Now that the Bush administration has sustained massive, serial repudiations of its tragic folly in Iraq—from the Iraq Study Group, from the electorate and from the daily disasters in Iraq itself—we should note one institution that has not been given its due about being right all along: the independent press, including progressive Web sites and blogs. From the moment Bush’s… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (32)Page 1 of 1 pagesMr Bush, I’m glad to say I told you so!
I fuckin’ told you so, man. A lot of people tried to tell you.
I told you that if you divided the forces before the mission in Afghanistan was finished, it would delay and complicate its accomplishment. The Taliban could have been thoroughly crippled and very nearly finished off by now, but instead they’re emboldened.
I told you that if the WMD claims turned out to be exaggerated or trumped up, America would look like a liar. If the war was about spreading democracy, or getting rid of a monstrous regime, or even preventing Saddam from bullying the world with control over oil resources, ala Desert Storm, why allow yourself and the whole USA to look as though you misled the entire human race?
I told you that invading Iraq would be easy, but that occupying it would be a nightmare. It’s a nightmare for any soldier in Iraq, and it’s even more a nightmare for Iraqis. How else can the situation be characterized? Did you really think, as you said, that we’d be greeted with embraces when the destruction, the looting, the insurgency that was all too predictable, started to play themselves out?
Is that what you really, actually thought??
You were so sure of yourselves, you and your backers. So wrapped up in your vision that you refused to take into account the fact that no high-falutin’ plan survives exposure to real combat or real political/sectarian complexities. And you didn’t even really have a plan for “after”, did you? Only a set of goals you wanted to see with no actual strategy for the post-shock-&-awe phase. You all were so sure that everyone in Iraq, everyone in the Middle East, everyone in the world would react as you predicted (i.e. wished) they would, ignoring the duplicities and granting the good ol’ USA the thin benefit of a raft of terrible doubts. Well sir, thanks for nothing!
The last two things I told you was that the new Iraqi government would have to be as beastly as Saddam’s in order to keep “peace”, and that too many Iraqis would see it as the puppet of an enemy regime and would try their best to overthrow it. I do hope I’m wrong about these in a way I wasn’t wrong about the above points. But I fear I’m right, and that it won’t take much time for the proof to emerge.
I told you and so did millions of people all over the world, and you should have been more willing to listen, instead of always being so damned cocksure.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 12, 2007 at 1:49 AM Kuya,
“Is that what you really, actually thought??”
If you read “Cobra ll” you will find that is EXACTLY what Rumsfeld thought.
In spite of dissenting opinions by professional soldiers, statesmen and intelligence operatives with Middle Eastern knowledge calling for 500,000 troops — Bush let this arrogant CEO at large run free and unchallenged for three obviously disastrous years.
Now, we see our strategy hasn’t been working so we’re sending a few more troops…
If this war were a big fire, would we send a few guys with buckets? Then a few more, and a couple more and then say, “Well, it was beyond control so we decide to let it burn.”?I have yet to read or hear anyone mention this:
There was a WWll poster which said in only a few words what I have been thinking every time there is a discussion of Iraq on TV, the internet or in the papers.“Loose lips sink ships.”
Why can’t our “leaders” understand if the enemies know how many troops are coming, where there will be deployed, how many are embedded in each local unit and how much dissent there is over the whole deal things may not go as we wish. (Talk about Viet Nam all over again...)
Americans are so accustomed to predicting everything that they think all events are controllable and can be scheduled. We’re treating this like a sports event — but what if the insurgents decide, “Hey they’re coming to Baghdad, let’s hit’em where they ain’t.” Will we cry “Foul”?
Picture a huddle before the final play, seconds to go, 2 points apart — a loud speaker held by the quarterback is blaring the plan to the crowd...and to the other team.
More than loose lips here — I think a few brains are rattling around.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 12, 2007 at 8:36 AM 500,000 ? Omigod. That’s what we sent eventually to Vietnam.
No, not a good idea. Nothing against you personally, WTH, but
I’ll pass on the geniuses that come up with that figure.
Ideal number of troops---0.
Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 12, 2007 at 5:37 PM Hawaii Jack,
Yes, eventually that’s what we sent. It was like Chinese water torture or pulling off a Band-aid v-e-r-y slowly. If you go to war… go to win. A massive initial force saves lives on both sides.
Are you saying zero because you are a passivist?
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 12, 2007 at 6:27 PM Bullshit ! A massive force kills more on both sides, 55 million in WW2 and 45 million in WW1. I remember the Agnews who claimed that if ONLY we bombed the dikes in Nam and killed 8 million instead of the measly 4 million that we did we would have won. And since every premise of the Iraq invasion was a lie---NO WMD’s, no Al Queda connection, no threat to neighboring states, no 9-11 connection, no threat to beloved Israel, no threat to US-----only two kinds of people supported that war---liars and lunatics. Only one kind supports it now, the totally insane. We overthrew the so-called “fourth strongest world military power” to borrow the Pentagon’s original 1991 lie abou Iraq
in nothing flat. What we can’t overthrow and no amount of firepower short of complete murder of everyone over there will achieve that. Bush’s a total stooge of Israel and the neocons. TOTAL. This
war has zilch to do with war despite the lies of the Left, it has everything to do with Israel. Iraq was the only Arab army that put up a fight in 1948 and Iran is now the main Israeli enemy, Syria’s a sideshow. I’m sick of Israel and their lying Holohoax and their Dumb Right Shitass supporters over here including the soft left & the Dems. But maybe WE CAN BRING THE WAR HOME. That would be good. “Passivist” oh that’s cute. Revolution over here will NOT be passive or pacifist. I’m a radical, not a liberal. The results of WW1 were Bolshie takeover of Russian landmass, Versailles Treaty, Hitler and WW2. WW2 led to Commie takeover of a third of the globe, rightist dictatorships in most of the rest and cannibals taking over Africa after the western collapsed and a permanent welfare-warfare state here at home. Both “victories” were much worse than any defeats. No thanks, I’ll pass, WTH.
Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 12, 2007 at 7:10 PM Hawaii Jack,
I am not debating whether to go into Iraq. We ARE in Iraq and if we intend to salvage anything from this action need to get serious about it.
Each word can be important — the key here is “initial” — a massive initial force to end it quickly and then be able to maintain security post combat.
Hence my analogy of the firefighters.
Instead, just as in Viet Nam, are persuing a policy of gradualism. Perhaps we have insuficient forces to do it right — in which case we should have used one of the alternate CENTCOM plans.
A. NO U.S. troops
B. Only Special Ops to aid Shiite and Kurd rebels
C. 500,000 full invasionWe (Rumsfeld) chose option C with only 1/4 the troops. Another 21,000 is still too few. (Picture D-Day June, 1944, with 1/4 the force — a recipe for failure.)
Bush let him hold to it for 3+ years!
Dumb & Dumber
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 16, 2007 at 7:54 AM There is NOTHING to salvage in Iraq, the longer we stay the worse it gets for the Iraqis and ourselves. We need to admit that this was not a mistake but a crime, get out and give them hundreds of billions in deserved reparations for our war crimes. We have activated Al Queda and unleashed a wave of Shiite terrorism exemplified by the barbaric, sadistic murders of Hussein and his half-brother. Idiots like you who supported going into Iraq are not going to get off the hook this time. Another friggin liberal refighting the Bad War, WW2. I suppose we should have started the second front in 42 like Uncle Joe and the Communists over here were advocating. You call Vietnam “gradualism” when in less than two years LBJ sent half a million troops there ? He was guilty of just the opposite, a great overescalation based on a lie about being attacked at the Gulf of Tonkin. And no pursuing the war into Iran & Syria does NOT look better, it looks far worse. But will the AIPAC controlled Dems protest ? Doubtful.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 16, 2007 at 11:30 AM Hawaii Hans,
“The results of WW1........WW2 ............ Both “victories” were much worse than any defeats.”
Ja? Sprechen sie Deutsch, Hans?
