Any Huskies reading this blog? How do you feel about this use of public funds?
Tonight, traitor George Galloway, M.P., so far left as to be excommunicated from the Labour Party, will be bashing Iraqi Freedom and the United States while praising the decapitators of the "Iraqi resistance" at Kane Hall in the UW. Monica Benderman, the wife of convicted Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, who refused to return to the building of a democratic Iraq after his first tour of duty (now serving 15-month sentence at Ft. Lewis), will also be on stage.
Also in attendance: Muna Coobtee, National Council of Arab Americans
Amy Hagopian, parent in Garfield High School's PTSA that helped passed a resolution to ban military recruiters from campus.
At Kane Hall, UW-Seattle campus (N.E. Campus Pkwy & 15th Ave N.E.)
Local co-sponsors: The University Bookstore at UW-Seattle, Seattle Central Community College, the International Socialist Organization, the Health Alliance International. Local endorsers: American Friends Service Committee, Sound Non-Violent Opponents of War.
I hope sincere Puget Sound pacificists in attendance (and on the endorsement list) understand that he's not anti-war, he's just on the other side. This is not a man of peace opposed to violence: Galloway openly applauds the "military operations" that have claimed the lives of so many servicemen and Iraqis trying to build a democracy-- the first Arab democracy.
Posted by Brian Crouch at September 20, 2005 03:47 PM | Email ThisAs far as the UW goes, what do you expect. This is the same institution which openly wished, dreamed, drooled and penned an invitation in hopes that great humanitarian Fidel Castro would speak on their campus. All too typical in today's academia.
Posted by: jimg on September 20, 2005 05:01 PMWitness the the new face of the Democratic Party -the leftists they harbor and abet. Communists, pro-fascists, and the rabid un-hinged "Peace" movement.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Shaun on September 20, 2005 05:12 PMTonight you can get lectured by socialists at UW for FREE!! Normally you'd have to pay tuition to get that type of treatment.
This sounds just as bad as what is going to happen in the South Sound this weekend!
(Posted at Respectfully Republican)
Peace Activists To March on Ft. Lewis
ALL POINTS BULLETEIN!
Several recent flurries of email have prompted me to post on a peace march being organized in the South Sound.
The Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace proclaims: "We will walk for peace 10 miles from Sylvester Park in Olympia to the Martin Way and Steilcom Cut-off road. From there we will shuttle to Iafrati Park in Dupont via support vehicles." A similar post appeared at United for Peace of Pierce County.
PLU French Professor Mark Jensen is associated with the latter group. He recently wrote a piece analyzing how soon the U.S. would attack Iran. Professor Jensen also has a profile on Wikipedia.
A large-scale counter-protest is being organized by Operation Support Our Troops. Both activities are part of a large-scale demonstration organized by Cindy Sheehan.
Anyone care to help with the counter-demonstration?
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on September 20, 2005 06:43 PMI guess when you are that far left, and really, insane, you need to filibuster and shout down everything.
He would hit it off nicely with Howard Dean or Al Franken.
Posted by: Hindu on September 20, 2005 06:55 PMDown at the UW-Tacoma campus, they have one (if not the only) admittedly conservative, republican history teacher in the world. (I don't now if Dr. Matt Manweller teaches history at CWU or not).
Dr. Michael Allen, author of "A Patriot's History of the United States, (a great book) is openly republican, conservative, and teaches the politically incorrect (or real) version of American History.
If UW lets him stay around, it is hard to argue it is a liberal think tank.
Posted by: T.J. on September 20, 2005 09:01 PMAcademic freedom exist for a reason. While the Ward Churchills are the bad eggs, lets not throught he baby out with the the bathwater on this. Do we really want, government or social opinion makers deciding who a university brings in to speak?
Disagree with it. Call Dr. Mark Emmert and complain. If you are an alum, stop sending YOUR money. Encourage your children to go to a different school. But, do we really want the same academic handy caps placed on higher ed as we do elementary and especially secondary ed?
p.s. any UWT or CWU students: if you don't take Dr. Allen or Dr. Manweller, whether your liberal or conservative, you are making a mistake. They are both amazing professors.
Posted by: T.J. on September 20, 2005 09:08 PMIt'd be the first time they actually DID something. I'd at least respect that - however misguided their ways may be - as opposed to the incessant whining and moonbattedness which passes for debate from today's left.
Wear thick shoes.
Posted by: jimg on September 20, 2005 09:19 PMOne technical error you might made;
"The first Arab democracy:
While nobody will argue that Iraq, Iran and others are a farce of democracy, other Arab states such as Turkey have strong democracies.
Egypt is another example of an Arab country that has functioned reasonably well under democratic rule for a few decades.
Many smaller regions in Arab countries (Saudi Arabia and others), have strong democracies at local levels.
While a strong argument is made that democracy is counterintutitive to the Koran, Islamic Law(the foundation of an Islamic Nation) is based of the Shari'a not just the Koran. The Koran is the main document of the Shari's and is set in stone in its ways and customes. But the Shari's offers 4 additional elements which are much more open to interpretation and social evolution.
That is why Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia can function differently than Iran and Syria.
Islamic Law is not contradictory to Democracy, like many mistakenly think (GOP and Dems alike)
Posted by: T.J. on September 20, 2005 09:38 PMI had a *neo-con* poly-sci professor at the UW (before it was "popular") as well as a conservative history prof. I had 4 or 5 what I would consider "liberal" instructors, largely in traditional liberals areas like English and Psych. The rest of my profs/instructors with the exception of one literally insane TA were very impartial and direct.
Also Turkey is generally not considered Arab and some Turks would get quite offended with you for making that assertion. Some do not even consider Egypt a true "Arab" country. I agree that Iran is a farce of democracy at the national level but talking to a few people who have returned there to visit thier families in the last 5 years it seems that most day to day things outside of law enforcement (think your local gov't, water district, DOT et al) are quite democratic. In that regard anything is probably better than nothing, especially if it can possibly flow "up" in the future.
Posted by: Chokai on September 20, 2005 10:08 PMHowever, Turkey is a democracy under Islamic Law, which is the foundation of 19 Arab nations (40 total).
The point is, Islamic Law (and Arab nations) are not anti democracy as a natural state of affairs. Iraq is by no means the first "Arab Democracy" or "Islamic Democracy" for that matter, as the original post stated.
Part of the spin on the war is that democracy will not survive in the Middle East because it is against Islam. That simply stated is not true. Islamic Fundimentalism may be against democracy, but not Islam.
We need to make sure we are accurate in this assessment.
Posted by: T.J. on September 20, 2005 10:33 PMNow I'm just ranting (it's late) but the other common misnomer that really annoys me (personally) is that Arab = Islam and this is far from true. The vast majority of Muslims are not Arab, and infact the vast majority of Muslim nations are (relatively) tolerant compared to many other places in the world. We are talking about a small part of the overall population here in reality. I'm beginning to see some realization of this though, it's not MSM yet, but close, there was for example an excellent article in this months US Naval Institute's Proceedings about the potential impending collapse of Arab (note not Islamic) civilization and some conceptual ideas about how the US should respond.
Posted by: Chokai on September 20, 2005 11:40 PMTJ- as others have pointed out, Egypt is really a thugocracy, with some limited democracy. It is a functioning republic-- yet we give them $2bb a year.
