What Goes Around, Comes Around
A quote in a recent newspaper article caught my eye:
Who do these camoflauged insurgents remind us of? Let me give you a hint: Once upon a time, a ruler named King George sent his soldiers to enforce his will upon the rebellious inhabitants of another land. King George's soldiers wore easily distinguished uniforms, while the indiginous rebels blended into the scenery, fighting as guerillas, demoralizing King George's army and inflicting damage by their use of tactics that were considered brutal, unethical, and unsuited for civilized warfare.
I'm sure that many of King George's soldiers said the same thing as the American soldier in the quote above:
The rebels were Americans. What goes around comes around.
"You don't know the good guys from the bad guys, just like we couldn't in Vietnam... To me, (the insurgents) are cowards, because they can tell us, but we can't tell them."Very interesting on several levels:
Who do these camoflauged insurgents remind us of? Let me give you a hint: Once upon a time, a ruler named King George sent his soldiers to enforce his will upon the rebellious inhabitants of another land. King George's soldiers wore easily distinguished uniforms, while the indiginous rebels blended into the scenery, fighting as guerillas, demoralizing King George's army and inflicting damage by their use of tactics that were considered brutal, unethical, and unsuited for civilized warfare.
I'm sure that many of King George's soldiers said the same thing as the American soldier in the quote above:
"[They] are cowards, because they can tell us, but we can't tell them."King George... of England.
The rebels were Americans. What goes around comes around.
posted by SheaNC at 12:50 AM
35 Comments:
Shea,
Are you comparing the terrorists to the American revolutionaries?
-Jack
Jack --
We've had this conversation before .. you keep setting up the same strawman. Its the tactics, not the morality. The quote doesn't say anything about the right or wrong of the insurgent (not terrorist) position .. it simply states the difficulty of dealing with guerilla tactics for a conventional army.
Nobody (except you apparently) tries to say that those who fight against us in Iraq occupy the same moral ground as the American revolutionaries. But they do frustrate the conventional enemy in similar ways.
That's Karma, baby. Look what we got for not wearing pretty uniforms two hundred years ago.
Actually, if you weren't sleeping through your American History classes you'd have learned that it was the new Continental Army that defeated the British, not the rabble shooting from behind trees.
And Laughgard, please. Be real. The post obviously equates the insurgents with the Continentals. Only a fool would think SheaNC isn't trying to equate them morally. He's obviously been reading is Michael Moore - I wouldn't be surprised if SheaNC started referring to the Iraqi terrorists as the Minutemen.
Hi LG!
I'm just puzzled how often the left associates the terrorists with American revolutionaries. The desire to call them "rebels or insurgents" when they prey on innocent civilians.
Anyhow, I'm not the only one saying it. The left notices it too:
In the wake of the London bombings, New York City is now searching the bags of subway riders. As you might expect, this is provoking the usual cluster of perverse reactions. Someone on Air America, the liberal talk radio network, suggested that riders carry many bags to confuse and irritate the cops. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, normally a sane fellow, has ordered that the searches be entirely random, to avoid singling out any one ethnic or religious group. So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile—young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise)—the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What’s the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it? Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, historian Fred Siegel said that the Democrats, pegged as the party of criminals’ rights, are in danger of becoming the party of terrorists’ rights.
From the first moments after the attacks of 9/11, we had indicators that the left would not be able to take terrorism seriously. Instead of resolve, we got concern about emotional closure and “root causes,” warnings about the allegedly great danger of a backlash against Muslim Americans, arguments that violence directed at America is our own fault, and suggestions that we must not use force, because violence never solves anything. “We can’t bomb our way to justice,” said Ralph Nader.
The denial of the peril facing America remains a staple of the left. We still hear that the terrorism is a scattered and minor threat that should be dealt with as a criminal justice matter. In Britain last October, the BBC, a perennial leader in leftism, delivered a three-part tv series arguing that terrorism is vastly exaggerated. Al Qaeda barely exists at all, the series argued, except as an idea that uses religious violence to achieve its ends. Besides, the series said, a dirty bomb would not kill many people and may not even kill anyone. This ho-hum approach isn’t rare. Though evidence shows that the terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons to use against our cities, a learned writer for the New York Review of Books insists that the real weapons of mass destruction are world poverty and environmental abuse. Of course, world poverty is rarely mentioned by terrorists, and those known to be involved have almost all been well fed and are well to do.
The “our fault” argument seems permanently entrenched. After the London bombings, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester wrote in the Guardian that the root causes and blame-Blair outbursts were “spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper . . . there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do.” That has been the case on both sides of the Atlantic. After 9/11, Michael Walzer, one of the most powerful voices on the left, warned about “the politics of ideological apology” for terrorism.
In the June 2005 issue of the American Prospect, he returned to the theme. “Is anybody still excusing terrorism?” he asked. “The answer is yes: Secret sympathy, even fascination with violence among men and women who think of themselves as ‘militants,’ is a disease, and recovery is slow.” Though the argument has shifted somewhat, he wrote, the problem is “how to make people feel that the liberal left is interested in their security and capable of acting effectively. We won’t win an election until we address this.”
