Olbermann awarded Gibson "Worst Person" bronze for calling Iraqis "knuckle-dragging savages"
On the April 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Fox News host John Gibson "the bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for describing the Iraqis as "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century" and arguing that they are at "fault" for the situation in Iraq, as Media Matters for America documented. Olbermann quoted Gibson saying on the April 23 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show: "We invaded the place, we knocked over Saddam, and then Iraqis began killing each other. ... [B]ut who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine! I'll take credit."
From the April 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The bronze goes to Gibby. John Gibson of "Fox Noise" explaining to his radio listeners the U.S. is not responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq, saying, "We invaded the place, we knocked over Saddam, and then Iraqis began killing each other. ... [B]ut who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine. I'll take credit." End quote.
Yeah, but John, you also keep telling us it's Al Qaeda and foreign fighters doing the killing in Iraq, and if it's really the fault of those people you call "10th century," "knuckle-dragging savages," why exactly do we have to stay there to save them?
It's a full-blown civil war, right? We had ours, they can have theirs. It brings you into the proper century.
Amazing ! Simplify till the facts disappear ! Sounds like Hannity.
You guys need to go to www.olbermannwatch.com
It provides more facts than you want to know.
Unfortunately, I can't access via my work firewall to see what yer yammering about. It is apparently classified as a "hate" speech site.
Far from hate speech. Hate speech is what MSNBC and Olbermann engage in on a nightly basis.
Let us know when Olbermann calls for the murder of foreigners, or mass detention of anyone who disagrees with him (just to name a few) and then we can talk. I've yet to hear that kinda language outta him, hear it from Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, Gibbs, ... Fox all the time.
Threatening to cut off BOs Hamstring?Thats not hate speech?
http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/11/16/olbermann-ridicules-oreillyapologizes/
Oh, perfect example. From your post:
"UPDATE 2: Reworded blog entry title. It was originally written last night when I didn’t have a good handle on what had happened (having not heard the incident at that point). But it’s obvious that to call it “ridicule” is the wrong term. Since it seemed obvious that he was joking, even though the joke was in questionable taste to say the least given what happened with Keith, I changed it to “mock threatens”…"
That from the blogger who originally posted this. And noted, he apologized. Something the ones on the right I mentioned never do. So again, when you have a valid example...
Do you have actual facts or is this a smear campaign?
Yes casey, I always trust sites that have links so you can:
"get Ann Coulter's column free via email"
That's the sign of a site you can trust!
Ha. I hadn't seen that one. Maybe he's trying to pull a Tonya Harding & Jeff Galooley routine to take over O'Reilly's show.
Dude, did you READ what was on the site before you posted it?
"Know something about Keith Olbermann? Tell Us."
Thats all it said!!!
LMFAO, Now thats a pathetic website.
Jeez, Casey -- I just checked out this website and there is virtually no "information" about Olbermann. You know -- "information": stuff that you know and/or can confirm. Like facts, for example.
What is there consists mostly of comments and opinions, Even some by people who can correctly spell most of the words in their emailed comments. Oh -- And a lot of advertising for books by Fox News entertainers and by Ann Coulter. Come to think of it, this looks suspiciously like the Bill O'Reilly site. Hmmm . . .
It appears the mighty casey has just struck out. Ouch, that's gotta hurt!
Keith has a point. If they are, indeed subhuman, why are we trying to impose Democracy on them? Oh, wait, that's not why we're there, is it? We're there for that black stuff, and they just happen to live on top of it. Let's be honest here.
Nerzog, your point can't be repeated enough times. We now have military bases atop the black stuff. Like Japan in the 30s, we are invading and occupying for the raw resources that have dwindled in our country. Remember when Jimmy Carter urged America to prepare for the end of oil? The Republicans killed his initiatives.
They must have thought, "Why prepare for the end of oil when we can send our brave, young people off to secure it?"
Exactly. The Republicans, of course will vehemently deny that the Iraq War has anything whatsoever to do with oil, which leads me to believe that it has EVERYTHING to do with oil.
Yeah, you have to love agroup of folks who are soooo patriotic that they want to use our tax dollars and service men and women for a business deal. They're hoping to get things stable long enough to get that hydrocarbon bill passed.
One of my favorite quotes that's every bit as relevant today as it was back then:
"The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States."
---President Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address, 1980.
But, but....Glen Beck said Jimmy Carter is a waste of skin. He couldn't have been that prescient. No way. Take that back.
I have a hard time understanding your logic in that we fought Japan during WWII for resources? The defeat and occupation of Japan was a direct result of their attack on us and their alliance with Nazi Germany. To insinuate that we fought Japan for greed, certaintly goes a long way in telling our Pacific Theatre veterans that their sacrifice was not for freedom but rather money. I would dare say that the men who laid their lifes on the line in that war would vehemently disagree with you. Unbelievable!!!
Ummm...the poster was not referring to the U.S. war against Japan. Here's a hint - the poster mentioned the 1930s. The U.S. fought Japan in the 1940s. Instead, the poster was likely referring to the Japanese campaigns of the 1930s to secure its influence in eastern Asia.
Dohh!!! Point taken. I shall apologize to Holly. Thanks for showing me that. I totally misread how she posted her statements.
Full and classy appology. Pure class ACHRIS
neo-cons think history is whatever they make up that second, all those dates and names are hard ya know...
Just one minor correction Holly.
"Why prepare for the end of oil when we can send SOME OTHER brave, young people off to secure it?"
I'm pretty sure they meant yours and mine but not theirs.
So disrespectful
Gibson and people like BO who said Iraqis were prehistoric are disrespectful to not only the Iraqi people but also to the men and women of America who have died fighting for this lie and immoral war. Olbermann does a great job of pointing out how FOX and its established haters like BO and Gibson continue to spout the lies of this administration.
In the 10th Century the Muslim world was operating at a pretty impressive level of civilization. The "knuckle-draggers" were in Europe.
Stop being so Europhobic,Conchobhar.I've seen TV shows that clearly document my ancestors using pelicans bills to mix cement and brontosauri as quarry shovels.
HBL, you are good for several good belly laughs per day. But give your relatives some credit for not using fossil fuels to run their cars.
Why do you hate Western Civilization?
When asked what he thought of Western civilization, Gandhi replied, "I think it would be a very good idea."
The only difference is that we've gone forward while much of the middle east has stayed at about the same level of civil liberties that they had in the 10th century. Just ask any jew in .... oh wait, they're not allowed in most arabic countries. OK, ask the homosexuals.... oh wait! They're stoned to death. I guess you could always ask the women, except for the fact that they're not supposed to speak in public and if they did would have to talk through their head scarf (Ala forbids that you should see their hair in public). While Iraq wasn't as far behind as some other arabic countries the term "knuckle draggers" fits most middle eastern countries. Most middle eastern countries are theocratic states that are steeped in oppression. Ironically the one country that gets the most blame for the problems in the region, Israel, is the most modern and liberal.
The only difference is that we've gone forward while much of the middle east has stayed at about the same level of civil liberties that they had in the 10th century.
-----
I hope you realize that it has been maybe a hundred years since we have been able to claim any measurable advances over middle eastern countries in civil liberties. We should be careful to not claim superiority whenever we make a step forward. Please Remember the fight to get to the plateaus we have reached (de jure) and the struggles we still face today (de facto)
----
Just ask any jew in .... oh wait, they're not allowed in most arabic countries.
--
Jews and Arabs had relatively good relations until the last century. Most animosity between jews and Arabs arose as a response to the Israeli occupation of arab lands. When Israel was created at the expense of Palestine, after decades of Zionist living at peace with arabs, it rightfully angered a lot of people. You cannot displace a large number of people, steal their property, their culture, their identity and not expect a backlash. Besides,the arab presence in Israel is not exactly welcomed either. Arabs are still treated as second or third class citizens in Israel, arab countries sovereignty and borders are not respected, and Palestinians are locked away in walled-communities (ghettos), starved of resources, only allowed to drive on certain highways, etc, etc, etc. IT is safe to say that neither side is currently treating the other with a great deal of respect.
