry fucking flag and are forced to wake up every day, wondering whether or not AMERICA is gonna get drunk on power and blow something up. You’re all fucking coporate terrorists, complicit in your crimes through addicts to goddamn possessions and products.
My fucked up electronic children, it is you who are out of line - you and that criminal country you pledge your allegiance to in the name of god. Divine right, World Superpower, Defenders of Freedom etc. Defend it anyway you want - you are a bunch of blind-eyed murders who will continue to be scrutinized from all angles each time you blink. Sit still miss America - the world is angry at you for good fucking reason and soon you’re gonna stretch just a little too thin to keep your guard. I hope Hell and Hiroshima comes to find you at that point. I shall dance on your tombstones and wave my maple leaf high - the true symbol of freedom.
as long as Polly has opened up the FUCK box and I can’t say I disagree with him
http://www.fuckthesouth.com/
<You lefties need to stop seeing it as an “occupation,” and in addition, stop searching for the “real motives.”>
well there you go again Anti commie
your peckerheaded president calls it an occupation as do most of the of the rest world and since WMD was not found and by many accounts WMD was gone long ago…searching for the real motives seems like a noble thing to do
<All you can do is hypothesize, you’ll never prove anything.>
sounds a little guilty to me sounds like old time gansters talking back to G men
slowly but surely you shrub is getting cut down
All this name-calling and threats are indicative of the this hot topic and people have really short fuses.
Self-evident are the truly violent hearts and they are beyond hearing anything conflicting with their world-view.
Especially disturbing:
You lefties need to stop seeing it as an “occupation,” and in addition, stop searching for the “real motives.”
........“You lefties” ....i stopped right there
......stop searching…..don’t question authority
the entire post by James A. Kaplin ......you are a psychopath
blah blah blah and on and on
This was right on:
“Want to stop a war? stem the flow of bodies willing to pick up a gun, drive their tanks, drop their bombs.”
This war has been bogus. Let’s get out. Let the Iraqiis deal with themselves.
Our gov’t has become completely untrustworthy, they are so covert, our young men and women in the service deserve better.
Good luck maintaining civility, y’all. God loves ya.
U Scare Me,
I must applaud you.you are one of thge few right-wing posts to attempt toanswer a challenge to support your statements with an argument rather than sophistry.nonetheless,I still find your argument to be wrong,hung up on shades of definition.
We are not merely fortifying our bases,we are building new ones as well,permanent bases.Why?Occupation.
Read Von Clausewitz.Why does one country invade another?to make that country do what you want or to use their resources for yourself.
We captured Saddam.Well done.However,I’ll wager that he dies of a"heart attack"before his trial rahter than describe the U.S.‘s role in that region.
We’ve had elections.Great.Let’s hope the Iraqis got the leader they want.Yet,I’ll wager again that their new leader is one we put into place,someone who’ll wholeheartedly support our “energy policy”.If we can beieve that our elections can be subject to cheating,what are the odds the Iraqi elections were rigged.
Stable government in Iraq.Ah,there’s the vagary.
that statement alone can justify our presence in Iraq for the next fifty years,just like Korea.As long as there is any resistance,we can justify our presence in Iraq.The question,why stay there for decades,can be summed up in one word:oil.
We will not leave until it’s no longer profitable to stay or until we get leaders who are not working for the interests of big business.
To the critics,
This was not a very good article. The conclusions were… naive? Unfortunately, the premises were wholely accurate.
A lot of people have been unjustly slaughtered by our sophisticated war machine and the terrorists’ car bombs. People left defending this aggregious assault on humanity are in a lurch, scrambling for abstracts like “Democracy” and “Freedom” - ideals that are difficult to argue against - even when they are insincere.
Some advocates have even stooped so low as to say, “Well, this is for the benefit of future generations - for our children. We need to secure middle eastern oil for America’s future”. The truth of course is that we’ve made it impossible for ANY middle eastern country to have good relations with the U.S. Furthermore, I can’t think of a more morally soiled argument to justify what America has just done in the name of Democracy and Freedom. We’ve soiled our our own face, our ideals, and lost the respect of the civilized world.
Ouch Rosignol,that really hurt.But keep talking out of your fart factory,you have that right,at least for now.
Margaret/Whats the Truth
Again - you are banging the “Bush Lied” drum and even accusing me of not having “proof” that he didn’t lie. Take off your partisan blinders and think this through with logic and less emotion.