Walzer’s analysis is a strong one. The Bush administration has botched many things, but large numbers of Americans go along with the president because he displays what the left apparently cannot: moral clarity and seriousness about what must be done. When the ideas of the left come into view, the themes often include the closing of Guantánamo, attacks on the Patriot Act, opposition to military recruitment on campuses, casual mockery of patriotism (a whole art exhibit in Baltimore was devoted to the theme), and a failure to admit that defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties. Is this a serious program? Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: “The burden is on us—nobody else—to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today’s Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens.” Good argument. How will the left respond?
defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties
I have no doubt about this because our civil liberties are already being curtailed and the war on terror is hardly won. I agree with much of the spirit of your citation, Jack, but I'm not sure that it's entirely realistic.
I used to have arguments with one of my conservative friends about social services and the like. Invariably toward the end of the conversation he would start using the word communism. Why does it have to be about absolute, unrestricted capitalism, or complete communism? It doesn't, and it's absurd to suggest.
I don't think the people who use terms like "insurgents" are necessarily apologizing for the their tactics (killing innocent civilians). I think they are simply trying to foster empathy. "Know thy enemy" is an extraordinarily important precept to have in battle, always.
To me, the war on terror is making such slow progress because there is almost no consensus among those on the side of "good", i.e. the Western world. Think of what we could have accomplished if we didn't turn our back on most of the world to go into Iraq in the first place.
I know you're not a fan of the UN Jack, but it's worth fixing. World unity is the only way we're going to make any progress against illusive threats like terrorism. We need to water the seeds of unity first through example. The United States, in my view, has been living the "do as I say not as I do" mindset for far too long.
Hi Smorg,
Just a couple of things and I need to get to playing Dance Dance Revolution with my kid...
I'll take it from the bottom. The U.N. is broken beyond repair. Its not about unity, its a welfare administration agency. Its entire philosophy is flawed because it is about dependence--not interdependence.
Smorg, also, I have lived all over the world and the world has never cared much for the United States even before the Bush Admin was thought of. I remember when I lived in Australia they were anti-American, In Fujii, anti-American, Europe, anti-American, Africa, anti-American. Only the naive Americans think that the world ever had any respect or love for us, Smorg--Fat Americans--that is the way we have always been views for decades. The current world sentiment is nothing new, and the U.N., trillions in foreign aid, and blood spilt on foreign soil has done little to change that. What makes you think that going around saying "please" and "thank you" now, will make any difference when it never has? Its called Geo-politics, and not much understood...
I won't rehash the old Iraq war situation, but France, Germany and Russia (who we now know were on the money/oil take) are hardly ignoring most of the world.
Not sure I understand the next paragraph up.
The world is cyclical and politics is too, Smorg. As great political minds like Lenin--he understood that a progression away from democracy moved one toward socialism, communism then fascism. Plus, this is the way it has always unfailingly played out through history. Its a natural progression that one just has to guard against--rarely do we go backwards--and when we do it is usually preceded by bloody revolution.
I guess of the first paragraph I would like to ask for some examples about what liberties we have lost that were there before 9/11.
Look forward to the discussion as always!
-Jack
Okay, I'll start with Sean. You assume too much with your analyses ("Only a fool would think SheaNC isn't trying to..."). My point was to illustrate the irony with regards to the similarity in tactics (as Laughguard said), and in the fact that we are the invading army, while the insurgents are trying to defend their homeland, desperately.
If another country invaded the USA, Sean, would you simply cheer for them and say, "Hooray! Welcome to our country! It's all yours!" Or, would you fight to defend it, even if you were out-numbered and out-gunned? That's what they are doing, and the soldier in the quote called them cowards for doing so. Typical.
Jack... lots of statements of your to shoot down, but it is late and I am tired, so I won't go into much detail. Suffice it to say that you are 100% wrong in your description of the left's attitude towards terrorism. How sad that you buy that Rovian revisionist propaganda. Oh well.
Shea,
This is what the LEFT is saying, not the right. I am just quoting them.
Also, many of the terrorists in Iraq have entered there from other countries--they are not there to liberate Iraqis, but to bring them back under the theocratic rule of Islam--read their websites.
Shea, friend, you often speak in absolutes...
Regards,
-Jack
Just a general comment to all...
Nobody who's sane is apologizing for the tactics of the insurgents in Iraq, on the left or the right. I think we all know that. The "right" is fond of misrepresenting things the "left" says because they like to support every aspect of the war and Bush's foreign policy without questioning - which we (I know Jack anyway) can probably agree is just stupid.
Everyone who bothers to post on this blog does it because they want what's best for America and the world. No one, as far as I know, is a communist, Nazi, or member of any other extremist group.
Getting back to the original point of the post, it is crucial to have a sense of empathy if we are to win this "war". Thinking of the "insurgents" as only evil (as Bush does) is ridiculous, and thinking of them all as heroes is equally ridiculous. There is a middle ground and it's called reality.
Smorg!
The voice of reason on NL's.
Ok, here's where I'm coming from. You have to understand that the IMPRESSION one gets from the left is that they are sympathizers with fundamentalist Islam terrorists. For example, as in Shea's post, you would never see a conservative lump the American revolutionaries and the terrorists in the same story, much less draw comparisons between them. Granted, conservatives are much less...nuanced...than liberals, and therefore the impression a conservative receives when they see a post such as Shea's is that he is offering up either sympathy, endorsement, or affirmation. Sean struggles, just like I do sometime to understand why the two would even be used in the same post. For example, the title of the post, "What goes around..." to me would allude that we are basically getting what we deserve or are on the receiving end of what we have done in the past. While logistically this may be true, it is difficult to see any moral comparison, therefore why make the analogy? For some it would be like comparing God to Satan, Hitler to FDR, etc.