----
OK, ask the homosexuals.... oh wait! They're stoned to death.
--
In many middle eastern countries homosexuality is illegal and results in jail time. This was US policy until a 2003 court ruling. A court ruling that was faught tooth and nail by conservatives and led to a push to ban gay marriage and the the election of conservative, anti-gay politicians to all branches of government in 04. Our courts forced us to be ahead of most middle eastern countries by a span of 4 years. Still it was only maybe 50 years ago when some states required chemical sterilization for homosexuality and maybe a 100 when castration wwas still practiced.
Most middle eastern countries had the same policy towards homosexuality as America. Jail time if caught in a homosexual act, but rarely enforced.
Interestingly enough its our allies like Saudi Arabia who have the most oppressive laws governing civil liberties. IT is in saudi arabia where gays are hung. Dividing the world into good or bad based on how much a given country lines our pocket books isn't a very successful diplomatic strategy.
----
I guess you could always ask the women, except for the fact that they're not supposed to speak in public and if they did would have to talk through their head scarf (Ala forbids that you should see their hair in public).
---
100 years ago most states had laws which gave women as much rights as males committed to mental institutions. Women were property of their husbands. Even as late as teh 50s, Women were baby factories and servants. Women could be forced to have sex by husbands, they could be beaten if they misbehaved, and their job was to stay home, raise the kids, have teh kids, cook, clean and do every imaginable thing required to maintain a home. Even today we haven't passed an amendment guaranteeing women equal rights, nor do women who enter the work force make as much as men. Though generally women are provided with more opportunities in america than in most middle eastern countries, and most injustices are eliminated de jure, we still have blatant de facto discrimination against women.
Also I would like to remark that about 100 years ago in many European countries daughters were not allowed to leave the home until married to avoid the sun tanning the skin. This was before it became popular and beautiful to tan. A tan was a sign of lower-class working women. Fathers decided when a woman married and to whom. She would never speak to the husband until the wedding
Also, a lot of Muslim women choose to wear the scarves in western culture because they feel it protects them from the oppressive culture in the west towards women; it helps them focus less on apperance. We give women value based on how they choosse to beautify themselves to impress men. WE have this over sexualized view of women which make them work hard to fit a mold and be visually perfect. The way we dominate over women through sexualizing them, and belittling their intelligence, and discriminating against them culturally is no not that far displaced from most mulsim cultures.
----
While Iraq wasn't as far behind as some other arabic countries the term "knuckle draggers" fits most middle eastern countries. Most middle eastern countries are theocratic states that are steeped in oppression.
--At least 50% of americans desire to create a more theocratically-driven government. I don't think knuckle-dragging is a good term to apply to middle-easterners. In many respects, middle eastern people have more rights and privilidges than we do, and in many ways have a good ways to go. But just because we have a constitution, and have managed to pass laws which have extended civil liberties at best 100 years at worst 4 years ahead of most muslim countries isn't saying much. If they are dragging their knuckles then we are barely stumbling upright.
Put some perspective on your condemnations.
So, we do allow women's rights, homosexuals don't get killed in the west, and jews aren't allowed in most middle eastern countries. So I guess we're in agreement that the middle eastern take on civil rights is abysmal. Did I mention they still have slavery? How did I forget that one? Get it a rest. Trying to rationalize a region where your tongue gets pulled out of your head if you speak openly againt the president (happened in Iran) as close to the freedoms enjoyed in the west you're simply not being honest.
Sebastian,
It sounds as though Lyn is comparing our country to Iraq or other Islamic countries. Unbelievable.
I believe Lyn's point is that your historical perspective is as abysmal as the human rights status of many (yet not all) countries in the middle east. 50 years of being ahead in civil rights hardly gives us the rank of "expert" or even the right to lecture, as you seem so willing to do.
Considering you seem to present yourself as an American citizen, I fail to see how you can hold us up as a model of human rights when our own government tortures prisoners, despite the fact that it doesn't work.
Please, drastic teperature changes? Water boarding? You do realize that we're facing an enemy that beheads non-combatants right? You do have the brain power to get the fact that two planes were parked into our world trade centers right? Bring your "torture" claims to someone else because, for exmple the cia just came out in a news story and said it's interogation tactics have diverted more terrorist plans than any other method. I guess it all depends on what your definition of torture is.
I'm talking about torture.
I'm talking about a country that is the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the abusers and the home of the better-than-the-arabs-because-we-send-our-torturees-overseas-instead-of-beheading-them-on-tv-aren't-we-great?s.
I'm talking about a practice that experts agree does not work, and only gets a person to tell you what they think you want to hear instead of the truth.
Your defensiveness is very telling - for as long as we torture our captives, we have no right to claim a moral high ground and wag our fingers in shame at anyone - including China, including Saudi Arabia, including Iran, including...
Yeah...why behead them when you can torture them to death?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abuse26jan26,0,4989119.story?coll=la-home-headlines
maybe im nit picking but the "CIA" did not say that embattled former spy chief George Tenet daid it and he kinda has to seen as he odered it
Dear SavageRocks,
Torture doesn't work. It never has, it never will.
We have become what we abhor.
The torture of prisoners is a disgrace.
BLR,
What a ridiculous notion. What,pray tell, is your point when you insinuate that my citizenry is not as valid as yours. You post from the security of an office or home and have probably never done anything sacrificial for a country which offers you the opportunities to live in a manner far above most others in the world. And for you to rationalize he idea that we are somehow on the same level as middle eastern countries in terms of human rights just shows you unbounded ignorance. With all due respect, of course.
Here, a perspective on present day slavery in the US:
http://www.cted.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/CTEDPublicationsView.aspx?tabID=0&ItemID=29&MId=846&wversion=Staging
The point being nobody's perfect, and 2nd, most of the issues you point out happen at a local level, not at a government driven level. I'd say that's what makes some of the statements on this thread quite comparable.
Except he wasnt talking about most Arab states. He WAS talking about Iraq. The Islamic country where homosexual acts were not illegal, though still cultural taboo. Where women not only were allowed outside but allowed to be Doctors, judges, College professors.
Yes, and they have offerred us so much more since then. When are you guys going to realize that most of those people over their hate us.
I think if you read my above post you'd see that I understand that concept. As for hardcore libs I don't think they'll ever understand this because it opposes their belief that "every culture is equal".
Yeah, point taken. I shouldn't have lumped in with everyone.
Those "hardcore libs" who had been working for years on improving women's rights in Afghanistan before Dubya ever slunk his way into office would disagree with your blanket assessment of their politics. The problem with this disagreement over the value of a "culture" is that it is rarely about the culture, it's about an aspect that someone finds disagreeable.
John works with my Mom. He says the Iraqis deserve whatever they get from our invasion of the country because the Iraqis aren't Christians. He values their culture so little that he not only does not care about their livelihood, but will actually state that the men, women and children who are guilty of nothing but living their lives as normally as possible deserve a painful and horrific death simply because of their lack of a Jesus.
I value the culture of Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban less than I value my own, because the victimization of women is built into the society, and because in their religious zeal they destroyed an important part of history (the buddhas in particular). I, however, value the lives of the citizens of the country enough to have opposed unmeasured aggression in that country, because I recognize that the lives of innocents are not value-less, even if I don't value large amounts of the culture itself.
This strawman, largely presented by conservatives, sickens me, as if valuing life, and culture is somehow distasteful simply because valuing those things are inconvenient in our current war-culture state. No amount of spin, double-talk or punditry changes the fact that human life IS of value, no matter how inconvenient it is to political goals.
So, should we not have gone into Afghanistan? And who's thid "john" you speak of?
John works with my mother. I thought I'd said that when I introduced him. He's a fundamentalist conservative Catholic.
no your post was fine, you noted that 'John' worked with your mom, sebastian seems unable to do more then skim and respond in fake outrage...and from his tone it seems Mr. Shaw was trying to imply that your mother is a prostitute with lots of 'johns'. not a very nice thing to do. Sadly many cons get like that when they see their bigotries exposed.