----------Blondemike,
Anyone who thinks even WWll was unnecessary is from another planet. I’m sick and tired of all your pontificating and belly aching about the U.S., your anti-Israel drivel, and now, whining over poor, mistreated Saddam. HIS sadistic murder? So that’s what you get concerned over — what the hell did he do pre and post ‘91 Gulf war? You are a real piece of work.
Yes, sending troops into Viet Nam over a two year period was gradualism and the stupid action of a politician more concerned about party politics than our guys’ lives.
If you think I’m a liberal it fits right in with the rest of your screwy, backwards thinking.
You are truly hopeless — Hey, I thought we agreed not to correspond with each other.
Just disregard all the above. (If you can.)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 16, 2007 at 12:02 PM Oh, Hitler was going to conquer us if we hadn’t intervened and force us to speak german because FDR showed us his secret map for conquest of this hemisphere ? Are there really asses stupid enough to believe this ? Even as Michael Lind’s very pro-Vietnam War book demonstrates LBJ escalated the conflict way too fast and way beyond what was necessary even accepting the fraudulent premise of “South” Vietnam as a real country. You are championing Saddam’s sadistic murder ? Because you totally believe every bullcrap lie you were fed about him ? Which itself would not justify the barbarity of our stinking Shiite stooge government in Iraq. And you wonder why the whole Arab & Muslim JUSTIFIABLY hates our guts. Try to learn how to think, WTH. “Anti-Israel drivel” well try and refute it, dummy. And the Kaiser too was going to conquer us if we hadn’t intervened in WW1 ??????????? I’m sorry but when you write the kind of mindnumbing stupidass lies like you routinely do, that requires a response. And you are a typical neoconservative in your zeal to rush out and defend every disastrous thing in foreign policy at least that FDR and Truman forward did. All a conservaturd does today is ratify the worst statist warfare state policies of both demented Roosevelts, Wilson, JFK, LBJ. Thanks, nolaman, for correcting WTH’s ongoing stupidity. Don’t worry, WTH, I always disregard your vacuous content AFTER I’ve rebutted it.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM I was one of the guys that LBJ sent to Nam right after TET in 1968. Believe me THAT was a surge!
The one contribution that I want to make to this interesting discussion is to point out that comparing the 500,000 man peak in Vietnam with the 140,000 or so in Iraq is apples and oranges.
The 500,000 included all the support troops that have been privatized in the 2007 army.
I would love to know what the comparable figures are for “grunts” like me. I know we were a decided minority at the time.
Looked at that way, we already have a massive fighting force in Iraq and the surge is actually pretty sizable.
Posted by nolaman on Jan 16, 2007 at 2:44 PM nolaman,
First let me say that some of us appreciate your service as much as those who served in WWll. (A war, by the way, which was declared against us by Hitler post Pearl Harbor as per the Axis pact. Something Blondie would wants to ignore. He had also been sinking a considerable tonnage of U.S. shipping which tends to piss off rational people.)
Maybe if LBJ had sent a large enough force initially, had kept his big mouth shut and had not restricted the battlefield to imaginary foul lines some of you guys would not have had to go later on.
I think the ratio of support to combat in WWll was around 10:1 — don’t know about Viet Nam or Iraq, but in both cases the guerrilla aspect makes a less defined front line/rear area.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 16, 2007 at 6:48 PM It never would have been declared against the US if FDR hadn’t baited the Japs into war. See President Roosevelt and The Coming of The War, 1941, Pearl Harbor by George Morgenstern, Back Door To War by Charles Callan Tansill and Perpetual War For Perpetual by Harry Elmer Barnes. Hitler hadn’t been sinking a considerable tonnage of shipping, FDR and Churchill had. They tried for two years to bait Hitler into war by provocative maneuvers in the North Altantic, see the above refs, you dunsky. What your advocating was for LBJ to sacrifice many more American boys and kill many more Vietnamese than the millions we did kill or the “mere” 58,000 US troops killed. Hitler was stupid to declare war, I agree with you there, because the Japs were neutral towards his enemy Soviet Russia until the Soviets declared war on them after Hiroshima. But you need to know the background history, WTH, which you do not.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 16, 2007 at 7:53 PM Blondie,
I am fully aware your version of history and find it — like all your sweeping statements — vacuous ;-)
It must make life a lot simpler to be able to accept only the version you like.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 17, 2007 at 8:36 AM “Vacuous” coming from you is like a lecture on sobriety from the town drunk ? Projecting again, WTH ? At least I give full references for ALL my statements. Are you still posting under “Scorp” ?