Here are the PERCEPTIONS one has (whether grounded in reality or fantasy, they are still the impressions one receives):
Shea seems to compare the terrorists to American revolutionaries.
Sen. Durbin refers to Gitmo (I still maintain that I endured more in my freshman hazing than any of the torture that has gone on in Gitmo) as a Gulag, and minimizes its importance in extracting information on the war against terrorists.
Protestors take to the streets amass when Bush goes into Iraq (in a post 9/11 world) while doing nothing during Clinton's multiple incursions and bombings, therefore leading one to believe that it is ideology over principle, hatred of Bush rather than hatred of war--therefore hypocrisy.
Liberals blame the "little eichmans" for their own fate for being buried under the rubble of the twin towers, saying the children, men and women who died that day--underpaid janitors, secretaries with associates degrees, maintenance workers, etc. really deserved it.
Byrd, Kennedy and the like are perceived as hoping we lose the war in Iraq so that Bush will lose face.
The MSM revels and seems to receive some macabre joy in reading every dead soldier's name on the air to carefully orchestrated music, not to honor them, but to evoke emotion and advance an agenda. Do they care about our guys? Not in a million years--its all about ratings.
In all seriousness, guys, you may not see it, you may refuse to believe it, but the rest of the nation wonders. Yes, conservatives may be more black and white, but on issues of life and death it often comes down to that. There is no in-between condition in life and death, and it is the majority of the Americans perception that the left values life very little (abortion, euthanasia, anti-defense, etc.) and are unwilling to entrust our own lives into their care.
The left can deny this, Kerry flapped all through his campaign, but what he failed to convince Americans was that he took their welfare and safety more seriously than the other side. This is reality, this is a result of loose lips, this is the product of the loud far-left speaking with little consideration for the impact of their words, and it has done wonders to weaken the liberal side. You don't see the smart ones who look toward the future doing it--take Hillary Clinton for example, fine upstanding member of the Armed Services Committee, hawkish concerning terrorism and its threat, firm on defense.
Then we find Democrats/liberals doing complete about faces on issues. Don't they think the world or the nation notices?
For example. Here is just an abbreviated list of Democrat quotes on the WMD issue--the self-same issue that the VERY same Democrats are attacking Bush on.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Begin to wonder about America's perception of the left? Regardless of what is often "meant" it is the "impression" that lasts, and nothing is being done to counter it. Give up the ideological mind games, give up the power struggles and pissing contests, and start making a little more sense-articulate!, and maybe the American people will begin to trust you again. Till then, most people are going to place the safety of their family and loved ones in the hands of the one's they perceive are interested in their security. And so far, that is not the liberal left and their associated party.
Just plain talkin'
-Jack
Hey look! Howard Dean agrees with me!
News Snipet 'Blog: IF DAN QUAYLE HAD SAID THIS...
On a side note to Smorg.
I agree too, Smorg, that all who comment here and congregate here want what's best. Lacking omniscience, I'm not always sure what that is. I have a great deal of respect for you, Shea, Mochi, Curf, and the rest of the gang.
Geez! That was a long post!
Awww, Jack Respects us. Thanks man.
You're right Jack about some of that stuff. Indeed the "left" gets itself into trouble for being honest and speaking its mind. If they hid the truth and "stuck with their guns" absolutely all the time, regardless of whether or not it made sense, they'd probably have a lot more power right now. Oh well. I'd rather model my behavior after the side that's intelligent and honest and loses than the side that wins through manipulation and cultivating fear. That would be like rooting for the Yankees!
Smorg, this was not meant so much as criticism to become defensive about. And you do yourself a disservice to deal in absolutes and stereotypes (believe me, I am guilty of this too). As a matter of fact, BOTH sides engage in manipulation and fear--just yesterday NARAL was caught with its pants down-LYING-to promote its agenda. Until either side begins to recognize its cancerous growths and begin excising them, they are doomed to repeat history.
-Jack
Jack:
“This is what the LEFT is saying, not the right. I am just quoting them.”
No, you’re quoting Karl Rove.
“…many of the terrorists in Iraq have entered there from other countries--they are not there to liberate Iraqis, but to bring them back under the theocratic rule of Islam”
Many of them, yes, and that would not be happening if America had not invaded. Iraq was not a theocracy under Hussein. Besides, you support theocracy in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Anyway, not all are foreigners. Just as many, if not more, are Iraqis who want their country back.
“…the world has never cared much for the United States even before the Bush Admin was thought of… Only the naive Americans think that the world ever had any respect or love for us”
I know people who have travelled the world and say otherwise. I know foreigners who also say otherwise. However, people in other lands don’t like arrogant, egotistical ‘America-first’ types. Maybe they were not anti-America, they were anti-you.