BLR,
Are you saying that our action in Afghanistan was unwarranted? Please tell me that is not what you are inferring.
It's not what I was inferring, although there were parts of the invasion in Afghanistan (specifically, cluster bombs) that I was very disappointed with because of its impact on children and families.
Man, god help us if you ever have to commit any one to the defense of this country. People die in war. You can't fight them in leotards.
Yes you can. I've seen Sly and Ahnold do it in some of their earlier films. High body counts abounded, so my guess is that leotards makes you fight harder.
Yes people die in wars and there is an obligation to limit that cost to civilians as much as possible. The Geneva Convention puts it this way
Attacks that strike military objects and civilians or civilian objects without distinction are considered indiscriminate and are prohibited. While Protocol I recognizes that some civilian deaths are inevitable, it says states cannot legally target civilians or engage in indiscriminate attacks. Article 51(4) and Article 51(5) define the concept of indiscriminate attacks in several ways. The five kinds of indiscriminate attacks they enumerate are those that: are 1) not directed or 2) cannot be directed at “a specific military objective,” 3) have effects that violate the Protocol, 4) treat separate urban military objectives as one (carpet bombing), and 5) are disproportionate.
I would say that cluster bombs by definition cannot be “a specific military objective,”. I was all for going after Ben Laden. I completely object to such total indifference to the suffering brought to civilians. The tone of your answer makes it seem like if we arent killing enough civililans we just arent trying. He made a valid point. What good did the bombing of Kabul do to get al Queda? The more we mete out collective punishment the worse the backlash. The more we target specific enemies and make it clear we are NOT fighting anyone brown enough that lives in the same general area the more likely we are to convince the people of the middle east this isnt about fighting Islam or Arabs instead of the terrorists who have attacked us or are likely to attack us.
If you are talking about MOST of "those people" whatever that is supposed to mean. I dont think it true. Thousands of Muslims in Iran, in Palestine in Lebanon prayed and had public demonstrations of sympathy after 9/11. In Iran there were thousands more showing sympathy on the first anniversary. I think most of them hate our POLICIES and they have an argument there. This attitude is one we can do something about. NOT by invading random countries when we get an excuse instead of attacking the specific people who have specifically harmed us. Not by overthrowing their goverments or supporting the very repressive regimes Shaw was rightly criticising. "THOSE PEOPLE" were not born hating us nor is it inevitable they will continue to hate us even IF you are correct. Even the Pentagon admitted it was our policies that cause the animosity. So deal with the terrorists AS terrorists, deal with the vast silent Arab and Islamic majority as REAL people not characitures and things can improve, if we just assume they are all irrational, not that I am saying this is what you mean, is a prescription for further problems not for a longterm solution.
Yes I am talking about most of the inhabitants of the middle east Islamic countries. Recent polling, for example, in Egypt has shown that 91% of the populace agrees with the attacking of American soldiers in Iraq. When I say "most people" I mean most people. They could give two sh#&ts about you or me or anyone else posting here for that matter. I do agree with your premise in that pre-emptive strikes and occupations only cause more problems. But, I hold fast in my belief that the majority of the arab world holds a negative view of the U.S. You can say it is because of Isreal or whatever but a few thousands protesters after 9-11 doesn't change my view.
"in Egypt has shown that 91% of the populace agrees with the attacking of American soldiers in Iraq."
We're invading a sovereign country for no good reason and causing severe civil unrest. Do you expect the majority of Egyptians to think we all deserve flowers, Mr. Cheney? We're an invading force and a perceived threat to any arab or muslim nation in the middle east that we're not already chummy with (no worries, SA, you're safe!).
Apparently a LOT of these insurgents are coming from Egypt at this point because it's highly muslim and our continued presence in Iraq is being used as proof that we're out to destroy Islam.
BLR,
We're out to destroy Islam? Where have you been? If you don't see the difference in us and the enemy this conversation is over. My use of that data is to indicate that the arab world does not like us. They didn't before Iraq. Again, you can attribute this to several geo-political reasons from Israel to religious differences. I dont' want to understand anyone who wants to kill me. You can do that and we will see how far you make it.
"I don't want to understand anyone who wants to kill me"
ummm... understanding the "enemy" is the key to winning ANY war or battle, IF thats your take that the "enemy" is MOST of the arab states... except who? Saudi Arabia? You mean our so called ally? You know the place where you can be beheaded for being gay or selling drugs or denouncing Islam. Here's a twofor, did you know that 17 of the 19 911 Hijackers were trained in Saudi Arabia and came to the US legally?
"Don't you understand they wanna kill us?"
Umm..... nuh DUHH!!! The question is WHO is "they" and WHY do they want to kill us? Is it because of our freedom.
Gee, thanks for the military lesson. My point was that it is futile to try to make friends with those who are bent on destroying us. During a firefight you just can't stand up and say "wait a minute, can't we just talk this out". I will ot apologize for using general terms such as "those people" all I know is that there is an element of the arab world that wants to kill you and me,DTRAIN. If you have time to understand them go ahead. I'm just glad Roosevelt and Eisenhower didn't try to understand Hitler before bombing Berlin.
"Roosevelt and Eisenhower didn't try to understand Hitler before bombing Berlin"
As if Hitler's plight and intentions weren't GLARINGLY obvious. Besides, how do YOU know they didn't try to "understand" Hitler before bombing Berlin?? Mind-reading again?
Well I know that there was never any indication of an attempt to try to hold direct talks with Hitler and make friends. We also know that following the D-Day invasion Hitler was not opposed to making some kind of armistice with the western front because he knew the Russians would not stop. Therefore, it is obviously apparent we had no intention of "understanding" Hitler. We would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Reading not mind reading.
Well what I remember from history is that Germany declared WAR on us after pearl harbor. I think Ben Laden declared war on us but not the entire middle east.
Actually, Military Intelligence made a point of understanding everything they could about Hitler, Hirohito, their generals, their unit structure, their tactics and their current capabilities before they launched an attack. It's called getting an advantage on your enemies, something preferrable to just standing up prior to a firefight and go "Move out, boys, this hill looks empty to me!".
How hard is this to understand. Knowing your enemy is a pre-requisite to war. Once you commit, you can not humanize them or attempt to "understand" them. That is my point. The "let's sit down and talk approach to understanding your enemy" is silly. When the heat of the battle is on you could care less about understanding the guy who is trying to kill you. I just can't get you to get it. I'm done trying.
That's because nobody but you is talking about the "let's sit down and talk approach to understanding your enemy." We were talking about understanding the state of our relations with the Arab world.
I would agree that "[k]nowing your enemy is a pre-requisite to war," and I am not sure why we didn't even try.
I started the stupid conversation you moron. Pay attention.
The first couple of posts I see by you talk about a poll in Egypt and how they don't like us over "their." Then, without transition, you segued into how you don't care how people think who want to kill you.
And, Chris, a word to the wise: when you start calling people names like a little kid, it's time to calm the f_ck down.
Oh yes there is an ELEMENT in the middle east that wants to destroy us. Lets get them no question. Defining the ENTIRE middle east as that element is a prescription for starting a holy war. That isnt good for anybody. Its time we stopped making enemies by simply defining them as enemies.
That stat shows no such thing. It is a reasonable reaction to an invading force in their region of the world.
Considering Saddam wanted to take Egypt after Kuwait, yes, i think 91% is a little ridiculous.
Would YOU agree with Canadians attacking foriegn troops that had invaded and occupied THEIR country? That statistic is meaningless. International law says every country has a right to armed resistance against foriegn invaders. Think of it this way. in the 80's I am sure you were unhappy with the Soviets, maybe the Nicaraguans. Did that mean you HATED the Nicaruaguans themselves or were you just angry at their leadership and what they were doing. Now we arent talking about the Ben Laden nutbag set you keep saying the majority of the people in the middle east. We both know you cannot know this and it sounds like propaganda. I think people are people everywhere. I dont think they are any less rational in the middle east than we are here. Here there are plenty of people who just hate Arabs because of 9/11. I am sure there are plenty of Iranians that hate us because we overthrew their first democracy and very popular elected leader Mossedegh. I dont think in either case it is the majority.