And I know that UW has had far lefties there before, and others who speak ill of the USA and deride our way of life, but Galloway is in a class by himself: he openly supports our enemies, and has called on enemy troops to kill his own countrymen. He accepted money from Saddam to advocate against the war. That's treason. He belongs in the stockade.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on September 21, 2005 09:30 AM
However, I will agree and likewise cheer for free speech. It does much to illuminate and illustrate just why liberals cannot be trusted with power & authority.
Terrorism did not begin with 9/11. We just started responding to it then. Terrorism was a thriving business while Clinton diddled during the '90's.
His incompetence and indifference just gave the problem a head start. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 21, 2005 11:09 AMI'm glad we agree re the first amendment and the importance of letting dissent be heard. Regarding your comment about terrorism, two points - 1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, it was his failure and 2) while ignoring terrorism won't make it go away, invading Iraq has done nothing to address terrorism. Quite the opposite. The U.S. has done far more damage to itself by invading Iraq and replacing the secular regime with an Islamic theocracy than the terrorist ever did. Perhaps we can avoid these mistakes by listening to people who advocate peace.
PS - As further response to your dig at Clinton, compare his success with regime change with the current administration's abyssmal record. Perhaps we should put the liberals back in charge - America was a far better country under the Clinton administration.
Posted by: Claire on September 21, 2005 11:34 AMRe: free speech and all sides - when has the UW sponsored a speaker in favor of the sdministration's policy?
In this town you rarely hear a non-leftist speaker. TownHall has only lefties. If you and your likeminded fellow travellers really were interested in hearing all sides I would think that oh so open-minded Seattleites would like to hear debates or at least the other side sometime.
Posted by: Stan on September 21, 2005 12:14 PMClaire-- Who signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act into law? And exactly what was done after Kerrey said: "I will not stop talking about this until Saddam is removed from power."
And now-- is Saddam in power? Thanks to who?
So there we have it: policy regime change (by LAW) and nothing done, and Claire calls that success. Bush removes Saddam from power and we get free elections in Iraq. And that's abysmal failure????
Posted by: Brian Crouch on September 21, 2005 12:16 PMre: Clinton - I will accept that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch - but he's dong something about it. Let us look at Clinton's record:
93 World Trade Center
Somalia
Rawanda (not toward US but still...)
Khobar Towers
African Embassies
USS Cole
North Korea - "agreement" on our side only...
...and his response was? Feckless "one-off" ing or do nothing and "kick the can down the road"...
We can't afford to have liberals in power for a long, long time.
Posted by: Stan on September 21, 2005 12:26 PMTHE UW DID NOT SPONSOR ANY OF THESE SPEAKERS.
Posted by: Brad on September 21, 2005 01:15 PM"I said countries occupied by UK and US troops are being raped by them," - Galloway on BBC News 5 Aug 05
Posted by: Van in Baghdad on September 21, 2005 01:38 PMI sympathize with your plight. If you were part of the armed forces before the invasion, then I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, you joined after the invasion, knowing full well that you may play a part in the invasion, then you are part of the problem.
The purpose of the American military is not to liberate Iraqis. The American people are paying your salary to protect our country's interests. You are not serving our country's interests by occupying Iraq - regardless of which side you are helping. In fact, by serving as part of the occupying forces you are endangering my country by showing that the United States is willing to use its military power recklessly and on false pretenses (i.e. we invaded Iraq to prevent Iraq from using WMD's against us - WMD's that didn't have). If you joinded the military to participate in the invasion of Iraq, you are part of the problem and bear part of the blame for the harm done to our country. The net result of your efforts and this administration's policies is most likely to be the creation of a border-line failed state run by an Islamic theocracy. This is not good for America.
I wish you no harm, but do not expect my sympathy. Regradless of why you joined, be smart, keep your head down, and come home alive.
PS- As for Galloway's "rape" comment - I give him low marks for rhetoric, but if he is suggesting that by occupying Iraq the U.S. and U.K. are depriving the Iraqi's of their national wealth and violating the human rights of the Iraqis, then I think his comment is accurate. Give some thought to who is making out in this war (look no further than mulinational corporations who are making a killing on the $5+billion spent by the U.S. each month) and to the reported instances of human rights abuses (U.S. soliders charged and, in some instances, convicted of abusing and/or killing Iraqis).
Posted by: Claire on September 21, 2005 02:18 PMWhy do pro war types always respond to critics of the war by questioning their patriotism? Is it because the occupation is indefensible? It is those that oppose the war that have America's best interest in mind. The Bush administration and the supporters of this war are doing grevious harm to America, and I think secretly the supportes of the war know that is true because the only way they respond to the critics is by lashing out with insults.
As for the facts. The American troops in Iraq are not protecting my freedom or yours. They are there at the confused and misguided bidding of this administration. You would be just as free (and actually safer) if we had not invaded Iraq. As for denegrated the troops - please note my distinction between those troops who volunteered to go to Iraq as opposed to those who had no choice. The notion that it is okay to criticize the war but not the troops is a hold over from the Vietanm era. In Vietnam, the vast majority of troops were draftees - that's obviously not the case here. Anyone who volunteers to engage in an activiy against my country's interest is open to denegration - whether they wear a uniform or not. As for your reading of the sentiment of the majority of the American people - all I have to say is give them time. The American people are smart enough to figure out what's going on - and they will. Current polls reflect that a majority support pulling out some or all of the troops occupying Iraq. The American people are tired of being lied to by this administration (the insurgency is in its last throes???) and given time they will realize that the war was a fraud and that those who are responsible should be held accountable - starting with the politicians and those military policy makers who supported the war. It's only a matter of time before the volunteer soliders are also held accountable - as they should be in a democracy.
Posted by: Claiire on September 21, 2005 03:04 PMWe are indeed in Iraq to protect our freedoms. Pay attention now: I specifically mean that everyone who favors this war believes that this war is a necessary action to protect our freedoms.
YOU happen not to agree with our reasoning. That's your right. But don't tell me or us what our "true" reasons are. If you won't give us the courtesy of taking us at face value, then I really don't have any reason to listen to you at all.
And as for those polls, they're garbage. You do realize that they all use very selective samples, don't you? We had a poll last November, and THAT was the definitive one.
Posted by: Bostonian on September 21, 2005 03:37 PMI appreciate the strong beliefs that war supporters have that this war is protecting our freedom - I am not questioning their beliefs, I am questioning their logic. How is it possible that the war in Iraq is protecting our freedom when prior to the invasion Iraq had no role in 9/11, had no WMD's, presented no military threat to the U.S., was marginalized, contained and completely incapable of engaging in offensive military operations. Those are facts - many of them confirmed by this administration. Iraq was not a threat to our freedoms - invading Iraq did not protect our freedoms. The American people are waking up to these facts - in large part because pro peace advocates have confronted the adminstration's rationale for going to war. So, it's not about beliefs its about facts - and the facts show that the war has nothing to do with protecting our freedoms.
Posted by: Claire on September 21, 2005 03:49 PMAs for the "confused and misguided troops", take a look in the mirror--it is you who are confused and misguided. You make the laughable statement, "You would be just as free (and actually safer) if we had not invaded Iraq". We have been continually attacked by islamic fascists since the 1979 taking of hostages in Iran. In just the last 12 years, we have had the WTC attacked the first time, the attack of the Army Rangers in Somalia (Blackhawk Down), the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole and finally the attacks on 9/11. And since we started fighting back we have been attacked...how many times?