“the IMPRESSION one gets from the left is that they are sympathizers with fundamentalist Islam terrorists”
Oh, that’s rich! While the “right” nurtures terrorists and terrorism, they are squeaky clean. The “right” who arms terrorists and allows them to thrive, the “right” who encourages them and panders to them, but avoids blame because they point the finger first and claim exclusive righteousness. You know, Jack, the IMPRESSION one gets from the right is that they are even WORSE than the terrorists, because the terrorists do not do what they do because of western intrusion on their territory, while your “right” uses its awesome military might in its ongoing crusade to crush everyone in their path and force the whole world, at the point of a gun, to conform wiith your values… or else.
“the impression a conservative receives when they see a post such as Shea's is that he is offering up either sympathy, endorsement, or affirmation. Sean struggles, just like I do sometime to understand why the two would even be used in the same post.”
So, you would rather assume the worst. That’s the difference between the left and the right.
“I still maintain that I endured more in my freshman hazing than any of the torture that has gone on in Gitmo”
Were you arrested and carted off to your college from another country and tortured? Not allowed to leave? Never told why it was happening to you? What kind of demented sadomasochist are you?
“Protestors take to the streets amass when Bush goes into Iraq (in a post 9/11 world) while doing nothing during Clinton's multiple incursions and bombings, therefore leading one to believe that it is ideology over principle, hatred of Bush rather than hatred of war--therefore hypocrisy”
So tell me Jack: what was I doing during the period you describe? What was Mochi doing, or any of us? Once again, you characterize us by fantasizing! You once chaztized me for beginning a paragraph with the statement ‘As I understand it…’ But it’s okay for you to generalize, and assume, and base your impressions upon falsehoods?
“Liberals blame the "little eichmans…”
Now you’ve gone totally off the deep end into blatant lying propaganda. That is NOT want ‘Liberals’ said. That is what one man said, and he was chastized by many liberals for it. In typical neocon spin fashion, you twist your lie to characterize all liberals according to one man’s statement. Jack, that is BIGOTRY! BIGOTRY! You should be ashamed, morally and intellectually.
“Byrd, Kennedy and the like are perceived as hoping we lose the war in Iraq so that Bush will lose face.”
If they’re perceived that way it is because people like you are mentally enslaved by Faux News and other propaganda instead of seeking objective truth, despite your claims to the contrary. That statement is bullshit. The democrats (except for maybe two, and it wasn’t those two) supported the neocon invasions following 9/11. They feed your war machine. They dance whenever the republicans say so. And for all that, for all the bending-over they do for the republicans, the only bone you guys throw them is a bone of contention. Why don’t you just dress them up in little leather tutus and go all the way?
“Yes, conservatives may be more black and white, but on issues of life and death it often comes down to that. There is no in-between condition in life and death, and it is the majority of the Americans perception that the left values life very little (abortion, euthanasia, anti-defense, etc.) and are unwilling to entrust our own lives into their care.”
The “right” has shed rivers of innocent people’s blood. They are more murderous, more treacherous, more insidious than the left could ever hope to be. If the majority of Americans “perceive” otherwise, it is the result of decades of right-wing propaganda. Just because they “perceive” it doesn’t make it so.
“Then we find Democrats/liberals doing complete about faces on issues. Don't they think the world or the nation notices?”
Compared with whom? The “right” is even worse!
The quotes: yes, Jack, we know that those democrats were wrong about the WMDs. No one here has ever said they weren’t. Does that excuse the lies and fabricated intelligence used to initiate an immoral and unnecessary war? If anything, it only reinforces our point about the war. Because, Jack, and Sean, notice this: in the original post, I never, ever said anything against “the right”. That was your inference. So, who’s biased now?
Shea,
"No, you’re quoting Karl Rove."
I have no idea what Karl Rove says, I do know that these things have been said long before Karl Rove was even thought of, Shea. Michael Walzer is a leftist--what is your reply to him? (I guess it will be: "He's just quoting Karl Rove")
"Many of them, yes, and that would not be happening if America had not invaded. Iraq was not a theocracy under Hussein. Besides, you support theocracy in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Anyway, not all are foreigners. Just as many, if not more, are Iraqis who want their country back."
Shea, you assume too much. I no more support Saudi and its exportation of terrorist than any Muslim country. Where did you get that from? And you're right, many of them are Bathists who want to bring Iraq back under fascism.
"I know people who have travelled the world and say otherwise. I know foreigners who also say otherwise. However, people in other lands don’t like arrogant, egotistical ‘America-first’ types. Maybe they were not anti-America, they were anti-you."
I see the veiled insult. No, Shea, its a common sociological phenom. We (myself) were accepted as individuals, but Americans as a whole never are. I'm not talking about trips to the French Riviera--I'm talking about living long term overseas. The exceptions you mention are not the rule. Americans need to grow up and quit being so naive.
"Oh, that’s rich! While the “right” nurtures terrorists and terrorism, they are squeaky clean. The “right” who arms terrorists and allows them to thrive, the “right” who encourages them and panders to them, but avoids blame because they point the finger first and claim exclusive righteousness. You know, Jack, the IMPRESSION one gets from the right is that they are even WORSE than the terrorists, because the terrorists do not do what they do because of western intrusion on their territory, while your “right” uses its awesome military might in its ongoing crusade to crush everyone in their path and force the whole world, at the point of a gun, to conform wiith your values… or else."
