Freedom is on the march, right off the cliff's edge
Iraqi Government warns of 'endless civil war'
Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their nation into a theatre of carnage. Who cares as long as the oil ministry is secure, right?
In an interview, Bush said, "History will judge me." In truth, history will curse him.
"Iraq's Defence Minister warned yesterday of a "civil war" that "will never end" and said he was ready to put tanks on the streets..."That is what Bush & Cheney & their PNAC neocon vampires mean when they say "spreading democracy". They spread their "democracy" like rats spread the plague.
The gravest crisis since the US invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.That's the progress that Bush says we are making.
"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defence Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shiite-led interim government, told a news conference. "We are ready to fill the streets with armoured vehicles."That's the gift of peace he as bestowed up on Iraq.
Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their nation into a theatre of carnage. Who cares as long as the oil ministry is secure, right?
In an interview, Bush said, "History will judge me." In truth, history will curse him.
posted by SheaNC at 1:16 AM
34 Comments:
I heard Bill Maher say the other night that Iraq was better off under Saddam. I was immediately shocked by that statement because not too many people are bold enough to say it, but it certainly got me thinking.
One of his panelists noted that Saddam managed to bring stability to a previously unmanageable country. The three distinctly different ethnic groups in Iraq were never able to get along before him, and there was never a reason to believe they would get along after him. The only reason there wasn't more strife between these groups under Saddam is that he effectively said, "if anyone's going to do any killing in Iraq, it's going to be me."
On top of everything else that Bush and his cheerleaders should have known, they really should have seen the enormity of this challenge. Yet another reason, of dozens, that we shouldn't have given the finger to the UN. This is a stupid, stupid, stupid war.
Wow. Better off under Hussein? That certainly is a bold statement. That's like saying Italy was better off under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, Russian under Stalin. Just because a brutal dictator enforces something that resembles peace does not mean the country is better off.
Cripes. There was a lack of sectarian fighting in Iraq under Hussein, not peace. That lack of fighting only came about because Sunnis controlled the military and Hussein did not hesitate to wipe out anyone that dared challenge him.
Bill Maher is an ass.
As for the civil war, the current sectarian violence erupted after one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam was destroyed.
"The blueprints of that unfortunate event, the blueprints of al Qaeda in Iraq is there," al-Rubaie told CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."
But he said, "The Iraqi people ... have shown al Qaeda in Iraq and the outside world that they will never be driven to the civil war."
I agree with Shea in some aspects. I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy.
-Jack
Smorg,
There would have been those who said that Americans were better off under King George--of course many of them did, and left for Canada. Poor old Bill isn't particularly bold so much as a bit soft in the head. He needs to stick to his own quote: "A journalist is basically a chronicler, not an interpreter of events. Where else in society do you have the license to eavesdrop on so many different conversations as you have in journalism? Where else can you delve into the life of our times? I consider myself a fortunate man to have a forum for my curiosity." :)
-Jack
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jack ("I agree with Shea in some aspects. I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy.")
I'm not sure in which aspects you agree with me, but please do not associate my statements with an opinion like that. I'm aware of your contempt for middle-eastern people. I thoroughly disagree with your position, and more's the pity that you would perpetuate such things.
Oh, Shea, I thought that was what you were inferring! Isn't that what the left thinks about democracy in the middle east? (They have been predicting civil war, quagmires, anarchy, theocracies, etc.,etc.)
"That's the gift of peace he as bestowed up on Iraq.
Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their nation into a theatre of carnage."
Yep, those poor, ignorant, barbaric middle easterners...
-Jack
"Isn't that what the left thinks about democracy in the middle east?" - Jack, your assesments of "what the left thinks" are usually quite inaccurate, and this is no exception.
Don't try to project your foul predjudices onto me. You are the one who maintains that attitude, and you can claim ownership of it. If you feel guilty about it, fine, but don't try to console yourself by pretending that I share your opinion.