You make one true statement when you say "The American people are smart enough to figure out what's going on - and they will." Yes they will, and Democrats will spend another generation in the wilderness as they did after Vietnam. You were wrong then and you are wrong today. But don't let that stop you!
I say to the lunatic left, keep up the rhetoric, you only hurt your cause whenever you open your mouth.
Posted by: Bill H on September 21, 2005 03:51 PMAs for the bit about being contained and unable to be a threat--what a load of crap. It was the left that argued that we should take off the sactions that were keeping Saddam "in his box". Even so, he was actively undermining the Oil for Food program and buying protection from the U.N.--he had France and Russia bribed and thought that would protect him from being thrown out. Unlucky him--W was in office instead of Clinton.
I don't know if those on the left are just muddle-headed or if they just refuse to acknowledge what it is that is being attempted in Iraq. We are trying to change the calculus in the Middle East. If Iraq and Afganistan can go forward as successful Democracies, there is a real chance that we can drain the swamp of autocracies that dominate that area, just as the fall of the Soviet Union (no thanks to the Left) led to the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe. We have to succeed in Iraq and the Middle East and that is INDEED in our National interest and does INDEED protect our freedoms. If the Islamic fascists succeed or if they sense weakness such as you have professed, we will not be safe at all in this country. Ironically, it is those on the left that would be the first ones they would want to kill.
Posted by: Bill H on September 21, 2005 04:09 PMGood point about Iraq not doing anything to improve our security. I agree it has been a complete and total failure in that regard. But for a different reason, the US militaries first and foremost job is to protect the physical safety of US citizens. It was obvious both before and after the invasion of Iraq that there were far larger threats in the world than Saddam, who was more of a threat to his own people than anyone else. It is admirable and moral that we chose to get rid of him but it should not have been our first concern, or even our second or third. Iraq has done nothing but siphon resources from these more critical tasks. This is why I have opposed the war from the start, it was not something that we needed to do at the time. It has been IMO a waste of lives, time and money for that very reason.
After getting the job done faster and better in Afghanistan (pleased with the recent progress there though) our effort would have been much better spent on energy independence so we can kick the Saudi's and thier ilk to the curb. Wahhabism is the biggest terrorist threat there is, anything else pales in comparison. Almost all core Al Qaeda members are Wahabbis. We should have spent on containing Iran and North Korea by arming our allied neighbors and applying selective military pressure, up to and including actual operations. These are both countries whom have missile arsenals large enough to do greivous damage to us and our allies, unlike Saddam. We should have used our military to help stem the expansion of Al Qaeda into East Asia. We should have spent the resources on properly securing our southern border, upgrading our aging KH-11 spy satellites to deal with China and numerous other projects, the list goes on and on. There are a lot of "we should haves", all of which I consider more important than the strategic wasteland that is Iraq.
I sympathize with you about how war supporters (especially the many Bush/GOP sycophants) tend to equate opposition to the war meaning you either hate america or are not patriotic. Even with my above views and despite BillH's protestations to otherwise I am routinely accused of it. That accusation now appears to be the core arguement used by most war supporters.
Posted by: Chokai on September 21, 2005 04:40 PMOSOT RALLIES
When:
Friday, September 23, 2005
Where:
Overpass at Madigan Hospital/Camp Murray
FT Lewis, WA
Time:
5:00 p.m.
Directions:
Exit 122 off I-5
When:
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Where:
Overpass at Madigan Hospital/Camp Murray
FT Lewis, WA
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Directions:
Exit 122 off I-5
A couple of points,
Your suggestion that Bush has done a good job proteting Americans from terrorist is false. More than 1900 U.S. soliders have been killed and over 10,000 wounded in Iraq - do you not count any of those as the result of Islamic terrorists? Add to that the 3000 from 9/11 and Bush has the worst record of any president of protecting Americans from Islamic terrorists.
As for Saddams use of WMD's, the last recorded use of WMD's was before Desert Storm. Are you suggesting that we invaded Iraq in 2003 because Iraq used chemical weapons in 1988. That is patently absurd. As for where the WMD's were in 2003 - they'd either been destroyed in the aftermath of Desert Storm or by U.N. inspectors. Remember, when we invaded, U.N. inspectors were in Iraq - and they had found no WMD. This would later be confirmed by numerous U.S. inspection teams.
Finally, as to spreading democracy in the Middle East. Ask yourself, why on earth would we reward Iraq with democracy rather that Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Iran or any other more deserving country. Why would we chose to invade Iraq rather than try to encourage democracy to develop in countries with which we had good relations and that were, at least superficially, trying to foster democractic reforms. Why in response to 9/11 would we try to impose democracy on Iraq, a country that played no role in the attacks, instead of Saudi Arabia that did have a role? The claim that what we are doing in Iraq is encourage democracy just doesn't make sense. If the administration is truly trying to impose democracy then they are going about it in the most half-a@@ed way possible.
Posted by: Claire on September 21, 2005 05:23 PMLet me reinterate, I like the piece as a whole, you can have your opinion on Egypt as a thugocracy or whatever.
The point is, Iraq is not the birth of democracy in the Arab World. The Arabian Peninsula has before and does currently have other functioning democracies. We need to make sure people are aware that the concept of democracy is not totally queer (1950's meaning of queer) to Arab or Islamic Culture.
Someone (I can't find it now) pointed out we need to not equate ARAB and ISLAM. This is very true and one of the most common mistakes made when discussing the Middle East (Both Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry slipped on this during the campaign), The MSM is always goofing on this.
ARAB NATIONS OR CULTURE: Traditionally refers to the nations and people of the Arabian Peninsula who are traditionally Muslims. Many of these Arab nations have Islam as their national religion and govern under Islamic Law, many do not have Islam designated as the national religion but it is still practiced by the majority of the population. Over the course of the last few centuries, Arab Culture has grown to include those countries living off the Peninsula who have huge migrant populations from that area (Turkey could arguably meet this definition). These counties have large populations of Arabs so therefore they get referred to as Arab Nations. Due to that, these nations exibit many Arab cultural norms. These nations are now arguably referred to as Arab.
ISLAMIC CULTURE OR NATIONS: Refer to nations which live under Islamic Law. The Nations take as the municipal code of their land the Shari'a, whose foundation is the Koran. Near 40 nations in the world are currently under this status. Of those 40, close to 20 are Arab counties.
The numbers are not definate because several nations can be debate either way as to where they fit and what definitions they meet (as we have seen)
Posted by: T.J. on September 21, 2005 06:16 PMAh Claire, Claire. I used to visit another Seattle based animal hind parts blogsite and was educated in certain "truths". I studied both sides arguments and came to my own clonclusions. I see that you are not too well read, so I won't bore you to tears with hot links for your brain. Here goes Claire.
You beloved Bill Clinton had an interview with the Big Clinton lover himself, Larry King in 2003. Clinton not only agreed with Bush that Saddam had WMDs, but so did several other European countries besides England. Oh, by the way, Valdimir Putin did so publically earlier this year (Feb/March 2005). Did you miss the memo? Surely you can go back and read your emails again!
Regarding the troops: How dare you talk down to any soldier missy? How dare you equate their enlistment date as delusional? If you haven't walked in their shoes, keep the pie hole shut. My sons have a friend whom recently joined the Marines because he took it 9/11 as a personal attack. He could not wait until he turned 18 to go. You hate the troops and you hate their mission. Go on Claire; please admit it.