Why would Bush, Blair, Aznar use the WMD argument if they all KNEW it was a lie and would be found out in the end? Bush (and Blair) almost lost the election due to this fact. Hell - even those countries who supported the continued rule of Saddam and the MINORITY Baathists argued against regime change fearing that Saddam would use his WMD’s. Saddam’s own Generals are now on record believing they had WMD’s.
There are plenty of legitimate arguments against this war, but the continued use of sloppy rhetoric is further marginalizing your cause.
Democratic Suicide
When will the Dems start winning again? When they start living and speaking like normal folks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200505060805.asp
We are in unsure times amid a controversial war. Yet the American people are not swayed by the universities, the major networks, the New York Times, Hollywood, the major foundations, and NPR. All these bastions of doctrinaire liberal thinking have done their best to convince America that George W. Bush, captive to right-wing nuts and Christian fanatics, is leading the country into an abyss. In fact, a close look at a map of red/blue counties nationwide suggests that the Democrats are in deepening trouble.
Why? In a word, Democratic ideology and rhetoric have not evolved from the 1960s, although the vast majority of Americans has — and an astute Republican leadership knows it.
Class
The old class warfare was effective for two reasons: Americans did not have unemployment insurance, disability protection, minimum wages, social security, or health coverage. Much less were they awash in cheap material goods from China that offer the less well off the semblance of consumer parity with those far wealthier. Second, the advocates of such rights looked authentic, like they came off the docks, the union hall, the farm, or the shop, primed to battle those in pin-stripes and coiffed hair.
Today entitlement is far more complicated. Poverty is not so much absolute as relative: “I have a nice Kia, but he has a Mercedes,” or “I have a student loan to go to Stanislaus State, but her parents sent her to Yale.” Unfortunately for the Democrats, Kias and going to Stanislaus State aren’t too bad, especially compared to the alternatives in the 1950s.
A Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, George Soros, or Al Gore looks — no, acts — like he either came out of a hairstylist’s salon or got off a Gulfstream. Those who show up at a Moveon.org rally and belong to ANSWER don’t seem to have spent much time in Bakersfield or Logan, but lots in Seattle and Westwood. When most Americans have the semblance of wealth — televisions, cell phones, cars, laptops, and iPods as well as benefits on the job — it is hard to keep saying that “children are starving.” Obesity not emaciation is the great plague of the poorer.
So the Democrats need a little more humility, a notion that the country is not so much an us/them dichotomy, but rather all of us together under siege to maintain our privileges in a tough global world — and at least one spokesman who either didn’t go to prep school or isn’t a lawyer.
Race
The Democrats, at least in the north, were right on the great civil-rights debate of 1960s. Yet ever since, they have lost credibility as they turned to the harder task of trying to legislate an equality of result — something that transcends government prejudice and guarantying a fair playing field, and hinges on contemporary culture, behavior, values, and disciple.
The country is also no longer white and black, but brown, yellow, black, white, and mixed. When a liberal UC Berkeley chancellor remonstrates about “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” lamenting that his merit-based entrance requirements have sadly resulted in too few “Hispanics” and “African-Americans” (he ignores that whites at Berkeley also enroll in numbers less than their percentages in the state population), what he really means — but won’t say — is that there are apparently too many Asians, about 45 percent enrolled in Berkeley versus about 12 percent in the state population.
“4) If there had been no 9/11 there would have been no Iraq”
Hmmm…how is it, then, as Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury, revealed, that at Bush’s VERY FIRST Cabinet meeting, just days after his first inauguration, one of the chief topics of discussion was “regime change” in Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein?
You may be right, though; their problem prior to 9/11 was in how to persuade Americans of the necessity to go to war to remove Hussein. 9/11, cynically used by Bush to create panic in the public and to foment general anti-Arab sentiment, was the perfect event, a gift to the Bushies, a gift they exploited to justify one of their earliest policy objectives, one the neo-cons had written papers about before Bush was even a candidate for President, and which they otherwise lacked any justification to pursue.
As to the earlier question,“Was it worth it to remove Hussein?” I must ask, “Worth it” to whom? “Worth it” defined HOW?
The more pertinent question is: Did we have either a legal basis or defensive need to remove Hussein?
NO.