Ha! Shea, you crack me up. "Foul pre[d]judices" :) You sound so...godlike!
I really don't understand, Shea, I just simply agreed with you and you jumped on me all self-righteous like. Here is where I got my impression of what the left believes:
"We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here." Shea - Constantly Amazed 'Blog
"At best, Iraq will be a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that will quickly ally itself with neighboring Shiite Iran, and almost certainly become an enemy of the United States." Shea - Constantly Amazed 'Blog
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy" Shea - Constantly Amazed 'Blog
"No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq." Ted Kennedy
""[W]ithout 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
"It's not going to get better. They've been overly optimistic. This is a civil war where two participants are fighting with each other trying to win supremacy, and our troops are caught in between." John Murtha
"Iraq is becoming a kind of Vietnam" Mike Wallace
""That is Countdown for this, the 1,012th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."
""The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop [Vietnam], meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States." Senator Chuch Hagel
Of course, I could keep on going quite long with quotes, but I think you get the picture.
Shea, I was just repeating what you said. Nothing more, nothing less. Somehow it sounds different though when the sugar coating is removed, doesn't it?
-Jack
Personally, I think the quotes in the original post are out of context. Yes, a civil war would be a long "never-ending" battle (unless one side succeeded at genocide - can it be genocide if you wipe out people of your own race but different religious sub-group?).
The quote about putting tanks in the street seems to me to be a statement that civil war will not be tolerated and anything resembling it will be swiftly and forcefully squelched (love that word). Iraq's National Security Advisor is saying there will be no civil war, the Iraqi people will resist the terrorist attempt to plunge the country into that situation.
Of course, the car-bomb that just went off killing 10 and injuring 50 near a Shiite mosque isn't helping. Right now Iraq needs some strong, courageous leaders from both the Sunni and Shiite communities to start denouncing, loudly and long, the terrorists perpetrating these attacks.
I hope, for the sake of the average citizen, that this unrest ends soon. It appears to be an all-out last-ditch effort to unravel a fledgling democracy.
One more thing, Jack is supposed to be the voice of reason. I'm supposed to be the one getting into scraps with Shea. What gives here? :)
Sean, Shea indicated that I was pretending that HE shared MY opinion. The truth of the matter was that given his own words, and much I hear from the left I was pretending that I shared HIS opinion. (confused?) Of course my friend Shea has a short memory so I am thankful he has a blog to reference his own comments. :)
Sounds like a voice of reason to me.
(Psst. I don't think Shea particularly likes my sense of humor. :)
-Jack
Shea?
Jack, you are so full of shit on this one I can't fucking believe it.
Here is what YOU said: "I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy." That's what YOU said, Jack, not me. I never, ever, said anything like that, Jack. NEVER. I challenge you to find a quote of me saying that. You can't. How dare you lie about me like that. That is really low. Obviously, the original Jack Mercer is back.
And don't try to assert that those quotes of mine that you found say what you accuse me of saying, because they don't. I notice you didn't use links, so that no one would know the real context. How very right-wing-misleading of you. How typically averse to the truth. How sadly dishonest of you.
Take this one for example: "We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here." That was from a post in my blog where I was talking about the "intelligent design" controversy. Here's the statement in its full context: "Religion and science are two different things. To blur the distinction between them is bad for both. We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here. Teach science in school and religion in church, or in a theology class. What's wrong with that?"
Jack goes on to say, "Shea, I was just repeating what you said. Nothing more, nothing less. Somehow it sounds different though when the sugar coating is removed, doesn't it?" You mean, when taken out of context to be twisted to fit your needs. You didn't repeat anything I said when you made your statement, Jack, you fucking liar.
None of the quotes that you attribute to me (some may be mine and some may be from news articles I posted) in any way resemble your bigoted, hateful, demeaning, and insulting assertion that middle eastern people are "barbarians who are incapable of civilization." For you to try to justify your bigotry by trying to hammer my statements into some perverted endorsement of yours is a pretty sad attempt at self-validation.