We're not talking about the "right" here, we are talking about the "left". You can't flip an argument around by pointing out the fault of the other side. That is a dodge. I agree, though, the left does look at the right and think they are worse than the terrorists--that is exactly my point that I have been trying to make, Shea. Thanks for the affirmation.
"So, you would rather assume the worst. That’s the difference between the left and the right."
No, Shea, it is the proponderonce of evidence as I have presented. Also your previous statement backs me up once again.
"Were you arrested and carted off to your college from another country and tortured? Not allowed to leave? Never told why it was happening to you? What kind of demented sadomasochist are you?"
I see I have gotten you a little excited.
"So tell me Jack: what was I doing during the period you describe? What was Mochi doing, or any of us? Once again, you characterize us by fantasizing! You once chaztized me for beginning a paragraph with the statement ‘As I understand it…’ But it’s okay for you to generalize, and assume, and base your impressions upon falsehoods?"
Shea, did you protest on the streets during that time? Also, you did not read the statement. I was speaking of wide spread protests in the street--thousands and thousands---never saw that during the Clinton Admin. You missed my point. Mochi, did you protest Clinton in the streets?
"Now you’ve gone totally off the deep end into blatant lying propaganda. That is NOT want ‘Liberals’ said. That is what one man said, and he was chastized by many liberals for it. In typical neocon spin fashion, you twist your lie to characterize all liberals according to one man’s statement. Jack, that is BIGOTRY! BIGOTRY! You should be ashamed, morally and intellectually"
Shea, I don't take lightly to being called a liar. I don't do that to you, even though I disagree with you often. The POINT of my article is that the loud left is what defines it. Durbin doesn't represent all leftists, but he speaks for them. You really don't understand where I'm coming from do you?
Will be back...
-Jack
Ok, continued...
(BTW, the sentiment that those in the Twin Towers deserved their fate was echoed by more than one, Shea)
"If they’re perceived that way it is because people like you are mentally enslaved by Faux News and other propaganda instead of seeking objective truth, despite your claims to the contrary. That statement is bullshit. The democrats (except for maybe two, and it wasn’t those two) supported the neocon invasions following 9/11. They feed your war machine. They dance whenever the republicans say so. And for all that, for all the bending-over they do for the republicans, the only bone you guys throw them is a bone of contention. Why don’t you just dress them up in little leather tutus and go all the way?"
Maybe so, Shea, but they also add fuel to the fire with foolish statements, flip-flops and political grandstanding. Surely even you can recognize this. I'm not sure what you mean by "your war machine" either--I thought I had made myself clear on multiple occassions that I neither support nor detract from the war.
"The “right” has shed rivers of innocent people’s blood. They are more murderous, more treacherous, more insidious than the left could ever hope to be. If the majority of Americans “perceive” otherwise, it is the result of decades of right-wing propaganda. Just because they “perceive” it doesn’t make it so."
Probably true, Shea. I don't deny this. The left has too. As a matter of fact, historically it has been the left that has risen in revolution and shed both innocent and guilty blood. But if you believe that the left is incapable of what the right is then you are blinded by passion and have a faith beyond most zealots. And I hope in your statement you finally begin to get my point. Perception shapes a lot of things, policy, support, etc. That's the reason one needs to be careful about what they say, the analogies they make, the dogma they preach, because it is perception that people act upon. In the Bible (which has tremendous philosophy is one takes the opportunity to read it) it says to "add to your knowledge temperance"--this means that one needs to take the knowledge they have and use it wisely--something I see coming from neither the left nor the right.
"The quotes: yes, Jack, we know that those democrats were wrong about the WMDs. No one here has ever said they weren’t. Does that excuse the lies and fabricated intelligence used to initiate an immoral and unnecessary war? If anything, it only reinforces our point about the war. Because, Jack, and Sean, notice this: in the original post, I never, ever said anything against “the right”. That was your inference. So, who’s biased now?"
But were they wrong, Shea? Hussein used WMD's against his own people. Did those exist? Or was that just a carefully constructed Neo-con story also. Did you actually read those quotes? And, Shea, the comments on this post have evolved WAY past the original message of the post. It became about the content of the post and perception it gives people. If it gave Sean that impression, then I'm sure it would give many more.
Take care,
-Jack
There are so many points being argued at this stage that I forget what the original point of the story was. I'll address just one comment Jack made because it's been a recurring thread here at NeoLibs:
Shea, did you protest on the streets during that time? Also, you did not read the statement. I was speaking of wide spread protests in the street--thousands and thousands---never saw that during the Clinton Admin. You missed my point. Mochi, did you protest Clinton in the streets?
Two things: One, why does it matter that people protested Clinton less than they did Bush? The "right" attacked Clinton WAAAAAY more for his "indiscretions" than they did Bush. It doesn't diminish someone's crime if someone else committed a similar one before hand and didn't get caught. And two, what was the GRAND TOTAL casualties for both America and the enemy in Clinton's wars compared to this ONGOING invasion Bush is leading? The reason people are more outraged is because, A. Bush's war is more transparently about money and a vendetta, and B. NOT NOW, NOT EVER, HAS THERE BEEN AN END IN SIGHT TO BUSH'S "WAR". It will go on until infinity. That's why Clinton's wars were never compared to Vietnam. To me, trying to stop another Vietnam is a GREAT reason to protest in the streets.