The ends do not justify the means, as the saying goes, at least not in a society where rule of law prevails. That Hussein was a despot is undisputed; that we helped him achieve much of his power is also undisputed. That we turned against him has nothing to do with his brutality to his own people, about whom we cared not a bit in all the years we engaged his services as our bully boy in the region, but has entirely to do with geopolitical concerns: access to Iraq’s oil, getting a military foothold in the region, etc. If we had been desirous of removing Hussein based on humanitarian grounds, to “free” the Iraqis and relieve them of Hussein’s tyranny, that is the argument we should have presented to the UN and to Congress to justify the argument for war. We didn’t make that argument because we knew it would be unconvincing as a rationale for war, because we didn’t really care about Hussein’s violations against his people, and because, in itself, it would not have been a legal basis for pre-emptive war.
I post this knowing how futile it is to argue with zealots, as facts mean as little to them as the Constitution does to this administration. To such emotionally childish true believers, it’s enough that “America was attacked. We have to strike back, defend ourselves. Bush says attacking Iraq is necessary to defend ourselves. Let’s go!”
I watched the destruction of the World Trade Towers from 9 blocks away. Not once has my proximity to that grievous act of mass murder fogged my mind such that I have been fooled by Bush’s lies and propaganda, his cynical fear-mongering, his detestable utterance of the words “freedom” and “democracy” as if he had the slightest respect for or even understanding of what those concepts actually mean.
To those who who refute the truth that Bush lied by asserting, “Bush really BELIEVED Hussein had WMD!”
Well, we don’t know that for a fact, but I accept he probably had some underlying belief that Hussein had WMD. What he lacked, though, was evidence. A President does not commit our nation to war simply on the basis of belief, particularly belief lacking supportive evidence, or belief contradicted by existing evidence. To the extent—whis was very great—that Bush and his co-conspirators insisted repeatedly that there was “no doubt” Hussein had WMD, that the case was “bulletproof,” etc. etc. etc., they LIED.
Sad….....Not only Naomi’s left gatekeeper article, distracted by symptoms of 9-11 but also everyones’ comments that follow; false logic of self delusion. What is true is that all roads to peace lead to 9-11. If we do not expose our governments involvment and complicity in that event, no amount of arguing over the resultant effects will bare out anyones position.
Read 3 books: David R. Griffins “The 9-11 Report-Ommissions and Distortions” or “The New Pearl Harbor-Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11.
Mike Rupperts “Crossing the Rubicon-The Decline of American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil”
Then we may truely understand how wars are and have been started, who benefits, the Project for the New American Century and how Cheney was in control of the events of that day. War is a lie, war is a racket, and war is necessary to fund the Military-corporate complex. PNAC called for a “new pearl harbor” to expidite their plans to control Central Asia and the resources there. Oil, nat. gas, drugs and banking. Someday we may wake up to realize our Defense/Intelligence forces think in terms of acceptible losses, endless warmaking, creating/encouraging threats, and facilitating events to galvanize the public into war. Robert Stinnets book “Day of Deceit” exposes FDR’s goading of the Japanese into attacking us. He and DOD knew well in advance they would attack. Sucks huh?
Yep the National Review is so unbiased.
“When will the Dems start winning again? When they start living and speaking like normal folks.” Duh?!?! Rhetoric! Divisive crap. Neither party have a lock on sanity.
BTW, The “blame America first crowd” has become the new (and already tired) mantra for those who desire to silence the critics. What is so unpatriotic about wanting to see the U.S. of A. be truthful, peaceful, and regarded as admirable around the globe?
Mr Burns, my dear:
Maybe while you chant praise to the ‘reconstruction efforts’ in Iraq in response to this nasty l’il article, it might be interesting to learn about the massive shortfalls of the reconstruction industry - the lucrative industry which works hand in hand with the World Bank to hogtie suffering nations to foreign corporate power.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050502&s=klein
Or how ‘bout open up any major newspaper to learn about how Halliburton tried fleecing the US government for $108 million worth of over-billing, double-billing and general white-collared deception in proportions almost never before seen.
Read up, Burnsie….. You’d be surprised at the disgusting lack of work being done worldwide. And don’t read corporate dossiers to learn about their success. Ask the people who should benefit from this work…and thus far have not.
The Republicans just can’t get it that they were LIED to. No, Paul, I am not presenting “sloppy rhetoric”. Read the London Times. Not a liberal paper at all. 86 U.S. Congresspersons just sent a letter to the Pres today demanding an explanation of the British released report.
No, just the facts, my friend. Ultimately, history will show Bush and Cheney to be the greatest con men in US history, and you the fool that was hoodwinked by them.
register a new account »Posting Security