Regarding Saddam, he was a terrorist enabler. Please tell me that you despise homicide bombers? Please tell me that you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad are bad groups? Well Claire, Saddam paid the families $25,000 per homicide event. So he should be in power now? I also ask you Claire, why does your side hate Israel?
How do you foster "good" relations with a country that calls you the "Great Satan". The reason we haven't been attacked here is they realize this could be their last stand. Having all the islamofascist freaks fighting us in Iraq is a good thing. I await your response.
Regarding the played no roles argument in the 9/11 attack line, I refer you to Google +Able +Danger. Hey you may just, just get educated in more that the standard materials you feast upon. Looks like the 9/11 Commission's summaries #96 and #99 may go up in smoke. May I said. We'll wait and see if this is covered up by the WA, DC players. Why? Because the Pentagon has people who will place Mohammed Atta in the country around late 1999/2000. And he was illegally here with many of his cohorts while your man was in Hillary's dog (White) house. The 9/11 Commission's (or is it Omission as a friend says) downplaying of the Chech meeting between Atta and Iraqi security agents may be true after all. I say Claire clean out the peanut butter from the ears and read more.
Chokai: Having many Asian friends in CA allowed me to have wonderful conversations before moving to WA. Many agree that the US could NOT use military intervention to stop Al Qaeda in Asia. Why? Totally different culture. Ever been to Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia? What is common in these places? Yes, you guessed it. Look at the initial negative response to the Banda Aceh earthquake by certain leaders? And you suggest that the US Military could make a difference in Asia?
Posted by: PacMan on September 21, 2005 06:29 PMYou did claim that the war was not started for the reasons given by its supporters. When you said that, you implied--pretty directly--that it was started for OTHER reasons.
That is NOT at all the same as saying that you disagree with our reasoning. In fact, you called us all LIARS.
Sick of it, I really am.
I would appreciate it for once if people like you could direct your vast venom towards the people who are actually trying to kill us.
Second, how long had the Bush team really been in place on 9/11? From 1/20 to 9/11 is less than 8 months. HOWEVER, the Democrats delayed Bush setting up his government first by trying to steal Florida in the courts, thus delaying the needed time for transition and then by delaying confirmation hearings once he took office. Forget about all that, did you?
As to casualties in Iraq, I hate to see anyone killed or hurt there. I know many people who are either there now or are on their way. However, if you are so concerned about those casualties, why are you acting in support of someone who would actually like to see more of those (Galloway has actively supported the terrorists). Also, as you are so fully informed, I'm sure that Air America must have told you that the casualty RATE in Iraq is actually lower than the ACCIDENT rate during the previous decade. In other words more military personnel were killed in accidents over a similar period of time in the 1990s than have been killed in Iraq. Did you protest the Clinton administration for having so many deaths while "at peace"?
As for the WMD you say "they'd either been destroyed in the aftermath of Desert Storm or by U.N. inspectors." Sorry, this is also incorrect. Had the U.N. inspectors destroyed Saddam's WMD, the U.N. would never have unanimously passed Resolution 1441 requiring him to disarm. Heck, even France and Russia voted for that one. The truth is, you don't know what happened to them. Perhaps, they were destroyed, perhaps they are still hidden somewhere in Iraq or perhaps they were transferred elsewhere, like Syria.
You ask "why on earth would we reward Iraq with democracy rather that Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Iran or any other more deserving country." What makes you think Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and Iran are more deserving than Iraq. We had no problem with the Iraqi people, we had a problem with the Saddam regime. I'll tell you why we should have helped Iraq--because we abandoned the Shia's after Desert Storm. Saddam massacred many of them after we encouraged them to rise up against him. Had we helped them then, we might not have had Saddam in place over the next 10 years.
Finally, the problem with trying to foster democracy in countries with which we have good relations is that when you are dealing with autocracies, (which is what all of these countries are), having "good relations" with the leaders does not in any way mean that we have good relations with the people of the country. We are liked by the vast majority of the people of Iran and Iraq BECAUSE we did not have good relations with their dictators. A portion of the Sunnis in Iraq do not like us because we threw their thug out of office. The Shia were a bit leery of us and weren't sure they could trust us because we let them down in 1991. However, we have built back that trust--trust that you would like to destroy by having us desert them again by pulling out.
Again, do you refuse to see the obvious, or are you so consumed by hatred of the president that you are blinded by it? I say again, history will judge Bush as being far seeing on the Middle East, as they have judged Reagan as being right on the Cold War.
Posted by: Bill H on September 21, 2005 06:41 PMThe difference between you and I is that I do happen to agree with Claire that those people who have joined up specifically to go fight in Iraq do warrant critcism. If they joined because of 9/11 (such as my cousin) and thought they would be doing those good things more power to them, were we actually allowing them to do the right things. My cousin is EXCEEDINGLY frustrated about being in Iraq.
PacMan you are the worst neo-con I have ever SEEN on SP, you have completely and totally drunk the coolaid my friend. You twisted Claires words to attack her over and over again. Go back to California you are making my traffic worse.
Posted by: Chokai on September 21, 2005 06:57 PMLet's get to business here Chokai. You see I have been around the block or two. I am a proud black man who has seen stuff you can even imagine. I don't ascribe to the blame game. I measure the man by what he does first and what he says second. Words a cheap, actions demonstrate character. I look at the outcome and ask what was the real issue? From that I make a judgment. I don't judge people unless they pull a BAKA. What part of my past post bothers you? The truth sets people free.
Does it really bother you that I happen to support Israel? I call them homicide bombers because their aim is to kill as many innocent people as possible? The press calls them suicide bombers. To me a suicide bomb just kills you. Saddam probably used the Oil-for-Food scam monies for the $25,000 payment. I seriously doubt it came from his, Uday or Qusay's cash stash!!! Can you say Ka-BOOM Chokai?
I have many Arab friends and I make new ones every day in WA state. We have intelligent conversations regarding interpersonal relationships. We discussed the differing forms of Koranic worship. The Wahhabists feel that they have to purify Islam through radical means. Do you support those means Chokai and Claire? I certainly don't. The Koran says you are to befriend the non-believers. How do you square their actions in the Darfur region of the Sudan?
Posted by: PacMan on September 21, 2005 07:35 PMThere is a certain blogger on animal hind parts whom stood up for me when I was called the N-word by head-in-de-bu^^ loocy. This person takes on all riding animal hind parts comers. He's funny too. Not too many riding animal hind parts would take a stand against loocy. In fact their attitude was to support him in his (loocy's) attacks of me, except for two riding animal hind parts people. Even the blog owner would not condemn. Only right sided people came to my defense. So again I ask, are you a hate enabler? This friend has gone to openyourhouse.com to try and bring a poor family up to his house to care for them until they get on their feet. Actions speak louder than words. Would you do that Chokai?
Do you know what uselesshead loocy said about me? "YOU ARE A NI&&ER. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU CAN BE OUT IN MASSA"S COTTONFIELDS (and you will) WHEN HE SEES FIT." That is your standard Seattle based animal hind parts Kool_Aid drinker Chokai. Do I need to explain anything further sir?
Posted by: PacMan on September 21, 2005 07:58 PM
I like Israel - neo-con point? - GUILTY!
They are homicide bombers? - neo-con point? - GUILTY!