By contrast then I would have to assume that it is your belief that most of the arab world likes us. This argument goes both ways, How do you know that?
The only reason to assume that is if you are stuck in the simplistic Manichean worldview that leads people into exactly this type of false dichotomy. The claim that most of the middle east HATES us was yours. Its YOUR burden of proof to back up and your stat that the people of Egypt think its ok to attack people from an invading army doesnt come near doing that. My best guess is that the huge majority of the people in the middle east are indifferent to us. To the extent we are not meddling in their affairs they dont think about us at all. I base that on my belief that people are people. I think if you found yourself in an unnamed villiage in Egypt or Jordan they would treat you like a person, help you if you needed help, treat you like any other person because that is what I would do. That is the way most people I have known throughout my life have been. If we just tell ourselves they all hate us so we may as well TREAT them like enemies then we will effectively MAKE them enemies. Look into the strategy called the prisoners dillema. It is the most effective strategy for interpersonal dynamics ever found consistantly outperforming much more sophisticated strategies. It calls for ALWAYS co-operating, as the opening move. ALWAYS returning hostility for hostility and cooperation for cooperation. Lets go after those who have defined THEMSELVES as our enemies however lets not mulityply that group beyond what it needs to be.
And, of course, we remember Rush Limbaugh's brilliance. When we heard reports of looters stealing artifacts of Iraqi culture from museums, Rush said "What Iraqi culture?"
Well, they have to dehumanize these people to acquit their consciences.
There's creedence to "What Iraqi culture", even if there wasn't meant to be by Rush. To be intellectually honest, you have to say "Mesopotamian culture." Iraq is a false state; I can't understand why more people haven't latched onto that fact.
Hey, you spelled "Mesopotamian" wrong. I'm an informed citizen. I watch "The Daily Show." I know how things are spelled. It's:
"Mess-o-po-tamian"
Oh please, Dex, tell us why that "fact" is germaine to the discussion? It's an irony for sure, but "irony is wasted on the stupid" (Rush).
Ya know, I just read a whole weekend full of troll posts accusing lefties on this site and other left leaning blogs of being the most hateful posters out there. Do you recall any conversation where a leftie starts a post by referring to the opposition as knuckle dragging savages?
Doris
You are so full of S*it. You and your hate toward Gibson, you are smearing him just like you smeared Imus. When will you stop being hysteric and look at the facts of what Gibson said? Of course Olbermann a man you have been critical of is wrong her, but you and your "friends" here ignore the hate from him.
You disapoint me.
Look past the inflammatory language and into the mediocre level of "fact"? Please. If you have fact on your side, you don't need to stoop to that level of irreverence. If Gibson had a valid point, he'd not need to prop it up with such a house of cards.
Casey
I think you have completely lost it. It is irrelevant and not the issue what I think. The facts of Gibsons statement have been made clear in this MMFA story. You want to defocus and attack me go right ahead but its off topic and its obvious you are unable to defend or debate the disgusting comments of Gibson.
What a bizarro world wingnuts live in. Point out a neandrathal statement by Gibson and its HATE where a statement by Coulter about beating liberals with baseball bats, poisoning Supreme Court justices, or torturing Arabs as a televised sport is just humor. Listening to someone from the side of Coulter, O'Reilly and Weiner tell US about OUR hate is just bizarre. Its just a good thing for you there is no level of irony that isnt fatal if it were just painful you would need a morphine drip
Take it as it is, but despite Gibson's remarks the people who are killing our soldiers over their are not good people. I have seen guys who have thought it best to "understand" the enemy or "treat them like human beings" the tragic thing is that most of those guys never came home.
Chris, I have never been and will never be in combat, so I don't know what the mindset of a warfighter is like. However, I feel fairly secure -- without recourse to Wikipedia -- in asserting that the albino wingnut Gibson has not been in combat either. His comments unfairly lump together psychopaths who strap on bombs and people just trying to defend their families, and the whole 10th-century bit is just pure ethnocentrism. Let's not forget what we Western Europeans were doing to each other a mere half-century ago.
Fair enough, I just dn't think he was talking about every single Iraqi person. I took his statements to mean those who are attacking our soldiers and killing them. I'll say it again, Killing them.
He says "killing each other," twice.
So. Are you trying to say that Gibson was referring to every man woman and child in Iraq? We know that the same people who are killing each other are also in direct confrontation with us.
Are you trying to say that Gibson was referring to every man woman and child in Iraq?
No.
If that is what I meant, I wouldn't try. I would just say it.
Oooh, Aaaaah! I submit to your supreme intelligence. Get over yourself.
Interesting that you took my objection to your putting words in my mouth as me acting superior. Look, if you're not here to debate, if you just want to roar and bluster and not have to deal with actual responses, just let me know.
What debate do you always refer to? You have come in midstream in this long winded conversation and quite frankly you are totally lost. You commit statments without knowing the prerequisite conversation. Now I spend time responding to you, when you dont' know what the coversation is about. And you say "we" like you have been here all along and have somehow led the dialogue. I would suggest you check the context of your statement. Am I supposed to think that you were invinting me to a Mr. Rogers' type conversation? Pay attention.
Not being able to read minds its hard to tell exactly who fits into the set he is talking about. Since he is a PAID commentator that is HIS FAULT. Clearly he didnt do anything to specify THIS group of Iraqis. Since the demonization of populations is standard propaganda and since that is pretty much Fox's reason for being they havent earned the benifit of the doubt.
That is a fair argument. I'm only saying that it is my belief that Gibson (who I'm no fan of) was not inferring that ALL Iraqi's were knuckls dragging thugs.
Dehumanizing an entire people because we are fighting a war there is the very definition of propaganda. WE invaded THEIR country for no good reason. SOME of those insurrgents in Iraq are very bad people. Others are doing nothing more than you or I would be doing if another country successfully invaded OUR country. At which time you would be hearing the same kind of dehumanizing propaganda about us. People are the same everywhere and anytime you begin hating in large vague groups its your OWN humanity that is being damaged.
Casey
You sound like another smearmonger. You should apologize to everyone you have smeared.
Wait, does this mean Gibson believes in Evolution?
"knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century"
ANOTHER INTERPRETATION:
John Gibson is saying that the most powerful nation on earth, with the world's most powerful military force, equiped with the most sophisticated weaponry known to man, cannot defeat a bunch of primitive 10th century knuckle-draggers. Not very complimentary about our military is it?
Rut ro. No he di'nt.
Julia I am consistantly entertained, by your commentary.
Good point, Irony. But remember, he's talking to the same people who think Mexicans are stupid and lazy , and they don't want to have to compete for jobs with them.
Oh, so now people that want the sovereignty of America and it's immigration laws to be followed are all just drooling racists. Interesting. I guess the facts that illegal imigration is closing hospitals, hurting social security, escalating bordertown violence, potentially allowing terrorist an inroad to the US, hurting our school systems, etc. is all ok as long as lettuce is cheaper right?
You lost credibility on the SS issue. It's been proven time and again that illegals can't get money from SS. I buy the border violence (but note it goes both ways, there are recorded instances of violence against the border crossers as well), and the strain on hospitals, but give the SS claim a rest. That dog don't hunt.
Snoopy's absolutely right, you have to work and pay taxes before your recieve any social security benefits. Period.
Dtrain, read my response to Snoopy and let me again say that I never said illegals could receive ss benefits. All I said is that the flood of illegals potentially hurts the system.
How do you hurt the system if you're not drawing benefits from it?
You lost credibility on the SS issue. It's been proven time and again that illegals can't get money from SS. Snoopy
I'm sorry, did I say they were getting SS benefits, let me check....no, no I didn't. My point is that they are not contributing and they are doing jobs that are taken from people that WOULD be contributing. How is this GOOD for the system? Think before you respond snoopy.