So I have a short memory, do I, Jack? Maybe so, but at least I don't post lies about you as you did in your comment about me. Take ownership of your own sorry opinions, Jack, and stop projecting.
And another thing; no, I don't like your sense of humor. Not if it involves accusing me of being a bigot like you, and lying about me to do it. You think that's funny? Well, here's a little chuckle for you: next time you think about telling ugly lies about me, then you and your emoticon smiley faces can fuck off.
ok closed door meeting with the team. i think we all need a break. it has gotten too ugly. take a day or two, go to the nudy bar, or whatever it is that we do. my 25th birthday is in 23 days and i will not have global conflict that develops into internal strife ruin it.
jack and shea, hug it out or something.
sean, bite me (ok i just said that to draw attention away from jack v. shea 2k6)
seriously though guys. seriously.
Okay, chickenhawk. I defer to the voice of reason. Sorry about the mess.
This just isnt us thats all. No apologies necessary, we've all had our moments.
Shea,
I used to tell my debate team that when one is losing an argument the instinct was to attack the individual to divert attention from the argument. Sorry, you have accused me too often of everything from hypocrisy to lying so I am going to keep this one strictly oriented around the argument.
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy." Shea
or
Tribal (barbarians) are more comfortable with tribal culture (incapable of civilization) and would rather have Islamic theocracy(don't want democracy).
Link:
http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2005/09/when-will-these-truths-be-accepted-by.html
"At best, Iraq will be a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that will quickly ally itself with neighboring Shiite Iran, and almost certainly become an enemy of the United States."
or
They are incapable of democracy, only theocracy.
Link:
http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-couldnt-have-done-any-worse.html
"We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here."
or
I look down on those people and their choice of government. We don't want it here.
Link:
http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2005/08/quick-one-for-friday-night.html
Shea, I know you get angry and think that if you swear and deny that validates your argument. But while we are not rocket scientist we are intelligent, thinking human beings and we can read for ourselves. Do you think that little of the people who read this blog that we can't figure these things out ourselves?
Shea, the OLD Jack never left. (Yeah, I admit I was a bit salty when I first started blog hopping, but I have been here for many years on this earth, and I haven't changed a whole lot. This "Old Jack/ New Jack" stuff is getting kind of old.) I fully expect a post about "Jack, Neocon infiltrator of Liberal Blogs" (or something like that) Beware, Children, he is out to steal your minds!"
Want to stick to the facts, Shea? Then please explain what exactly you meant with your statements and within your posts. You told me that my impression of the left (and you) is inaccurate. I simply put your statements down (granted, I may be MUCH less "nuanced" than you--so maybe there is some deeper or more nebulous or cosmic meaning)
-Old/New, poisonous, hypocritical, full of shit, dishonest, corrupt, fucking liar, Jack :)
CH,
I bear no animosity toward Shea. I DO want him to be honest and discuss the issue he brought up. And, I would like clarification of what he said if he means something entirely different from what he said. It's a simple discussion and nothing worth getting upset about.
One of the things that I have difficulty understanding with many on the left is that they say something which is pretty black and white (we ALL have prejudices, I just think that some are unwilling to admit them) and then deny they said it or that it means something else.
Shea,
I don't consider this a "mess". This is just discussion. You have said in the past that you are guided by passion and I accept that. No problem. Would just like clarification.
If I may offer my two cents for quick second...
Jack, there is something that you have done within this conversation string that should be avoided in true logical debates: generalization. I have heard you say several times, in fact, that "many on the left" say this or "the left" does that. While I realize you're probably not addressing specific NeoLibs most of the time, I'm sure you can understand where one might take offense.
Any time someone says all X are Y, it's a signal to proceed with caution because it's bound to get the ire up of someone who considers themselves an X...