The "right" attacked Clinton WAAAAAY more for his "indiscretions" than they did Bush.
Actually, Clinton was criticized for his "indiscretions" (I suppose that's one way to term having a sexual affair in the Oval Office), he was attacked because he lied under oath. Perjury, dontcha know.
Many of them, yes, and that would not be happening if America had not invaded. Iraq was not a theocracy under Hussein. Besides, you support theocracy in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Anyway, not all are foreigners. Just as many, if not more, are Iraqis who want their country back.
No, it would not be happening. Sodom had too tight of control over the country to let it happen. If the Shiites couldn't rise up agaisnt Sodom, what makes you think a relative handful of foreigners wouldn't be dead within a week? And no, they are not "Iraqis who want their country back". They are Sodom supporters who liked the status quo of rape, torture, murder, and oppression - because they were on the giving end.
Maybe they were not anti-America, they were anti-you.
Yeah Jack! You're a big poo-poo head!
Oh, that’s rich! While the “right” nurtures terrorists and terrorism, they are squeaky clean. The “right” who arms terrorists and allows them to thrive, the “right” who encourages them and panders to them, but avoids blame because they point the finger first and claim exclusive righteousness.
Actually, the "Right" lives in the real world. Sometimes you have to side with a scumbag to fight someone even worse. That's why we cozied up to Sodom at first, because he was fighting the mullahs in Iran. Eventually, though, he got out of hand and became more of a liability to the U.S. than an asset. Would it have been better never to have needed to use him? Of course. But that isn't how the real world works.
That's exactly why we tolerate the theocracy in Saudi Arabia. They're all that's keeping the islamofascists from seizing control of the world economy. And I guarantee that if S.A. falls to the islamofacsists you will be on the front lines of the demonstration screaming for the U.S. military to get in there and liberate the oil needed to run the world. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you'd prefer to live without the fuel to create the electricity necessary to run your computer, or drive your car. I've Little House on the Prairie, those looked like quaint times. I'm sure you'd enjoy living in them.
So, you would rather assume the worst. That’s the difference between the left and the right.
Oh God! Stop! You're killing me! My sides hurt from laughing so hard!
Were you arrested and carted off to your college from another country and tortured? Not allowed to leave? Never told why it was happening to you? What kind of demented sadomasochist are you?
Probably not, of course he probably wasn't engaged in armed combat against U.S. troops on foreign soil either. Really, some of the comparisons you make are silly.
If they’re perceived that way it is because people like you are mentally enslaved by Faux News and other propaganda instead of seeking objective truth, despite your claims to the contrary.
Actually, I watch CNN, read CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Yahoo! News, as well as Fox. Their quotes are the same from any of those sources. The perception they provide is not "spin" from "Faux", but from their own statements.
Why don’t you just dress them up in little leather tutus and go all the way?
I've also been wondering why we haven't done that. Perhaps because the "Right" isn't as "fascist" as you like to think?
The “right” has shed rivers of innocent people’s blood. They are more murderous, more treacherous, more insidious than the left could ever hope to be.
Wow. Do they have a class on bullshit generalizations at your college? Because you sure are good at making them. I'd compare every war since this country began to the millions of children killed by abortion any day. Which do you think claims more innocent lives?
Does that excuse the lies and fabricated intelligence used to initiate an immoral and unnecessary war?
Um, actually, it shows that there were no lies, no fabricated intelligence. The intelligence was wrong. Many senators, including Kerry - who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee - had access to the same information as Bush, came to the same conclusion as Bush. They were wrong. Does that mean they were lying? No. As for immoral and unnecessary, we've gone over this before. This invasion started in the 90's, when Bush Sr. kicked Sodom out of Kuwait. A cease fire was called, not a cessation of the conflict. That's why we kept troops over there, that's why we patrolled the no-fly zone. Sodom had conditions to meet to avoid further armed conflict, including proving he had disarmed. He refused to meet those conditions.
Cripes.
Because, Jack, and Sean, notice this: in the original post, I never, ever said anything against “the right”. That was your inference. So, who’s biased now?
Wow. I think you lost your focus a bit. We just pointed out how you're trying to compare terrorists in Iraq with freedom fighters, in the U.S. or elsewhere. There is a huge difference between the two. You say you aren't making that connection. I say you are, whether you mean to or not. The implications are clear. And trying to say you were talking about tactics is a load of crap. The Minutemen and other freedom fighters do not target civilians to achieve their objective. Those "tactics" are for terrorists.
Smorg,
I ask these questions because I want to get things straight. Is one anti-war or is one anti-Bush. It is self-righteous hypocrisy to protest war under Bush and not under Clinton. I would consider such an individual ideologic rather than principled. The protests about the Iraq War were not about the war they were about bashing Bush. I, like Shea, appreciate honesty, and no one seems willing to come forth with the truth on the matter. Its ok to be anti-Bush, but admit that is what it is all about. Shea, for example, is very anti-Bush and displays it proudly on his other website--that's honesty. But don't tell me that the masses that took to the streets were about the war--it was about Bush. Ever heard of Bosnia? Haiti? Do you know that Clinton took unilateral action on multiple occasions? Do you know anything about the Serbs and Croats? How long we were there, what it turned into? Its a credibility issue, and the left has difficulty having any, Smorg--consistency is the key to credibility. The average person sees this happen and doubts its about the war so much as it is about Bush. So, YES, Smorg, if one were principled then one would protest war under any leader. It makes one a hypocrite.