You said they were hurting social security. My response is proper, unless you are of the idea that those low paying wages could bail out the program or have posted data showing that if americans filled those jobs somehow improves the SS situation, I'd say you need to think through a little more clearly before you make a statement like that.
If americans took the jobs the jobs would most likely not be paid under the table and would therefore be contributing to ssec.
Not necessarily. Farm jobs and even low-level construction jobs end up with positions being filled by people who are paid cash - no income reported. I have one friend who works in roofing and has about 12 co-workers, at least half of which are immigrants. He won't say if they're illegal, but he has said that he's one of a few that are reporting and paying their taxes.
You can use this as proof that illegal immigrants are hurting SS, but I will use it as proof that the American workers are doing the same thing.
Tips comes to mind as well. Like I'm gonna believe all service providers reports tips properly.
Hurting Social Security?
They're adding as much as $7,000,000,000 a year and will not draw any benefits!
That hurts SS how?
Seb, take your head out of the sand!!
US corporations LOVE illegal immigration. They get cheap labor from people who would never complain because they know that they are here illegally.
I never said that corporations didn't love illegals. This is the main reason both parties want to keep the flow coming. Dems want the amnesty because minorities predominately vote dem and repubs want the cheap labor for big business.
Besides the fact that the glaringly pink and HUGE elephant peeking at you Sebastian is that the REPUBLICAN MANTRA is the claim that low-paying wage workers (LEGAL, like in you scenario) DON'T PAY TAXES so they should be happy with the pay they get, and stop worryin bout those bushie tax chops/cuts/dices/minces. So you can't have it both ways. Either both illegals and low-waged legals are "hurting" the system as you claim, or you got squat for this SS issue. What say you?
"glaringly pink and huge elephant....... REPUBLICAN MANTRA"
excuse my pun :)
----------------------------
One quick correction to my post. *I* added in the part about you advocating that legal low wage workers are hurting the system. That is wrong, you asserted that illegals are hurting the system, not legals. What I should have written is the if you follow my leading in assertion: Republican Mantra - "low wage workers no pay taxes". Then it follows that legal low wage workers ALSO "hurt" the system by your standard for illegals.
Illegal immigration is not hurting Social Security.
It's helping SS, and giving it more money, and keeping it financially stable for longer into the future.
The bad thing is that deep down, you would probably like that to be true. Tell the truth now, would it dissapoint you if we turned this situation around and became successful?
Man, achrispage6992, you're one of them cynical sorts. If you're projecting, then at your magnitude of projection, you could get a job at an IMAX theater.
But, just to humor you, I'll falsely confess: Yes, achrispage6992, I want more marines and soldiers to lose their eyes, their faces, their penises, their fingers, and their legs. I just read about a soldier who lost both his eyes and his hands, so he can't read braille. And I'd rather have that happen 10/100/1000 times more just to gain a political advantage.
Now, even lying as I just did, I made myself ill. Achrispage6992, truly, how can you think that someone would want such a thing?
And I still recall what happened to my friend, the one who was abducted from Baghdad airport upon arrival. Yeah, us libs wish that on everyone who serves.
What a cute little synopsis in your first paragraph. This from a person who acutally believes that we fought Japan in WWII for resources. That type of thinking from you nullifies any intelligent debate on any other subject. But, I will attempt to humor you. My point is that despite the fact that we all know this war is a mistake, like it or not their have been positive things happen in Iraq since our occupation. That certaintly doesn't justify our reasons for going but, the fact remains that as more bad news comes for Iraq so does public opinion continue to turn agains the war. Like or not there are those out there who actually root for us to do bad. If your not one of those then fine. I apologize. But, I think you have to recognize that these extremists exist and live in our end of the political spectrum. IN my opinion they are as vile as Dick Cheney.
I recall Holly's words on that subject, I read it as the war against Japan was a war for resources meaning that our strategy was to deny vital resources to the japanese government as a means of ending the war. In this regard she's right. Japan went into the war with enough resources to wage a 6 to 9 month campaign and had to seize vital interests to prolong the war (Indonesian oil, Chinese coal and steel, etc.). When I read her stuff I got it. Surprised you didn't too.
No I don't think that is what she meant. I beleive that she was comparing our current foreign policy to that of Japan's in the 1930's. I dont' agree but I guess that is a valid comparison.
I had to go back and re-read it too. =0
Cool. Glad to see we are waking up.
Thanks, mah dawg. I'm glad you got it. I once developed a Bush/Hirohito analogy in my column, comparing their privilege, isolation, and raw materials imperialism.
Snoopy - as I noted above, Holly mentioned the 1930s in the earlier post. I believe Holly was specifically referring to Japanese expansionism. Of course, the result was a U.S. embargo which began straining Japanese military needs. Thus the need for seizing additional resources preceded Dec. 7th and the subsequent invasion of U.S. and U.K. interests in the South Pacific.
As far as the "6-9 months" is concerned, perhaps you were thinking of Yamamoto's prediction that he would be able to "run wild" against the U.S. for about 6 months, but ultimately lose the war. This, more likely was a reference to the industrial capabilities of the nations, i.e., Japan would not be able to sustain its losses. Interestingly, Yamamoto wasn't far off, the Japanese run ending 5 months later with their strategic defeat in the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Hey CD,
I meant both, but tend to post less. I blame my job for that, I have to take long winded engineering diatribe and reduce it to 25 words or less for upper management! ;)
I'm a big war buff though, and as you noted I did refer to Yamamoto's statement which was pretty darn close to true. I could see where Holly was going right away thanks to my timeless collections of World At War, Victory At Sea, and dozens of hollywood propaganda action films like Tora! Tora! Tora!
Holly, I get annoyed when posters like Tommy are too literal, but the extrapolations that these 2 guys just made were off the charts as you mentioned. Projection, extrapolation, fantasy.....it's a mad, mad Repub world.
Holly,
I apologize as I misinterpreted your initial posting concerning your statements about Japan. Another person brought this to my attention and after reading your posting again I see what you were saying. My fault.
Per 'aps it's time to go re-crisp your page.
No problem. You had a brain fart. I get 'em too.
And JJ, it was weird for me to read this thread.
I was thinking, "I wrote what?"
And I wondered if I'd had a brain fart.
Me, too, Holly... I just want our troops to die and endure unbearable suffering. That gives all of us liberals great pleasure doesn't it? ;>)
What an asinine suggestion that we want America to lose to prove a political point! This is classic Rush Limbaughish, dishonest, right wing spin. We are all Americans... we are on the same side. But Gibson's inane comment begs the question about why, after four years and counting, we cannot prevail militarily against a bunch of primitive "knuckle-draggers". Perhaps it has much to do with the quality of our so-called leadership who crafted this mission to begin with... people who are obviously oblivious to history.
"Tell the truth now, would it dissapoint you if we turned this situation around and became successful?"
I'd be damn happy and give them credit for turning things around. That still won't change their history of incompetence.
Now, tell the truth you'd let this whole country sink with the ship just to prove some insane point?
Monk8,
No that is not what I am saying. I just get frustrated by people who sit in the comfort and safety of their offices and homes and constantly drone on about how everything is terrible. There is no talk of anything positive. I know what it is like to be thousands of miles from home and be shot at daily. I know what it is like to see death and atrocities that I hope that you and anyone else never has to experience. As I pointed out to Holly, there is an element in this country affiliated with the left who want us to fail. They look at body counts and wounded as talking points to make their case against this war. That sir, is beyond reproach. I have no insane point to prove, but I will tell you I wouldn't be in the least bit annoyed if Bush turns out to be right about this war. I don't believe he will but some I think would acutally be dissapointed if things turned around over their.
I, for one would be thrilled if the violence stopped in Iraq and a stable Republic took root...but I"d still want Bush and Cheney impeached for lying us into an unnecessary war. Even if the fighting stops today, it has been a horrible waste of lives and resources.