Jack, here is your clarification: You claim that the word "tribal" is synonymous with "barbarian". It is not. That is bigotry. Tribal societies are not barbaric, nor are they uncivilized. Tribalism is a valid societal structure, no more, no less. Again I say, you are projecting your own predjudices onto my statement. Also, I never, never said that middle eastern people are "incapable" of democracy. You did. My words do not say that, nor do they even imply it. All they do is offer you the opportunity to twist my statements to suit your lie. You are claiming that I said a horrible, bigoted thing that I did not say. You are a liar.
Still, trying to justify you lie, You ask, "Want to stick to the facts, Shea?" Fine. You want the facts, then scroll up the page and read what you wrote and claim that I said. You wrote it, Jack, do you deny it? It's right there (unless you delete it). It's a fact. You said it, and then you claimed that I said it, so your claim a lie. The fact that the statement is bigoted and hateful makes you not only a liar, but a malicious liar as well.
Then you try to save yourself by claiming your misguided inferences are what I said in those quotes. I challenged you to find any quote where I said what you claim. You could not, as I said. You only found quotes that you could use to twist into a totally different statement. If you define a fact as taking something I said and then regurgitating it as something completely different, then you have no clue what a fact is. Your interpretations are not facts, Jack, they're just your interpretations.
Your rebuttal only reinforces my statements; you claim that I said things that I did not say. You take quotes of mine, paste your own bigoted remarks in them in parenthesis, then claim that what you wrote is what I said.
Then you have the nerve to say about me, "I DO want him to be honest." I have been nothing but honest throughout this entire thread, Jack. I would challenge you to prove that I have not, but then you would just offer more of your ridiculous lies.
Again I say to you, Jack, that you should take responsibility for your own statements and infererences, and stop trying to claim that I said things that I did not. Your statements are yours, not mine. You are the one who referred to middle-eastern people as "barbarians who are incapable of democracy," not me. You are the one who is dishonest.
And then, there is this Jack Mercer gem: "Shea, I know you get angry and think that if you swear and deny that validates your argument." That statement is ridiculous. My argument is validated by facts, which I laid out plainly for all to see. I "deny" because you lied about me, and I called you on it; I denied that I said what you claim and I am proven correct. As for the swearing, for you to claim that I swear to validate an argument is just plain stupid. I swear because that is how I talk, especially in response to someone who maliciously lies about me as well.
"I bear no animosity toward Shea." Yeah, right. First you lie about me, and in your lie you imply that I am as bigoted as you, then you try to twist my quoted statements into more bigoted lies, then you make the claim that "many on the left... say something... and then deny they said it or that it means something else.", which is simply parroting my accurate assesment of your behavior in this thread. Then you claim that I am not being honest. You're a real piece of work, Jack.
I stand by my statements (the ones I actually said, not the ones you made up). And I still say your behavior in this thread demonstrates that you are a liar.
Smorg,
I understand what you are saying, but the validity of statistical sampling is permissable in logical arguments.
When I make comments, I am not necessarily referring to you, and if the shoe does not fit, then the person need not get offended--A simple, "I do not agree with that personally" is sufficient to set the record straight.
Generalizations are not invalidated by exceptions either, Smorg. Something that is also a scientific concept. We must use generalizations in life or we become confused. For example, we can say "most black people have dark skin", "most of the fish population is in the sea", etc.
When the bulk of people who align themselves with the left in this country identify their leadership as the Kennedy's, Moores, Deans, McDermotts, etc., then those people become spokespersons for that group. Just like Pat Robertson opening his mouth and speaking for the "right" the "left" has its spokespersons who communicate its thought and agenda.
Smorg, here are some generalizations that are largely true about the left: They support gay rights, they support abortion, they support increased environmental controls, etc. Is that saying that all on the left support these? No, but the generalization remains true.
When one accepts a label (liberal/left/conservative/right) then one often bears the burden of association. When I refer to myself as conservative, does that mean that I am what many refer to as conservatives in a contemporary sense? Do I identify with the "Neo Con" philosophy? No, and not necessarily--that is the reason that I articulate my position when the issue is brought up. That is also the reason I don't fit the "conservative" mold that some of you had pre-conceived.