Also, we can't really talk about transparent reasons for war given the aspirin factory incident. In a post 9/11 world there are no certainties--but a boat load of conspiracy theories. We just need to make sure we get our facts straight before passing judgment. Nothing Clinton did, (we have nuclear misled pointed at the United States thanks to President Clinton and V.P. Gore), would ever be called a Vietnam, Smorg--unless it was Rush Limbaugh or Fox News saying it.
But to bring the discussion back in line with my original point about Shea's post is that the rest of the country's perception of the left is often validated by what the left says. And we really weren't discussing the "right" as Shea pointed out earlier.
Look forward to your reply, Smorg
-Jack
I have to disagree that the people who took to the streets were all about Bush bashing. While they were protesting the war they bashed him good, for sure, but that's typically what you do in a protest.
Are some of them hypocrites because they didn't bash Clinton? Certainly. Personally I don't know anyone who protested either Bush or Clinton, so I can't say with certainty what their motives were. I find it far fetched, however, that all of them were mobilized just because they didn't like Bush. They were pissed at Bush because they were pissed at the war. Did they have a right to be pissed? Yes. Although I haven't participated in many demonstrations or acts of civil disobedience, I feel strongly about people's rights to do so. I don't think the fact that they may not have said anything in the 90's should lessen the credibility of what they said in the 2000's. Like all good liberals, they can realize the err of their ways and make a change for the positive.
Ok, Smorg, I'll give you that. I just think that people should be honest about what they are doing. If you want to attend an anti-Bush rally, then don't pretend its about a war or use a war as an excuse to do so. Millions protested, mind you, but we didn't hear a squeek from the left when Clinton was pushing the buttons. That's all I'm getting at, when I ask the question.
I will say that I try to be critical of actions whether I like the politician or not. Left or right, I protest. That's what we should be doing, but when we tolerate negativity within our own ranks it weakens ourselves and our cause.
Good to talk to you,
-Jack
Jack, we've been through all this before about past wars. That was then and this is now, and Clinton did not lie his ass off to invade a country so he could steal their resources; but that's what Bush and his gang did, no matter how you try to revise it. For your information, since you keep begging for it, I opposed those wars too. But Bush is a fucking fascist, period.
Sean, once again you cannot make a point without making things up. You don't know what my intentions were so you make shit up about me instead. And you've swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker about Bush I's war against Iraq (preceded by his invitation to Iraq to go ahead and invade Kuwait). Yeah, you can just keep on "siding with scumbags" as you call it. Business as usual for neocons who couldn't give a rat's ass about humanity.
And by the way, your "sodom" gag grows tiresome. We get it. You can start spelling the name correctly again.
That's what I meant, Shea! I figured you were a man of principle on the war issue. Many people weren't (and aren't) though. Appreciate your honesty.
-Jack
Good Lord, calm down Shea. You just spout crap like Bush I invited Sodom to invade Kuwait and expect to be taken seriously? You say that Bush lied when every intelligence agency in the Western World believed that Sodom had WMD's - not to mention the fact that WMD's was only one reason to go to war.
Sodom had connections with al Qaeda, bin Laden, other terrorists, financed bombers in Palestine, attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President, and wanted nucler weapons. He also ran torture rooms, rape rooms, execution squads, and children's prisons. Despite this, you think he posed no threat to our security. Fine, be delusional. Thankfully people rooted in reality are running this country.
Finally, you compare the "tactics" of the terrorists in Iraq with those used by the Minutemen during our Revolutionary war. Talk about swallowing something hook, line, and sinker. The Minutemen were an organized group of citizens. They drilled constantly so that they could be assembled and ready to defend their towns in less than a minute - hence the name.
Go crack a history book and unlearn some of that Lefty propaganda you think is so accurate. Maybe you'll realize that it was the Continental Army that defeated the British. Not a group of terrorist-wannabe's running around targeting civilians.
To compare the two groups is despicable. So you hate Bush. Fine. Don't you go dragging heroes from their graves and disparaging their memories by equating them - or their tactics - with terrorists.
Again, you have never elaborated on Sudan's support and sponsorship of al Qaeda and why we have not done anything about the threat of North Korea. We absolutely know for certain those scenarios are true, but there is this perpetual debate on Iraq. Of course, it is ideologically driven by both sides. Therein lies the problem, I guess.
"Sodom had connections with al Qaeda, bin Laden, other terrorists, financed bombers in Palestine, attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President, and wanted nucler weapons"
Can you back that up? Can't say he didn't want nucular weapons, but his connections? Other than constantly spewing it at us, you have not provided us one single piece of evidence. Who was the president he tried to assassinate? How? When?