"...there is an element in this country affiliated with the left who want us to fail."
Absolute bullsh*t!!! Your comment, suggesting that there are treasonous liberal political elements in the country hoping America fails is so offensive that you do not deserve a respectful response. You are a brainless moron to make such a suggestion. It is people like you who are the cause of the divisiveness that plagues this country. We may disagree on ideology, foreign policy strategy and other things but we are all Americans. Go away and take your mindless right wing garbage elsewhere.
You sir, are a stark raving mad idiot. You have no clue as to what is going on around you. You are so blinded by your partisanship, you see the truth but dont' want to believe it. I dont' give a rat's a## what you say. there are people in the far left who want us to lose. There are countless examples of this documented and most recently this took place in a peace rally in Oregon I believe. Just keep sitting in your ivory tower telling us what is right or wrong, while others do the fighting for you. By the way, I am more of a liberal democrat than your crazy, moronic, extremist, armchair soldier, arse will ever be.
"there are people in the far left who want us to lose."
Really...? Who are these people? From my ivory tower vantage point it appears that anyone who opposes the Iraq war is accused by the brainless, divisive right wing of wanting the terrorists to win. Do you seriously deny that? You are the one with his head stuck up his holier than thou arse. When you speak of left wing elements who want the enemy to win you'd be specific about such an offensive accusation... because all liberals havel been painted with that same brush at one time or another. And I'm not gonna sit idly by and let you do the same... Name the liberal traitors, smart guy...
Well, Irony, there you go again. I challenge you to point out where I said all liberals want us to lose. When you do that then I will entertain your call for specifics. Warning* the truth will hurt.
This is what you said:
"...there is an element in this country affiliated with the left who want us to fail."
...now NAME them.
In fact, admit it, you were trying to paint liberals with the same brush of treason that practically all right wing pundits have done to anyone who opposes the war. You are spineless... and you don't argue very well either. Stick with war... it better suits you.
By the way, this is what you also said:
"Tell the truth now, would it dissapoint you if we turned this situation around and became successful?"
Just a rhetorical question, I'm sure...
O.K. I will do this one more time so maybe even you can understand this. Tell me where I said all liberals want us to lose the war. Once you do that I will give you what you want. Are you so senile that you gave reference to my earlier posting in which I blatantly stated that there is "AN ELEMENT" in the party, to try to show that I said "all liberals" want us to lose. GEEZE! They mnake medicine for people like you.
Nobody said you said "all liberals." You are the only one who introduced that into the dialogue. What you said was this:
"You." Meaning us. "Probably." Meaning you actually believe this, or want us to think you do.This is just a lazy slur you cast at us so you can feel comfortable totally dismissing what we have to say.
And I see no reason to let you get away with it.
Jesus this is like banging your head against the wall. If you will look about three posts up you will undoubtedly see where IRONY stated something like...because all liberals have been painted with that brush some time or another and I will not sit idly by and let you do the same. Now that is a direct and incontravertable insinuation that I said all liberals want us to lose in Iraq. His response below my response gleems the same inference. If you can't see that, I can't help you. Pay attention.
You keep dodging what Irony said, rather than what you thought he/she said:
Name one.
I named two later in the blog. I did that out of courtesy because he never was able to state when I said "all Liberals want us to lose the war". Now, I blew the argument out of the water that you put forth which insinuated that he never inferred that. Pay attention.
Michael Moore: doesn't say he wants us to lose
Gwynne Dyer: not American
I am paying attention, that is how I know you are just talking out your ass.
Oh yeah, there again you don't pay attention and jump to misguided conclusion. It makes you look ignorant by the way. I think the post you refer to I was in fact directly responding to someone. I didn't say you to mean we. Pay attention.
You're full of sh*t... Next thing you'll probabaly say is that you were only joking. If you want to say provacative things here, my friend, be prepared to be challenged. You obviously are not as sharp as you think because you have been called out and you haven't been able to provide a coherent response. Sorry, pal... just the facts. You were trying to yank some "librul" chains by making some pretty serious insinuations... and you were trying to paint liberals with that old treason brush. You just don't have the integrity to admit it.
Irony,
Maybe I should put this on a "speak and spell" but I will try this approach one more time for your benefit just in you get it by osmosis. I NEVER SAID 'ALL LIBERALS WANT US TO LOSE'. YOU KNOW IT BT YOU CONTINUE TO TRY TO USE THAT BASELESS ARGUMENT. AS I EXPLAINED TO VALENTINE, I DO WORK WITH COLLEGES WHO HAVE DENTAL SCHOOLS, IN MY TRAVELS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS WHO FIT INTO THE FAR LEFT EXTREMIST CATEGORY. THERE ARE SOME WHO ACTUALLY ROOT FOR US TO LOSE. THERE ARE SOME WHO ACTUALLY WANT THE BODY COUNTS TO RISE SO THEY CAN ADD VALIDITY TO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED TO LEAVE IRAQ. YOU WANT NAMES? YOU WANT NAMES OF FAMOUS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS? HOW DOES THAT ADD VALIDITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT? I KNOW WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD. THESE PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. WHEN YOU PUT THE WATER BONG DOWN YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE THIS MORE CLEARLY.
"IN MY TRAVELS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS WHO FIT INTO THE FAR LEFT EXTREMIST CATEGORY. THERE ARE SOME WHO ACTUALLY ROOT FOR US TO LOSE. THERE ARE SOME WHO ACTUALLY WANT THE BODY COUNTS TO RISE SO THEY CAN ADD VALIDITY TO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED TO LEAVE IRAQ."
Where are you travelling, Mars? No AMERICAN, liberal or conservative, in his right mind would want the body count to rise or for AMERICA to lose. More Likey, this is your INTERPRETATION of what you find to be their "far left" ideology. You sound exactly like Rush Limbaugh who ascribes joy to every liberal whenever anything bad happens to America. It's clear now, thank you. You've never actually HEARD any of these people say they want Americans to die or to lose. You're not listening to what they're actually saying because of the filters of your own idiotic beliefs. BTW, have you taken YOUR meds? Do dental schools dispense Oxycontin? Just wondering... because you sound an awful lot like Rush Limbaugh in saying what evil liberals believe.
so now the great and wonderful IRONY knows what I have seen and heard. Give it up man, you lost the argument. I have met wacko's who want us to lose. Stop with the petty insults, you lost the argument. Go back to the water bong and leave the real discussion to the grown ups.
NAME one person who roots for America to lose... Sorry, you lose.
you.
You really need some classes on logic. Are there starving kids in Africa????????????????????? If you answer yes, then please name one.
Independent Non-Governmental Relief Agencies as well as our own government confirm that there are starving children in Africa. You cannot point to one thing to support your "belief" that there are liberals who want Americans to die in Iraq and for America to lose. YOU made the allegation but you can't back it up because it is only your interpretation of anti-war sentiments that you say indicate a desire for America to lose. NAME one American who has said "I want Amricans to die in Iraq; I want America to lose in Iraq." You've been given countless opportunities to do it but you can't; i.e. you are full of it.
There are countless examples of this documented
Countless? Can you share one?
You may find some fringe leftist radicals who fit your description...I don't know. I do know that there are just as many radicals on the right who want Iraq to go badly in a hurry so that Jesus can come back. You doubt it?
I don't know, how about Michael Moore saying that the Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists but revolutionaries, minutemen and their numbers will grow and they will win, or something to that effect. Come on, man. I am not so naive as to make statments as bold as I made them and believe that I won't be called on them. There are those in the far left who believe this stuff. Now, I won' t do anymore research for anyone, If you don't believe me search for yourself.
Wanting us to fail, as you asserted, is different from acknowledging that we will fail. You don' t see the difference? You're the one who said there were "countless" documented examples. We were just hoping that you might actually be able to produce one.