Posted by blondemike on Jan 17, 2007 at 10:51 AM Blondie,
You need to get a program to help you keep the players sorted.
BTW, Scorp and I are in commplete disagreement on the economy discussion where you and I are somewhat close in opinion.
Calm down — all this rage and ranting can’t be good for your blood pressure.
No one who can change things will ever see these arguments anyway.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 17, 2007 at 2:08 PM I actually congragulated you on the other laser thread for rebutting him on economic issues.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 17, 2007 at 3:57 PM Have you noticed no one is writing or talking (save Kerry,
all of one sentence, a few days ago ) about Kuwait?
The idea that we might leave the “Boxing” ring of Iraq,
but remain based in the “Arena” of the Persian Gulf, as a very “pro active” player,seems to elude the public discussion.
7 active, 2 reserve bases with airfields; direct access to the sea; a geographically central (blocking) location; a small population (3 million, only half of which are “native") who are
materially if not politically content, and owing their past, present and future independence to us-
If we must be there, can we, to paraphrase Scrooge Mc Duck,
“Fight smarter, not harder Laddie!”
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 21, 2007 at 10:41 PM Ah yes, a perfect world, or at least one where we did not have to deal with bait and switch reactionaries. Sorry, if I had my druthers, we’d be out looking for Osama (Gee, remember him?). But as we are stuck with this self engineered train wreck called Iraq, my real-politic desire is to see us redeploy out of
the civil war, yet maintain a swat down position when Al Queda presents itself.
Unlike McCain, I don’t think they will follow us home (not in any meaning full way), but we do have obligations and responsibilities as a nation.
The vast majority of the progressive;/liberal segment of America felt we
should do something about Serbian ethnic cleansing. Many feel we should attend to Darfur. Pick your “good war” if you will. I’m trying to look ahead to the next fur ball on the horizon.
Basically you hold the line, but redefine what and where the line is.
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 24, 2007 at 4:33 PM In Kosovo at least there was no vast ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, and it was the Serbs ultimately got cleansed out of there. Clinton-Blair lied to us. A real shocker. Most pwogwessives are as fucked as most cons, they yearn for their Good Wars of WW1 & 2. No thanks. It has nothing to do with being a pacifist or utopian. War never proves who’s right, only who’s left. Stop supporting shitty Israel and the Arab Rightist regimes and there will be no Al Queda. And no, let the Africans take care of Darfur. That is if they could stop killing each other for two seconds in the Congo, Zimbabwe and 30 other shithole tribal states there. If YOU feel you have a responsibility in Darfur or Bosnia, hey, no one’s stopping you. And you might ask that wonderful “moderate” Bosnian Muslim govt why they gave Osama and other Al Queda figures Bosnian passports ? There was an ethnic cleansing in Bosnia but the US Govt ignored it and I’m not sure how many American wanted to get involved there between the Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims. The Croatians were always better going back to WW1 & 2 but they were lesser players there and seemed to be able to hold their own against the Serbs. I’m no fan of the Serbs, they started WW1 and then exaggerated their WW2 deaths by a factor of ten to justify Tito’s commie dictatorship, much beloved by our head up the ass pwogwessives over here.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 24, 2007 at 5:25 PM O.K...., YOU are not going to fight in any wars. It was Diogenes after all, who said that “soldiers were the greatest criminals because they did not eat what they killed!”
It is also true that there are no innocent victims, because in some one’s eyes, you’re guilty by mere reason of existence.