She ridiculed a soldier who joined after 9/11? - neo-con point? - GUILTY!
Other countries at the UN said he had WMDs? - neo-con point? - GUILTY!
Vladimir Putin said Saddam had WMDs? - neo-con point? - GUILTY!
Bill Clinton said he had WMDs? - neo-con point? - GUILTY!
Funny thing Chokai - everything I have mentioned is from the 85% biased voting for John Kerry based MS Press and TV media!!! I don't get my points from MoveOn. I use standard data mining techniques. Notice I didn't one use Cindy Sheehan. I know if my sons' friend meets his fate my sons will have a difficult time dealing with it.
Posted by: PacMan on September 21, 2005 09:41 PMI'll do my best to respond to your post. Yes, Bush was in office for 8 months before 9/11. I fail to see what that has to do with anything, he failed to prevent the attack. When the attack occurred, it was his responsibilty to protect this country.
Regarding WMD. Prior administrations may have suspected that Iraq possessed WMD - but none were stupid enough to invade another country based on that suspicion. The inspectors were in Iraq immediately prior to our invasion.
They were finding nothing. We should have supported the U.N. inspections rather than invade the country. Many people who opposed the war at that time were advocating inspections. Had inspections continued, we would have confirmed what we now know, that Iraq had no WMD's.
As for your suspicion that the WMD's were transfered to Syria - that's another right wing fairy tale. Think about it. After 9/11 someone used the postal system to send anthrax. As a result, the mail handling facilities were closed for months or years because tests showed minute levels of anthrax - all from a few envelops sent through the mail. Using the same technology, the U.S. has failed to turn up anything even approaching a trace of weaponized anthrax - not a trace - in Iraq. Do you honestly think that the Iraqis were so sophisticated that they could covertly develop biological weapons and then ship them to Syria - without leaving a trace? The same goes for nuclear weapons.
We've been their for two years. We've found nothing. The only conclusion, is that Iraq had no such weapons. We would have been better of figuring that out in 2003 rather than invading the country and then finding that out.
Regarding the concern for U.S. casualties. Every patriotic and responsible American should do everything they can do to limit the number of casualities. The most direct and effect way to do this would be to bring the troops home immediately and focus or energy on effective counter terrorism efforts. It is not a viable policy to say that the U.S. must stay the course in Iraq when the current course is accomplishing nothing. It is not logical or rational to say that we must support our troops because so many have already died.
As far as your point regarding spreading democracy, I don't quite follow your argument. I don't dispute that many Arabs admire the U.S. But, that would be true even if we hadn't invaded Iraq. If anything, the invasion has damaged our reputation and decreased our influence in the region. Imagine if you will that the U.S. had spent just a portion of the $200 plus billion we have spent so far on the invasion on improving the lives of people of Afghanistan - providing them security from drug lords and further improving the quality of their lives.
The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq was not inevitable nor was it necessary. For whatever reason, the current administration decided to invade and occupy that country. The effects so far have been overwhelmingly negative. It has strained our military, tarnished our reputation and radicalized citizens of neighboring countries - many of whom have allied with the jihadists. The current administration bears responsibility for these effects and it must do everything it can to set things right - starting with a complete withdrawal from Iraq.
The poll inspector said that last November more provisional ballots were cast than would fit in the bag provided by elections, thereby requiring an unofficial box for the overflow. People who forgot or misplaced their absentee ballots cast many of the provisional ballots. Many couldn’t get home in time to mail them in for various, sometimes creative reasons. These ballots increased the workload of the canvassers.
The inspector and I both agree that the county needs to come up with a better way to handle misplaced absentee ballots. Got any ideas folks?
We invaded Iraq for the reasons we gave you hundreds of times already, which with you (expert analyst!) happen to disagree.
When you stop calling us liars, I will read your long posts. But not before.
Posted by: Bostonian on September 22, 2005 05:41 AMWhy do you personally identify with this administration? In my post, I expressly stated that it was the "current administration" that was dishonest. Are you a member of the administration? Did you have a hand in deciding to invade Iraq? (possible, I don't know). Is it not possible to separate yourself from the administration and view the situation critically. Just curious.
Posted by: Claire on September 22, 2005 07:02 AM
You just don't understand democracy.
GWB alone did not invade Iraq. He and his administration alone did not make the decision.
GWB is doing what we, 65 MILLION PEOPLE, want him to do.
I voted for Democrats all my life until last November, so I am no knee-jerk Republican. I can tell you that GWB did EXACTLY what I wanted him to do and for the same reasons I had.
This is the part where you go into a diatribe about how the war supporters were duped, blah blah blah. No, we were not duped. We DISAGREE WITH YOU. I'm not going to waste my time re-explaining the purposes of the war, which you have managed to completely miss in your numerous posts above.
Posted by: Bostonian on September 22, 2005 07:16 AMAfter reading your posts and listening to other left wingers, I can see where the problem youth of this country come from--they are the sons and daughters of liberals! You don't believe in consequences for anyone, unless they happen to be named George W. Bush. If you treat your children like you wished us to treat Saddam, they would be continually in trouble and would never move out of the house! If you tell your children there will be serious consequences if they continue to do something and then you do not follow through, guess what is going to happen? They are going to continue to make trouble. Saddam was thumbing his nose at the U.N. resolutions for more than a decade and he was undermining the U.N. and the Oil for Food program. Keeping the inspectors in would have accomplished nothing.
Listen up--it was not the inspectors' responsibility to find and destroy WMD in Iraq. It was Saddam's responsibility to bring his WMD to inspectors and destroy them as they supervised. In a country the size of Iraq, there is no way inspectors could find WMD without the cooperation of Saddam--he continually refused to give them any cooperation. Again, it existed before and we have no documentation that it has been destroyed, so what makes you think it has been? Where is your proof?
Finally, there is no national support for your position of immediately pulling out of Iraq. You REALLY think it would be in our national interest to relegate Iraq to the jihadists? You really think it would be in our national interests to give them Iraq as a new sanctuary where they would be in control of the second largest proven oil supplies to fund their jihad? If you think that, you are nuts and that is why even far left Democrats like John Kerry don't endorse that view. You are so short sighted that you don't consider the logical consequence of what you are advocating. Or maybe you are sure that it won't happen so you just take it as a position knowing you won't have to deal with the consequences--kind of like the left wing Canadians that advocated that the Canadian government arrest President Bush when he was in Canada. And what did they think Acting President Cheney's response would be to that?!
Posted by: Bill H on September 22, 2005 09:44 AMIt's hard to tell if the inspections were working, but the bottom line is that there were inspections after Desert Storm and those inspections turned up evidence of WMD programs and those programs were destroyed. Prior to the invasion in 2003 UN inspectors were permitted back into the country and they were conducting searches for WMD's. They found no WMD's. Before they were allowed to complete their work (remember the inspectors had to be evacuated because we were going to start bombing) we invaded. Then we ran all over the country for two years and found absoultely no evidence of WMD's. Under these circumstances, we made a mistake in not allowing the inspectors to continue their work. Before the invasion, many Americans and many members of the international community tried to convince the administration to give inspectors more time. The administration refused - it was a huge mistake and raises questions about the administration's motives.