Several posts ago Shea lumped all conservatives into a particular mold and then referred to them as "f***ing conservative hypocrites". I realized this was generalization and went about in the post to clarify or submit what I thought. I was not offended by his generalization, even though the language seemed to indicate offense.
Smorg, I have a great deal of respect for you and know that we can discuss both generalizations and specifics (I commented on your last post to this effect I believe). The key is not to become offended, but to respond to the allegation in a logical and ordered manner, especially if untrue.
I offered backup for my generalization, which if ever requested to do so, I will do my best to provide.
Regards,
-Jack
Shea,
No offense, but my conversations with you are reminiscent of some of those I have with my young daughter.
-Jack
Wait! How can that not be offensive???
Smorg, no matter what I say Shea says that I'm a liar, I don't know what I'm talking about, thats not what he said, etc., etc.
Like conversations with my daughter, when the discussion leaves the rationale I usually give up.
Such as in this case.
-Jack
P.S. I love my daughter--she has a bright mind, and valid opinions, but sometimes no matter what I say the facts are immaterial. I tell her often she needs to look at going to law school.
Oh, and if the truth of what I said is offensive, it was not intended. It is simply how I feel.
-Jack
Nah, WSC, this is entertainment! Would you have read this discussion string if it was the same 'ol boring stuff? ha!
-Jack
Well, if anyone cares, Jack tried to continue this over at my own blog. And guess what? It turns out that quotes he attributed to me were actually taken from articles written by other authors, which I posted on my blog, clearly citing links to the original articles. I just wanted to emphasize this. These comments which he used to attack me were not written by me, they were written by other people. Whether he did this deliberatly, or he could not discern the difference between cited articles and my own writing, is moot. His intent was clear.
I am not trying to drag this out. This will be my last statement on the matter. I only wanted my fellow Liberal Thought bloggers, and other commenters, to know the truth.
Oh, C'mon, Shea...
You're headline was:
"When will These Truths be Accepted by the Idiot Right!?"
Let's read that again.
"When with these TRUTHS be accepted by the Idiot Right"
Then proceeded to say:
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy"
This is reaching the point of ridiculousness.
-Jack
Oops, scratch my last statement. I just read Shea's comment on his blog and was told that if I made anymore comments I would be censored.
-Jack
Okay, Jack insists on perpetuating his lie, so he begs response.
Here is the blog post of mine to which he refers. Note that the words he thinks came from me were actually written in this article (paragraph 20). The link to it is clearly posted to credit the original source.
Of course, since I already pointed out that he was either lying or unable to figure out the difference between the other author's wrinting and my own, he now decides to add the headline to my post, too. Of course, I wrote my headline. Does that mean I am to accept credit for the other author's work? Geez, you should be selling term papers, Jack, you're a plagiarist's dream-come-true. Besides, what does my headline have to do with the article I cited in this post? Or do you think I wrote that article, too?
You're right about one thing, you really are making this ridiculous. But thanks, Jack, for demonstrating what I meant when I wrote, "the Idiot Right."
BREITBART.COM - U.S. Commander Says Iraq Crisis Has Passed
An Anarchic Civil War
Appears they are having their civil war a lot sooner than we had ours, huh?
-Jack
Always look forward for such nice post & finally I got you. Really very impressive post & glad to read this.
Best Architects in Indore
Best Interior designers in indore
i heard about this blog & get actually whateveri was finding. Nice post love to read this blog
Approved Auditor in DAFZA
Approved Auditor in RAKEZ
flaxseed oil
Approved Auditor in JAFZA
Approved Auditor in DMCC
I always search such wonderful blog and after so many efforts finally I got you. Keep writing the same
Pharmacy home delivery in UAE
Pharmacy near Business Bay
Post a Comment
<< Home