You only asked for one. Now, you want to argue the semantics of the statement? He said what he said, your argument loses it credibility when he compares them to the minutemen who fought for the American Revelution, Don't you see the difference? Gwynn Dyer also stated that "the U.S. need s to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently the whole world needs the United States to lose the war". Now I don't know about you but that sounds like someone wanting our troops to die who ascribes themselves to far left ideologies. If you want more look them up yourself.
Well good, you found one Canadian that wants the US to lose. If that is how low you are setting the bar, I can send you links to the writing of literally dozens of Europeans who agree with him. In fact, I bet I could find one or two similar examples from the Arab press as well.
Why don't you just back the hell down and acknowledge you were talking out your ass? You're just making yourself look silly and irrational.
You are a total ignoramus. At least you obviously did a quick search which is more than I can say for the others. You don't believe what you don't want to. What would you hve me do list all the left wing extremists who do in fact want us to lose? That is obviously what you want. sorry, good try, I will not debate this on your terms. If you don't believe me do the damn research yourself. While your at it, pay attention.
What would you hve me do list all the left wing extremists who do in fact want us to lose?
No. I said one. Pay attention.
You said it, you can't back it up with a single fact, and you want me to do your research for you? Nice try.
It is impossible to have a coherent argument with you. when you say "name one" what do you want. do you want someone who is famous, in the public eye; or do you want someone who I have actually met? I volunteer my time each year at college campuses with their dental programs. During my travels I have encountered many individuals who hold the extremist views that I have brought to our attention. There are 300 million people in this country and you obviously don't believe that even one of them wants us to lose in Iraq. Well, buddy, your wrong. You want to refuse to hear and believe things sthat are true. Why? Because the people who hold these extremeist views just happen to adhere to the same political views as you. that is a little disingenious don't you think? I know what I have seen and heard from some people who I consider far left. If you choose to believe that I am lying, that is your perrogative. Now, again tell me what you want? Names? How infantile.
"Because the people who hold these extremeist views just happen to adhere to the same political views as you."
Bingo...! Oh, no... of course you're not tarring all liberals with the same brush as extremists who (according to your interpretration) want us to lose. Uhhh... you just did, moron.
You just don't get it do you? How infantile are you willing to be to abstain from losing this argument? There are not elements in the far right that I am aware of who want us to lose. There are in the far left. Many of these folks do in fact have alot of the same political beliefs regarding things like social issues and domestic policy as Valentine does. Does that make him a far left extremist? Of course not you blathering idiot. What it does is cement the fact that people who hold these views also share other liberal ideology. Which leads me to my point. Some people in the far left want us to lose this war. Christ almighty, when will you get it?
"Some people in the far left want us to lose this war."
Name one... and tell us exactly what he said. Or is it your interpretation of what he said... you know, with those darn far left views of his?
You really are a piece of work. Lay off the pot man, it kills brain cells. I met a guy named David at the University of Tennessee who told me personally that the more casualities we take the better off we are because it will wake America up and we will realize that we need to leave. Now, I may or may not be telling the truth. But, you won't care, you will find some way to dissassociate yourself from my argument and attempt to tell me that what I heard isn't really what I heard, cause you were there right?
You just accused ME of wanting America to lose (see above) and I never said any such thing! You obviously make things up as you go along and we're supposed to believe your anecdotes about liberals wanting Americans to die in Iraq... you just lied about ME in a public forum.
And by the way who is "we".
"I know what it is like to be thousands of miles from home and be shot at daily. I know what it is like to see death and atrocities that I hope that you and anyone else never has to experience"
What good news in Iraq could possibly over shadow the 100+ troops killed this mouth our any other of insane attrocities going on over there now?
MONKNJ80,
You just made my point for me. You used body counts to make an argument. That is as disrespectful as it comes.
So, you are attributing "body counts" as a leftist phenomenon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_count
Fact is, even if they don't admit it, the right uses body counts too. The military still does, that one makes sense. If I lose 50% of my force, I'd sure think it a good idea to pull back because I'm obviously getting clobbered. I need to regroup...
What about this don't you understand? Your example has nothing to do with my point. BLah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THOSE WHO USE BODY COUNTS TO PROTEST THIS WAR ARE DOING SO IN A DISRESPECTFUL MANNER TO THOSE WHO HAVE DIED. USING BODY COUNTS GIVES THE IMPRESSION, THAT SOME BELIEVE THAT THE MORE DEAD, THE BETTER CHANCE THAT WE HAVE OF LEAVING. THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.
You just can't get off this "liberals hate America" jag, can you? Maybe body counts are a way of pointing out to conservatives the STUPIDITY of the policy they support.
Oh really, when did I say that liberals hate America? Stick to the argument at hand, when one begins to lose the argument they tend to do as you are doing.
You said you knew of COUNTLESS examples of an element on the left that wants us to lose in Iraq something you couldnt then back up with a SINGLE example. That baseless, frankly ignorant, talking point BS is in the same vein as the liberals hate America ignorance. Val was right you are talking out of your ass.
Body counts ARE body counts period. They NEED to be tracked and cited. 100 US troops dead this month? Write it, store it but DON'T forget it. This republican administration and friends are the same ones that decry the foul use of body counts to get us out of war, when they hypocritically use body counts of so called "insurgents" and rate of troop deaths per month to show how their "security plan" or whatever cool sounding operation they are under is working. That is the rate of change in body counts of US troops as a function of time in months (for you calculus heads out there) and overall body count of "insurgents".
sorry meant to say just change not rate of change... Doh!
Why is it so hard for you to believe that people talk about the number of deaths because it is the deaths that we don't like, that we want to see come to an end?
Do you think people are against the war for some other reason?
"IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THOSE WHO USE BODY COUNTS TO PROTEST THIS WAR ARE DOING SO IN A DISRESPECTFUL MANNER TO THOSE WHO HAVE DIED."
What an insensitive jerk...! Every casualty, fatality or injury, represents a personal tragedy for an entire family, or even perhaps an entire community, of AMERICANS,,, it's PERSONAL, not just numbers. On the other hand, there are those that argue that "body counts" represent an acceptable percentage of risk of war. How dehumanizing that is. It would be different if these casualties represented sacrifice for a just cause, something imperative to the survival of our nation. This was a war of CHOICE, not of necessity and thousands of AMERICANS have been caused to suffer and sacrifice because of lunatic neocon theories and abject incompetence. My remark to you is that is that any decent AMERICAN should be p*ssed off instead of formulating rationalizations as you do about nameless 'elements' of the left wing who want America to lose an already lost war. Are you an AMERICAN... or are you an apologist making excuses and creating diversions by alluding to some few whom you deem to be rooting for the "enemy"? If you have an ounce of decency in your bones you'd stand up for an end to the tragic waste of AMERICAN life that can be traced in a linear fashion directly to an utterly unqualified, dishonest and incompetent President who is driven by politics in an almost pthological fashion. In your desire is simply to pick nits by pointing to extreme left wing protesters you miss the greater picture...
Oh really? Well, I have sacrificed blood for my country, how about you? Since you no longer want names of people who want us to lose, you now deem it necessary to change the argument to one that is about me. A pitiful diversion. My only point is that there are people in the far left who want us to lose. I never said "all liberals" like you wanted me to. I never tried to frame the argument like you alluded to. I never said the war is a good thing. You just assume these things because I bring up a point that you don't want to believe is true. Then, of course, you attempted to negate my argument by wanting to know names of people who think this way. That again is a pitiful diversion. For example, we all know that there are starving kids in Africa, Can you name one? Better luck next time!
There are a lot of people in the world. That one or two of them hold ANY view is meaningless. There are people that believe the world is flat that means WHAT? Nothing, you are trying to make a point about liberals based on a non point. Its more of the liberals hate America liberals want us to lose moronity. Its bunk and its a cheapshot.