I’m unlikely to be fighting in any wars, though I may again find myself next to a combat zone, as I was on 9/11, in Midtown Manhattan (though reasonably safe, unlike my fellow New Yorker ‘Non innocent victims”
trapped in the towers). Al Queda is a religious fundamentalist reform movement with a world embracing vision. If Israel and the secular/reactionary Arab states went under tomorrow, they would continue with their mission. They are very, very moral, they’re just not ethical.
Even avoiding the “moral equivalency game”, warfare is by it’s very nature the least productive social effort human kind engages in.
If your position IS grounded in a pacifist or utopian stance, even neo isolationism, I can respectfully acknowledge it, even as I maintain the necessity of responding to the Hitlers or Osamas of this world.
Rule one of existence: The world is filled with victims.
Rule two of existence : Don’t be the victim.
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM NONSENSE. If Israel was gone so would be Al Queda, notice they never existed before Israel or the Gulf war.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 28, 2007 at 3:39 PM The religious ideology existed before the foundation of the Israeli State
(Zionist entity, for your benefit), as a direct response to Western economic and social imperialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Failure of Pan Arab Socialist (western-european influenced) forces to destroy the “Zionist” entity and it’s “imperialist euro-american” backers, and
the perceived collusion of “conservative” Islamic states such as Saudi
Arabia, led to the radicalization of the movement.
The Shia success in creating an Islamic republic in Iran, and the eventual
success of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, followed by the Taliban
confirmed in the minds of the arab street that the fundamentalists were
the party of justice and ultimate victory.
The agenda extends to regions where there is NO Zionist/ Islamic
confrontation, such as Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Indonesia, etc.
While the “Zionist” conflict helps drive the issue, the supposed disappearance of “The Entity” will not end the fundamentalist movement.
It’s not what I’m writing, but what THEY publish as doctrine. Al Queda is only one player in the “struggle”.
I support a two state solution.
I don’t see the world taking the jews back, and I don’t see them walking
passively, like you*, into the gas chambers.
They need to get out of the West Bank, without becoming “the victim”
again.*You are a pacifist, right?
Addendum-
Supposing the dissolution of the Israeli State and their resettlement in, say Iowa (Am I correct
in assuming you wouldn’t mind their continued existence, or, do you presuppose some more “final” solution to that particular problem?) Given the inflexibility of Fundamentalists where ever they attain power, do you think a reconstituted “Palestine"/Caliphate will be democratic? 1/8th
of the Palestinian population is Christian, and their freedoms are far from assured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_al-Qarni
Truly simplistic to think that if Israel goes away, then so too Al Queda!
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 28, 2007 at 5:27 PM Fundamentalist Islam was not a factor in the Arab world until less than 20 years ago. The collapse of the Arab Left and the Soviet Bloc left a void and the ongoing US-Israeli policies have contributed enormously due to the fundamentalist revival. The Jews after WW2 could have come here,
Canada, Brazil, Australia, etc., as FDR noted in early 45. It was the Zionist organizations which insisted on Palestine. Israel can’t be a Jewish with 20-25 NonJewish population. One secular state is the only solution. There never were any “gas chambers” I’ve been exposing that line on several threads here, see The Hoax of The Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz and there are a dozen other books I could recommend on the “holocaust.” No, I’m not a pacifist and never have been.
If Israel goes, Al Queda goes. Sometimes things are simple too. The whole idea of 2,000 or 6,000 years of Jewish victimhood is crap. See Israeli Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion. BTW, the Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 29, 2007 at 3:39 PM You have me on Wikipedia, but I’ll stand by the sources in those particular links-
I’ve never stated that I agreed with Israeli policy on the occupied territories.
They’ve given up on Gaza, and must, if they ever hope to have some co existence with the Palestinians, leave the West Bank.
Israel isn’t going away, (How’s that for simple?). How do you propose to make it disappear? Do you really think cutting off U.S. funding will force
them to immigrate? Do you think that a U.S. that can’t even rebuild the gulf coast will finance a massive resettlement plan in the U.S.? That leaves a two state solution.Members of my family were in Austria in WW2 and saw the death camps, so YOU are on THIS point far less credible than Wikipedia. You were not there, my people were. Mom always said;
“How could they say they didn’t know, my God, you could smell it!”