Posted by: Claire on September 22, 2005 09:46 AMI think it's a stretch to say that all 65M people who voted for Bush supported invading Iraq and that he is doing in that regard. Case in point, my family tends towards conservative and NONE of them supported the war but most of them voted for Bush. In thier view the other things Bush supports that are important to them outweighed the war. More like the least of multiple evils instead of the lesser of two.
PacMan -
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Do you mean that Kerry voted with the neo-con agenda 85% of the time? Or that MS press supports it? I'd be more inclined to say that MSPress reports on what the neo-con viewpoints are, as they do the same for liberals, fiscal conservatives and so on, something I would expect. Both of these comments have nothing to do with the previous topic which was that you mounted a pointless neo-con view laden attack where you put words in peoples mouths and attacked them personally for things they had not said. I'm especially not sure what Cindy Hasbeen has to do with any of it.
Alphabet -
Do you have something constructive to say besides your favorite pasttime of insulting peoples handles? I thought it was nice that PacMan himself nicely demonstrated all the neo-con viewpoints he hit upon.
Posted by: Chokai on September 22, 2005 09:54 AMRe: the weight of opinion in favor of continuing inspections:
"Many Americans" opposed the invasion of Afghanistan - that does not represent a significant weight of opinion nor a correct one.
"Many members of the international community" were under the influence of Saddam's money and didn't care if he was ing hundreds of thousands of his own people - I don't think their opinion of the inspections process in any way endorses that porcess.
The argument for the Iraq invasion includes the prospect that the inspection regime would have ground to inconclusion and ceased. At that time Saddam would have renewed his program and with the help of AQ Khan been back up to lethal capability soon.
Indeed, much of the intelligence gathered after the invasion indicates that Saddam himself THOUGHT he had a program going!
To think that the action in Iraq is a mistake is to ignore many positive outcomes:
*the end of Saddam ing the people of Iraq *Libya's cessation of thier nuclear program
*the roll-up of AQ Khan and his proliferation
*Jordan freeing itself of Syria's dictatorship
*the elimination of ist safe harbor in Iraq
*the end of Saddam's wars in the ME
Dude you're either an incorrigible ignoramous or running interference for the munitions consortiums who actually run this country.
Your argument is invalid because it equates casualties we can do very little about--which are also events that no one is particularly culpable for that occurred over a much longer period of time--with deaths that would not have occurred if Governor Bush and his neocon-infested warren of thieves, traitors and war mongers had not taken this country to war under egregiously false pretenses.
Posted by: Exile on September 22, 2005 12:15 PMInteresting points re the purported positive results of the Iraq war. You have to ask yourself how many of those things would have happened even if we had not invaded Iraq. Also, could we not have accomplished those same things without killing 1900 U.S. troops, wounding another 10,000 plus, and killing untold number of Iraqi civilians?
As for stopping Saddam's wars. We were a little late on that score. His last ME war was over ten years before we invaded. When we invaded, there was no evidnece that Iraq had the capability to threaten its neighbors with offensive military action. Over half of his country was subject to no-fly zones. Also, if Iraq presented such a threat to its neighbors in 2003 why did its neighbors refuse to cooperate in the U.S. invasion? In Desert Storm Turkish, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi troops participated. None of those countries sent troops to aid the 2003 invasion - and some actively opposed the invasion.
Iraq was not a safe haven for terrorists that threatened the U.S. The principle terrorist group that operated in Iraq before the invasion was an anti-Iranian group called the MEK - a group the U.S. decided the work with post invasion. The other terrorist group - Ansar Al Islam (spelling way off I'm sure) was operating in a part of the country that was most likely controlled not by Saddam, but by our allies the Kurds (and in the no-fly zone) Removing the Saddam regime would have had little if any negative effect on that group.
The AQ Khan point is an interesting one. As you know AQ Khan is Pakistani. The fact that you claim that we were able to roll up his network only after invading Iraq (something I'm not sure is true) suggests more a failure by the Bush administration to obtain cooperation from our allies the Pakistanis then a success of the Iraq policy.
As for Jordan freeing itself from Syrian influence - I think you mean Lebanon. First, what's your proof that that the Syrian pullout was in anyway influenced by the Invasion in Iraq? Second, only time will tell whether Syria's pull out will be a net positive for Lebanon. If the country decends into civil war therew will many Lebanese who will regret Syria's pull out.
Finally, as to stopping Saddam from killing his own people. All we have accomplished on that front is to substitute one killer for another. Instead of being killed by Saddam, Iraqis are now being killed by insurgents, foreign occupiers and hit squads. Not a net positive result - certainly not one that justifies getting American troops killed.
Posted by: Claire on September 22, 2005 01:52 PMIn addition, the vast majority of those serving in Iraq are supportive of what is being accomplished there. Of course no one wants to die either in battle or in a training accident (as Patton said--the object is not to die for your country, the object is to make the other SOB die for his country), but I would be willing to bet that most people in the military would rather die doing something they believe in than to just die in a training accident. So what's your point?
You don't quite have the liberal talking points down verbatim though--"taken this country to war under egregiously false pretenses" should be something like "took this country to war for a lie!" (by the way, verbatim means "word for word")
Posted by: Bill H on September 22, 2005 03:51 PMYou're dead wrong when you say the "casualty rate" in Iraq is lower than the "accident rate" in the decade before the invasion. Per the pentagon Defense Manpower Data Center, the fatality rate for American troops in Iraq in 2004 was 43.1 killed per 100,000 FTE's. The fatality rate for deaths caused by accident never got higher than 34.2 killed per 100,000 FTE's between 1993 and 2004. Also, keep two things in mind. First, U.S. troops are still being killed in accidents in Iraq and elsewhere, so the troops being killed in Iraq are in addition to the troops dying in accidents (which is happening at approximately the same rate as it did from 1993 to 2003). Second, the military typically counts wounded in the total number of casualities. Thus, you would have to factor in the 10,000 plus U.S. wounded into any equation when you compare the "casualty" rate in Iraq. Anyway you look at it, the casualty rate in Iraq is much higher than the accident rate in the decade prior to war. "A" for effort, but the facts just don't back you up.
Posted by: Claire on September 22, 2005 08:11 PM85% of the MSM voted for Kerry. Did you miss that WA Post Story? Number is dropping due to Fox News. I use the MSM for my documentation. Why? So you who hate GWB can't say I went to Limbaugh, et. al.
Do you three understand the Arab psyche? They respond to power. Read the Koran people. When the paper tiger was in office we were ignored by Osama in the Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, Aden Sea, etc. Who was president then? Read Lt Colonel Patterson's book :Dereliction of Duty. Now what is Zarqawi doing? He is twisting the Koranic teachings to offer 72 virgins to homicide bombers.
I asked a simple question of Claire and she ignored it. So I place this question on the table in front of all three. Do you support Israel? Yes or No?
I say to those of us on the right, let's wait these three out on this. Most (im)posters on the animal hind parts web site do not support Israel. It's the standard neo-con call from them.
Posted by: PacMan on September 22, 2005 08:14 PMNice try. Your'e comments are all bullshit based on liberal talking points. Nothing more needs be said.
Being that you may believe them, it tells everyone all they need know about your integrity.
Thanks for the sick jokes and fantasies.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on September 22, 2005 08:14 PMThe point is that when you and the rest of the left wing go on morbidly about the number of deaths in Iraq (as if you really care whether someone that volunteered for this "illegal war" died there), you don't put it into any context. Here is some context. 2,500 allied soldiers died on D-Day, and 54,000 were killed before the Battle of Normandy was won. 7,000 Marines were killed in the Battle of Iwo Jima. 58,000 U.S. Military were killed in Vietnam, and 407,000 in WWII.