What you claim is BUNK. Its about like blaming FIREMEN for fires. We were RIGHT about what would happen because we were paying attention. That isnt saying we wanted it to turn out this way. Looking for good things to say when the situation is as bleak as Iraq is can be called by its proper name PROPAGANDA. Its more important to keep the NEXT soldiers wife from becoming a widow than it is to NOT hurt someones feelings by telling the obvious truth. This isnt a situation that calls for Dr Pangloss. How many Americans should die, sacrificed on the alter of not wanting to focus on the bad things or not wanting to be accused of WANTING to happen that which we are only ACCURATLY pointing out IS happening. Feel free to just put a happy face on Iraq no matter what it costs in American blood. I am not comfortable with that.
Chances of us turning this around are slim to none and slim left town.
We were better equipped to crush Vietnam but we couldn't and we won't crush the Iraqi's. They might hate each other but they love their country more than they hate each other. In Iran the groups that hate their leaders and would love democracy have said publicly that if the US attacked they would support their country even though they don't like their government.
The US should have understood that from Vietnam but junior and Dick skipped that war so I can understand their continued ignorance about Iraq.
Pearlene,
Just how do you figure that we were better equipped to crush Vietnam? I am one who believes that the analogies between Iraq and Vietnam are not valid. They were two totally different situations with two entirely different geo-political structures.
I'll be happy to develop an analogy between the two, as long as I'm not stepping on someone's cybertoes.
Holly, the analogy is that in Viet Nam and in Iraq young Americans bled, died and suffered unspeakable physical and emotional trauma because for strategically questinable military causes... and that their suffering was unnecessarily extended while politicians dickered around trying to save face while adjusting their sails to the changing political winds. Morally abhorrent is a phrase that strikes me as applicable...
They also share:
Porus borders
Insurgency
Semi-soldiers who don't wear combatants' uniforms
The identical goal of stabilizing until the gov't can counter the insurgency on their own
Massive annual drain of resources
In Vietnam, the Bushs and Cheneys hid from the fighting. In Iraq, their children hide from the fighting.
Here's why Iraq is like no other war we've ever fought:
Although BushCo allege that it's WWIII, they caught taxes again and again. And again. And again. And again. This is the first war with tax cuts. Remember in WWII when we were urged to save? Bush urged us to go shopping in "WWIII."
And it's the first war we've ever fought that's funded by the communists.
Holly, If I'm not mistaken Korea and Vietnam were both funded by the communists as well. Did I misread what you wrote?
You misread, Snoop. BushCo runs its war by borrowing. The Chinese loan us the most money. The Chinese are communist. Therefore, this war is funded by the Chinese. In the process of deepening our debt, the communists, at last, are winning the Cold War.
You have just drawn an analogy to almost every conflict in the past 100 hundred years. Certaintly their are similiarties but overall the conflicts could be no different. For starters we were essentially asked to help in Vietnam. The insurgency currently in Iraq is a so different from that in Vietnam I don't know where to begin to explain. Most enemy KIA were NVA regulars and alot of the Vietcong were coerced into fighting through torture and other means. Most people in the South enjoyed the Democratic lifestyle and despite the North's efforts a relatively small percentage of the South's inhabitants were rabid in the cause of reunification. The politics in the current war is so different. the main difference is religion. Religious factions fighting for control of the government while fighting us never happened in Vietnam. There are so many more examples but I think you get my drift. It is just my opinion, but Vietnam and Iraq are nothing alike.
So if that is true why did we STOP the reunification elections? I know why EISENHOWER said we stopped them, he said it was because Ho Chi Minh would win by 80% of the vote. Everything I have ever read about the conflict said the huge majority of VC were SOUTH Vietnamese. Your claim that most were NVA is contrary to everything I have read. I could get out Chomsky's Political Economy of Human Rights and cite the NSA memos and Congressional testimony that refutes this spurious claim but what would be the point. I mean you didnt even TRY to back up this baseless assertion that defys history. Short answer, no they werent.
The problem is your selective reading. I was there. I know what I saw and I know who we fought most of the time.
You were there gives you only a limited view. Can you tell the difference between a N Vietnamese and a South Vietnamese by looking at them? You CANNOT know this to be true you pulled it out of your ass. If the majority of those KILLED were NVA it stands to reason the majority of those FIGHTING were NVA unless we had some way of descriminating between them as we fought and somehow targetted the NVA. Your assertion was baseless.
Oh, I never said that the majority of VC were not South Vietnamese. I said that most enemy KIA were NVA regulars. Read more carefully.
Yeah, we get your driftiness. Now take your facts not in evidence and hit the road, for you are one hungry time wastin' troll my brother.
Your right... I'll give you that Iraq is different in some or even a lot ways. But not for the reasons your thinking. On of the main differences is that when we went in to Vietnam it was to prevent a communist regime from taking over south Vietnam and declaring a united communist state. A seemingly noble objective on its face. Looking back it is clear that the time, blood, money and sacrifice didn't achieve our goal to prevent a larger communist regime from coming to power it only delayed it. Whats similar in Iraq is the use of guerrilla tactics by insurgents and the political plight and will of the people we are supposedly trying to free from tyranny. The similarity is NOT understanding the implications of intervening in disputes between waring factions in any regional conflict. Or even worse, intervening and starting and/or encouraging either directly or indirectly disputes between factions and further violence. There are similarities.
"is NOT"
meant to say just is.
The tragic similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq is that in both cases once it became clear that a military solution was impossible it became a matter of politicians covering their political arses and of Preisents not wanting to go down in history as having "lost" an unpopular war. I am convinced that George W. Bush, in his blind obstinance, is essentially more concerned about his legacy than in ending a tragic episode in American history for which he will be forever remembered. We're fed up with Bush saying, "Well, let's try this now and see if this works..." No, George... you f*cked up from the start... admit it and get us the hell out before more damage is done.Let people without your agenda of preserving your legacy take a more active role in crafting a solution that has perpetually escaped you.
Say, achrispage6992, here's a suggestion, pard'. Holster your six shooters and let 'em cool. You've let more bullets fly than Yosemite Sam. You even shot a hole through my bonnet and while I appreciate your apology, I'm going to have to dig out my darning needles tonight. Belly up to the bar, bud. I'll buy you a sasparilla.
Holly, I never figured you for the bonnet wearing type. But that crispy needs a drink bad. He's had nary a breath between posts and that would make a fella darn thirsty, you'd think.
I just checked in to see if he'd come up with any reality based examples of those far-left people who want us to lose the war. Several declarations of "winning the argument" from, Chris, but no admission of the completely imaginary nature of the foundation of that argument.
Mission Accomplished!
Oh, you figgered right, JJ.
I'm a tomboy cowgirl, but some of these righties have rigid notions of wimmenfolk and so I oblige...until...they...come...closer...closer...closer...and THEN...instead of serving the sasparilla, I say, "Barkeep. Whiskey. 2 glasses. Leave the bottle."
Then we drink, brawl, and drink some more. In the end, the Rightie invariably ends up weeping on my shoulder, repenting their sin of voting for W. I forgive 'em, but on one condition: that they retire to the lonely prairie, far from any voting booth, where they can sin no more.
And that's my tomboy cowgirl tale, but the key is the bonnet. It beguiles 'em.
Holly, where do you get your stuff from? Is it just your amazing charm and wit?.. I mean "You've let more bullets fly than Yosemite Sam"... LOL, this is great stuff!!
DTrain, you're too kind.
Here's the truth: I'm a professional writer. Imagine laying bricks, day after day. One day, you'd be a pretty good bricklayer. It works that way with words too. For me, it's not talent. It's repetition.
Michaelangelo said that people wouldn't consider him a genius if they saw how hard he worked. T. Edison said something similar, that achievement is 99% perspiration and one percent inspiration. So, even if the big cats like Edison and Michaelangelo (and I'm just a scrawny, crooked tail tomboycat), it's the reps. Write everyday, day after day after day, and you'll dazzle some folks, but it's mostly just momentum. It's smoke and mirrors.
I also perform to promote my books and those performances dazzle people.
"That was amazing," they say, again and again.
And I always admit, "I've just had a lot of practice."
Do something a guhzillion times and it shakes out the wrinkles.
And humble to boot....
(me day dreaming about Holly) <----