Good to know you are NOT a pacifist.
I’ve already stated that there are no innocent victims, so I really could give
a rodent’s posterior about anyone’s “Victimhood”. The vast majority of
jews know that they can’t rely on anyone but themselves. You’re going to
find it tough going trying to put their little “Entity” down-Addendum-
I jumped into this thread because I wondered why no one in the media or general
public was discussing what the U.S. post Iraq position on Kuwait.
It seems to be a non issue/event, so I’m letting this go.
As far as your thesis that liquidating Israel will terminate Islamic Fundamentalism,
It remains just that. Time will tell.
I, however, remain unconvinced.Please,
have the last word.............
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 29, 2007 at 4:53 PM They haven’t given up on Gaza, they have hemmed the population therein exactly like in a concentration camp, closing off roads at will, invading at ill, shutting down homes & businesses at will, permanently closing the Gaza Airport, go to counterpunch.org or the London Guardian, Spectator, etc., for some real news about the Is/Pal situation. The media over here including The NY Times are unreliable. And there are a ton of books I could refer to in this regard by Robert Fiske, Jonathan Cook, Bill & Kathleen Christensen, David Hirst, Dilip Hiro and others. Israel will go away when the conventional holocaust story is discredited and when the US cuts off the spigot. The Jews as a whole won’t go away from Israel/Palestine and I never thought they should but the ultra-right racist American Jews will leave once they have to live in a multinational state. Israel can’t be a Jewish State with 20-25% NonJews, how would the Jews here feel if the US was declared a Christian or Gentile State ? There’s an implicit premise in your comments that the Jews are always and only victims and that’s wrong as well as racist. Israel is not going to prevent a holocaust. Israel will cause one. It wasn’t Israel or the Zionists that defeated Germany either. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Your folks saw camps where many people died, no one denies that, but the evidence is that they were not extermination camps and most people died of disease & malnutrition because no food supplies reached the camps in the last months of the war. People in Germany were reduced to eating their family dog. Even the Jewish Agency in 1960 conceded that none of the German camps were extermination camps, they then claimed Poland but that has been under relentless attack by several sources. Originally it was claimed nine million died at Auschwitz, then four million, then 1.5 million, now 750,000.......what next ? I can recommend good books here and war is a horror and I’m not pro-National Socialist. By the way, that smell argument would only apply at the near very end of the war and you had to be in the camps to smell dying cadavers. They were even making up stories of lampshades and bars of soap crap here ! My wife still believes that ! Go to the vho website and download books in english if you can or buy them on amazon. Thanks for you’re comments.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM Mom was in Vienna when the Nazis marched in in the beginning, and was there when the Russians fought their way in at the the end. She did her state mandated duty service on a farm and as a maid in a German general’s home (once answered the phone and heard Goering’s voice on the other end of the line. Saw Hitler up close, and hated those assholes).
See, two weeks after the Germans took over, Uncle Jock, a doctor historian, veteran of the Austro-Hungarian Army and non observant secular jew, who had converted to catholithism just to wed Tanta Pauli, fled to London. He’d read “Mine Kamf”
on their motorcycle and sidecar honeymoon in Norway, slammed the book shut and said
“This man means every thing he writes”.
My father fought his way across Europe as a second lieutenant with
Gen, Mark Clark (after stopping off at a place called the Bulge, where he earned a Bonze Star) where he was in the office staff of the U.S. zone of occupation and met my mother who was serving as an interpreter. The end result was me.
The stench started early on, for freemasons, social democrats, reds,
gypsies, countless soviet prisoners, and yes a whole lot of jews!
Bars of soap and lampshades were a little cottage industry, something to amuse the guards. The harvesting of hair, gold fillings,rings, eye glasses, and the selective extermination of the useless while the useful were worked to death HAPPENED.I don’t forgive Sharon, or Begin or any of the reactionary Israeli right
who mirror the rejectionist Palestinian- Arabs.,
Yes Gaza is a prison as is the west bank. Yes I’m “up” for a secular unified state; Think Hamas feels that way?I’m a product of the history you think you know. I grew up learning the truth from the people who saw that history first hand.