Now, sick and tired of arguing about the war as I am, I'm taking the Jack Mercer stance of time will tell and I do not know. These are not optimistic times right now though. What I mentioned above as far as those two other countries, we do know. I would love for you to once stop pompously telling everyone to read a history book because, smart ass, well look through the comments. Where exactly do you see Shea or anyone saying it was the American insurgency that won the Revolutionary war? That was no part of the discussion- who won that war. Shea was right on one thing, you really do make shit up as you go along. The discussion was Shea's own interpretation of how this type of war is being fought. Four colonies were declared to be in a state of war before the Continental Army was founded; civilians were in random violent conflicts with the British beforehand as well. I am not making an argument for or against this war (far too many questions, no answers), but I think if the people who fought for this country back in the 18th century had the ability to make such bombs and use those tactics to undermine a force way larger than theirs, they would have. And to be honest, I dont trust the media, so I won't even say what is going on or who is doing what, I dont know. And neither do you. You've never been there. Our own soldiers dont even know who the hell they're fighting. And honestly, with bombs being set up with such precision and accuracy, and doing the damage they have been doing to our military, that does not sound like the work of some disorganized group by any stretch of the imagination, which you imply (so maybe not yours). The way so many flocked into that country, apparently in so effortless a manner? Sounds pretty friggin disorganized. And to take it back to Shea's original post, if I was there having to deal with that everyday, I would probably say the same thing as that soldier. I think Shea just offered the other perspective (maybe he had other intentions with it, you can talk to him about that). But he definitely didn't say our insurgency won the Revolutionary War, and he definitely does not come across with know-it-all arrogance that you do.
Millions of babies each day by abortion? Try about 1.4 million a year. Quit fucking bitching about abortion already. I dont like it, its not healthy for anyone individual. But its none of my goddamn business until it becomes my business. Worry about yourself. And seriously, stop bringing it up when we are talking about a war, as if its the only wrongdoing in society, or as if it pertains to this conflict we are in.
are you Sean Hannity? I am asking you seriously.
Hi CH!
Check out this link. I thought I would go to a "lib" source for credibility:)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html
It may help a little.
I think this post is a Neo-lib comment record setter!
CH,
I appreciate your comment. Here is another link that you might find interesting. It is information like this that makes me loath to hurl the accusation of "liar" at Bush, Clinton or anyone. Its easy to read what others say and repeat it, but compiling objective data and sorting it out is another matter.
There is a reason I take no position on the Iraq war. You may find these interesting--and I seriously doubt you will read things like this on many sites. Note the dates.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/19/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002252
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1672.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en172/iraq.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/maps/satindex.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2759653.stm
CH, there are TONS more, but the problem is that many would rather leap to conclusions and repeat mantras because they make one feel good. The worse lie one can tell is to oneself, I say...
Take care,
-Jack
Thanks, chickenhawk - I appreciate knowing that Sean's "inaccuracies" don't go unnoticed.
Okay, after 33 comments, to end it all up, I will reveal what I was really trying to say:
Puppies and kitties are cute. Happy ponies and lambs frolicking in a pasture. Rainbows and butterflies and lemon drops and elves who giggle when thistles tickle their toes...
'Nighty-night, kids!
CH, why bring up Sudan and North Korea? Those are being handled diplomatically. That's how the Left wanted Iraq handled, isn't it? Why grouse about the fact that they are not being invaded? That smacks of hypocrisy. Truth is, when Iraq is cleaned up, if other countries need some bombs dropped on them to bring them, well we'll get to that as soon as we can.
Of course I'm not Sean Hannity. You may think I'm an idiot, but I must come off as more reasonable than Hannity! Really, you know how to insult a guy.
As for the President he tried to assassinate, it was George H.W. Bush. At least, President Clinton was convinced by the evidence - enough so that he ordered a missile strike on Iraq. There are plenty of articles out that argue against this assertion - but they're based on information gained after our invasion and are based on circumstantial evidence.
The evidence for the assassination argument.
Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.
Source of above quote.
Reasoning why Iraq had to be with after 9/11.
Sodom's payments to Palestinian bombers. (From that article:) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday. ... Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian battles. "I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes," said Safi.
Do I really need to provide a link to his desire for nuclear weapons? I mean, he had an underground complex of laboratories for research into nuclear weapons. Okay, I understand, I'm fascist (although I prefer "Right Wing Overlord") and can't be trusted. A senior Iraqi scientist tells how Saddam Hussein, in a decades-long quest for the bomb, systematically hoodwinked the IAEA. Source of quote.
Between 1991 and 1998 the IAEA conducted more than 1500 inspections. IAEA released a report in 1997, with updates in 1998 and 1999, which it believes offers a technically coherent picture of Iraq's nuclear program. Surce for above quote.
Hopefully that will dispel the charge that I "make stuff up". As for who won the Revolutionary War, I brought that up to counter the charge that it was a bunch of civilians running around without uniforms fighting the British. Did militia fight? Yep. Were the recognizable from other citizens? Sure, because they met the British in combat.
To make it clear. I have no problem with guerilla warfare. If Iraqi troops want to play hide-n-seek with our troops and attack covertly, that's a valid tactic. Probably the only one that will keep the enemy alive because let's face it, they stand no chance in a toe-to-toe fight against our forces. What I can't stand is the fact that these same "Iraqis" (contempt quotes because lots of them aren't actually Iraqis) are targeting civilians. Why attempt to glorify these people who drive cars into lines of Iraqi citizens waiting to enlist in the police force by comparing them with our Citizen Soldiers? That probably wasn't the intent of Shea's post, but it sure had that effect. I'm not crazy, because I'm not the only one who got that impression.
Post a Comment
<< Home