Yes, losing 2,000 of our brave military is terrible, especially for the families of those lost. But put into context, the wars in Afganistan and in Iraq have been huge successes in terms of low numbers of deaths, especially given what we have accomplished. We have freed 50 million people and started the process of changing the hellhole of the Middle East to Democracy.
Posted by: Bill H on September 22, 2005 09:28 PMAmused by Liberals
I assume your comment is about my post on the casualty rates - if that's the case, you are more than free to do the math yourself - here's the official government website.
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates1.pdf
As for supposed "talking points," I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: Claire on September 22, 2005 09:37 PMWords in mouths ehh? Where did I say I hate Bush? I trust that comment was directed at someone else and not me. I certainly strongly disapprove of his Iraq and foreign policies and that they are not correct and have stated my views here, but hate the man? I've never even said or alluded to something like that. Indirectly, you've even gone so far as to ask if I supported the Wahhabist agenda, again something about which I had said nothing even remotely touched on. You've repeatadly asked such "questions", attempting to imply that the person said something about that matter when they have not. Other examples include your Israel question.
I hope your pointless dig at supposed lack of understanding of the Arab psyche was not directed at me. But if you wanna play that game, sure I'll do it. As I mentioned earlier, my family has been in the middle east for work or educational reasons in one form or another for 50 years. Dinnertable conversations between family members and friends with degrees in Islamic studies were and still are a regular occurance. Family and close friends visited the area this year, including Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi and Iran, and more than a few travelled to places such as the slums of Bierut. Arab, Persian, Shia, Sunni, Turk, et al, I've been exposed it all in almost every combination I can think of.
You claim what you cite comes from MSM just so that we can't criticize you, yet you site Patterson? Where is the consistency?
As for your pointless do I support Israel question? Yes on some things and no on others. I suspect Claire probably ignored your question for the same reason I normally would. It had nothing to do at all with the conversation and is a blatant attempt at reverse flamebaiting. How about something specific so that people can answer it without allowing you to pick some little thing they forget to say to flame them about? Perhaps that is why you are so frustrated about a certain other blog, maybe you were simply ignored by the posters there.
Man, SP really needs topic based threading, bring on Slashcode.
Posted by: Chokai on September 23, 2005 12:09 AMI said so you who hate Bush. Did I say YOU hate Bush? You called me a neo-con. By the accepted liberal definition, neo-cons love Bush. Search Google my man! You claim not to be a neo-con, therefore you HATE Bush. It's the left who generally hates GWB. Projecting again?
Regarding being exposed to Arab thought, so have I. But I have read many parts of the Koran. Have you? Do you need the specific Mohammad homilies they are twisting?
Lt. Col Patterson wrote a book. He carried the nuclear football for Clinton. He took the call from Berger in 1996 saying the military had a bead on Bin Laden, make the call Mr. President. Clinton was at Wimbledon hobknobbing. Clinton ignored the call from Berger. We missed Bin Laden. Clear enough for you? Do you read at all Chokai or calling your opponents neo-cons makes you feel proud? All I do is look for Google links to prove you wrong. I learned that from someone else who likes me!!!
Claire: My commentary is not about casualty rates. Someone else is carrying the water against you very nicely. My commentary is about your positions in general. You seem to really think our pull-out will benefit us in the future. That is an anathema to me. So we are diametrically opposed in thought, deed, action, and word; I was trying to see where you stand geopolitically. Hence I ask again? Do you support the US supporting Israel or not? Chokai calls me a neo-con. Hence I know where he really stands.
Posted by: PacMan on September 23, 2005 04:27 AMThis is priceless! Annoyed that no one is buying her BS, Claire cleverly shifts gears to the "neener neener" defense.
Way to go Claire!
Posted by: alphabet Soup on September 23, 2005 06:50 AMGet it through your head, Claire, it was not the job of inspectors to "search for WMD". If it was they would have been called "Searchers". In order for the inspections to work, it REQUIRED cooperation from Saddam--cooperation he refused to give!
Here is a test for you. Let's say that I tell you that someplace in California there is a large truck hidden. It may be in plain sight, it may be hidden in a building or it may be buried somewhere in the sands of the Mojave desert. Oh and by the way, if you start to get close to the truck, I might send my lackeys out to move it. You have a team of people to try to find this truck. How long will it take you to find it?
That is the reality of what the inspectors were facing. Without Saddam's cooperation, they would NEVER have found WMD in Iraq. If he didn't have any WMD, then why was he not cooperating with the inspectors? Well, for one thing he had bought off France and Russia via Oil for Food and so he thought he was protected--again, if Clinton would have been president he would have been right--unlucky him! But regardless, the point is that it was NOT the responsibility of the inspectors to FIND WMD, it was Saddam's responsibility to bring it to them so that they could inspect and supervise its destruction. Resolution 1441 demanded that he comply and that non-compliance would have "serious consequences". He did not comply and he did, indeed have serious consequences.
Result: Saddam is out of power and Qadafi (Libya) turned over his weapons program. Big success!
Posted by: Bill H on September 23, 2005 10:55 AMI observed that you were the "worst" neo-con I had seen because in your first post nearly every point you made was a neo-con viewpoint. I have seen you make several non-neo con points since them, but your original post as I observed it remains. You later provided a nice bulletted list of your points. If a persons entire political belief system was based on a single ideology that person would get more pity from me than anything else. I happen to know a lot of "anti-neocons" who support Israel, those views are not mutually exclusive. At this point I am concluding that you may possibly be even more of a neo-con than I originally even though.
I'm well aware of whom Patterson is and his book. I merely observed that it was interesting that you claimed to use MSM to avoid being attacked and would then mention someone like Patterson, who is most definately NOT MSM.
If you want to qoute Koranic verses that are common knowledge and have had MSM articles written about them to try to help layman American citizens understand please do so. Even more so if you have heard new material that is being used that cannot yet be found using Google.
I unfortunately have not had cause to read the Koran in going on a decade now.
Alphabet -
I suspect the same person that made the post pretending to be Claire is the one that caused me to remove my real email address from future posts on SP. There is obviously someone here who has serious issues with a dissenting viewpoints.
I am not sure what you mean by "support the U.S. support of Israel" or why you think that is important. Nonetheless, I think Israel has the right to exist and that the region would be better off if Israel and its neighbors could resolve their differences. I also believe that the U.S. should have strong ties with Israel, for cultural and historical reasons. But, I am an Amercian and my concerns for America's welfare far outweigh any feelings I have about Israel. I support U.S. support for Israel only if it is in the best interest of Amercia. If the Israeli government takes steps that are not in America's interest, I expect the American government to take the appropriate steps - including withdrawing support for Israel, whether it be political, financial, or military support. Assuming that you are American, I trust that you would not sacrifice America's interests for Israel's.
PS - As for your comment about someone else carrying the water re casulty rates in Iraq, did you go to the link about casualty rates? Do you believe Bill H's post about casualty rates is accurate? Was my math off?
PS2 - I assume you will do so in your next post, but I would like to understand why you believe that "support for American support for Israel" is important.
Posted by: Claire on September 23, 2005 11:08 AMHere is a link to the actual resolution. It is not all that long: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Here are a few exerpts: "...Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;"
And further: "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations..."