Quite literally we know where the bodies are buried. On this issue you show you know nothing.
By the way, while the dogs were very scarce at the end of the war, it was
the cats that disappeared completely in most areas, they nicknamed the meat “from Roof Hares”.Your points are understood-
I quite simply do not accept your revisionism of the holocaust.
I am a reader of world history, yeah even unto the old testament atrocities committed BY the expansionist Hebrews on the peoples of Cannan.Time will tell........and time to stop being the victim,
For everyone, every where.
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 29, 2007 at 9:34 PM Not true, I know quite a bit and that is why I referred you to reliable sources. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable kind and the most easily impeached. You hear the same tune all your life and are unwilling to think outside the box. I’m not calling your family liars but I am noting that even the official Jewish sources do not give credence to extermination camps in Germany and Austria. They claim Poland was in that category but that is under serious dispute. There were never lampshades of human skin or bars of soap of same. That you are so uninformed as to recycle the most discredited sort of crap is very sad. People were not worked to death by the Nazis, they actually punished camp personnel who abused the inmates. Their records document this. There was the Dachau concentration camp for political prisoners early on in 1933 but it was for leftist activists only, not freemasons, Adventists, gypsies, Soviet soldiers. A decade later some of these groups were detained in the middle of the world war, that was not early on and there was no stench until the last months of the war when the US-UK bombing made it impossible to get food supplies, people in Germany were reduced to eating their family dogs. You’re Uncle never read Main Kampf, which neither he nor you can even SPELL. There was no master plan to exterminate Jews or conquer the world NOR was it religiously followed when Hitler came to power. In the book he loved the Brits and hated the French but in power he got along with the Frogs but not the Limeys. Most likely you’re folks heard the same bullshit propaganda for 50 years that everyone else did and like a good many folks embellished on their actual experiences. I don’t say they were conscious liars but the conclusions that you draw from the telling of their experiences in no way establish the holocaust, the very name meaning death by fire is a lie. Maybe a million Jews died of all causes during a world war in which 50 million others died too. But the gas chambers never existed, there was no orders to kill Jews, there was no centrally planned conspiracy to kill Jews en masse, nowhere near six million Jews died, Anne Frank was a lovely child but her “Diary” is a crock written postwar, etc. The kind of witnesses you rely upon are the kind that validate the general law enforcement attitude of the unreliabilty of eyewitness testimony. They had hundreds of witnesses “testifying” against John Demjanjuk in Israel and they were all lying. You need to check out the ihr.org and vho websites and read firsthand Butz, Faurisson, Rassinier, Mattogno, Sanning, Graf, Rudolf and others. You’re sympathy for the Palestinians means nothing as long as you keep repeating the nonsense that keeps Israel in power. You do NOT understand the revisionist argument as such. You only understand that I agree with most of it. That is not the same thing. Spare me the victimology crap.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 30, 2007 at 11:34 AM Ah, there you are!
Yes I am often an indifferent speller, unlike, I assure you, the rest of my
family. You were some how able to understand me though. We will not convince each other of anything. I leave this thread to you, as I never did gain any enlightenment concerning my question on Kuwait.It took me a while, but at last I think i understand why I find your “facts” and
“history” incomprehensible. It’s no one’s fault, there is no intention of deception on the part of either of us.
Put simply, we exist literally on a dimentional fault line!
Yes, it’s true, we are a perfict proof of the parallel multipule
universe theory of quantum physics!!!
In your universe, the Holocaust never happened (save as anti German
propaganda). In mine, it’ was all too real. For some reason, we are able
to interface across our respective universes via the inte rnet.Glad we got that cleared up!
(Did you know that in my universe
we use sugar instead of crack on
our cornflakes?)
Posted by Gallerist on Jan 30, 2007 at 12:22 PM I never said that something horrible didn’t happen but that the conventional view of this is wrong. We all live in the same universe, there’s one objective reality. I can’t remember your original point on Kuwait but this is more important. Ok, I’ve given refs here, I’m done.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 30, 2007 at 1:55 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