And finally, the "consequences" clause: "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"
Posted by: Bill H on September 23, 2005 11:20 AMActually, yes. You only used 2004 rather than the average of 2003 and 2004. The average of those two years is 31.5. I was using information that went from 1983 to 1996 for accidents. That average was 44.23. However even using the averages over the 1990's (i.e. 1990-1999) was 33.13. Both are higher than the 31.5 average over 2003-2004. QED.
Posted by: Bill H on September 23, 2005 11:50 AMPhew! Here I was thinking that she was gonna start making sense! (Wouldn't that be refreshing ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 23, 2005 11:53 AMWe find ourselves in the situation we are in currently and we must deal with it. If you know anything about the Middle East, the one thing they understand is strength. The worst thing that could possibly happen is to pull out right now. Is what we are doing now working? Debatable.
I continue to be disturbed at both sides being blinded so much by their hatred for the other side that they refuse to look at ALL of the facts. Anyone using Google can find all of the news fit to print inside their warped little minds. Go to the source, get all of the facts, and remain open minded. And if you aren't in Iraq, keep your mouths shut about service members...
Posted by: Crazy Kyle on September 23, 2005 01:01 PMNot surprising. All that you have is talking points. You simply repeat the same things nearly all liberal democrats are saying over and over without acknowledging numerous arguments that render yours entirely moot.
The fact that you are wrong on all counts means nothing to you because you are not seeking the truth, just a way to speak counter to views you dislike. You have yourself fooled but not those of us who actually care about facts.
Nowhere in history on earth have the ideas you support accomplished what you suggest they would. Nevertheless, bothering to argue with you is only to dignify your silliness as arguments, when really they only comprise shallow statements of partisan liberal dogma.
Yeah right Claire, lets just give a peice a chance, and Bill Clinton is just the guy to get it for us. Amazing.
You should start your own blog--and call it blow jobs for peace.
Sorry I just saw your post responding to mine about death rates. In your most recent post you make a completely different argument then you made previously. In your original post you said that the casualty rate in the Iraq invasion is lower than the accident rate in the decade prior to the invasion. That's untrue. In your most recent post you argue that the absolute numbers of deaths by accident during the 1983-1996 time period are higher than the absolute numbers of deaths in Iraq. Even assuming that's true, it's comparing apples and oranges. You have to take into account the size of the military for one. For the most part, the military was much larger in 1983-1996 then it is now (by over 600,000 FTE's). Moreover, the rate of death by accident in the military has been slowly declining since the 1970's (due to, I suspect, any number of factors including better euquipment, more emphasis on safety etc....) So, figures about accident rates from the 1980's are not necesasarily comparable to figures from the 2000's and its misleading to compare casualty rates in Iraq with 20-year old accident figures. Finally, keep in mind that the deaths in Iraq are in addition to the the numbers of soliders that are dying in accidents - the number of soliders dying from accidents had been pretty steady over the last couple of years. The current overall rate of military deaths is much higher now than it was prior to the Iraq invasion. Any suggestion that the troops that are being killed now would have died in accidents if the invasion had not occurred is completely false. The bottom line is, even if your figures are accurate, I'm not sure your argument means anything. So what if more soliders died in accidents twenty years ago than died by hostile action in Iraq.
As for your question whether I protested military casualty rates in early 1990's - my answer is no I did not protest, in large part, because I was serving on active duty during that time (USMC 1990-94) and thus was not exactly in a position to express my opposition to the government's policies.
Posted by: Claire on September 23, 2005 02:54 PMWhy are you comparing death rates in Iraq to accident rates that are almost 20 years old? Why not compare death rates and accident rates that are more current? The "death by hostile" rate in 2004 was 43. The "death by accident" for 2004 (and a number of years before that) was around 33. This completely defeats your argument. Also, 2004 is the only full year of data available for casualty rates for the Iraq war (remember the war started in the middle of the fiscal year - March of 2003). It is not accurate to "average" 2003 and 2004. With all due respect, your analysis, in particular your selection of relevant time periods, reflects an obvious attempt to manipulate data.
Posted by: Claire on September 23, 2005 03:09 PMThis argument is not all about partisan politics, nor is it about Monday morning quarterbacking. We are at a crossroads in Iraq. Decisions need to be made on how we will proceed. Debate about the origins of the war, what it is accomplishing and what it is costing are relevant to how we should proceed. It is not responsible to say let's carry on with the given course and support our troops in the face of overwhelming evidence that the current policy is not working (unless of course you assume that the purpose of the current policy was to turn Iraq into a theocracy). As for your argument that unless you are in Iraq you have no right to criticize the troops, my response is that we are all in this together. The troops who are there carrying out this administration's policies bear the responsibility for their actions (the volunteers as opposed to those who had no choice - see prior posts on this topic). They are not immune because they wear a uniform. Their actions impact all of us.
I have no idea why. She certainly has nothing else of any value to offer.
Probably just found the idea a little hard to swallow.
Granted, I should have said in the 80s and 90s. But even using your basis, I showed you that accidents generated more deaths than the Iraq war has on an annual basis. You keep missing the entire point which I will make one more time before I write you off as a lost cause. THE NUMBER OF DEATHS IN IRAQ ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IS LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTAL DEATHS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED IN MANY PRIOR YEARS. I also have pointed out comparisons to losses in prior wars and in battles in prior wars, where more deaths have occurred in one day or in one battle than we have experienced in 2 1/2 years in Iraq. As I have said, no one wants anyone to die in combat, but the numbers we have experienced in Iraq (and Afganistan)are amazingly low.
You are looking at the bark on the trees and missing the forest. As General Honore says "Don't get stuck on stupid".
Posted by: Bill H on September 23, 2005 08:09 PMI must admit that, among the likely places that claire should be inclined to put her head, in the sand is relatively harmless (as well as expected), compared to the alternatives....
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 23, 2005 10:10 PMYour statement that "THE NUMBER OF DEATHS IN IRAQ ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IS LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTAL DEATHS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED" in the 1980's and 1990's is meaningless without , among other things, taking into account the number of soliders in the military during the respective periods. The argument you are trying to make is that the number of deaths in Iraq is relatively low if you look at the historical numbers of soliders that died in accidents (albeit, in your analysis, you rely to accident rates from the 1980's). If you take into account the number of people in the military during the respective periods your statement is false. If you don't your statement is misleading. It's sort of like making the statement that gas prices are at all time highs without taking into account inflation. At this point, I am making these posts more as a public service than anything else. If you don't understand the logic, perhaps you should consult with someone with a GED - they should be able to explain it to you.
Thanks for the pubic service taking into account the number of soliders [sic] in the military during the respective periods.
Insular malapropisms are not logic, they are simple minded sophistry, and you are full of $hit.
Thanks for the amusing example of liberal cogency.
Now that she's lost the argument, claire is resorting to insults - now that's my territory ;'}
claire - let me venture a guess - you got good grades in school, right? You knew how to regurgitate whatever it was the teacher showed to you and memorize "facts".
Very nice, but that doesn't pass for a critically objective mind. You want to fault Bill H for not seeing your nonexistent "logic" (which isn't even poor logic, but rather a leap of faith). You can spice it up with reams of "factoids", but it doesn't change the fact that your conclusions - where you go with what you've shown us, is crap.
You've chosen a conclusion - Bush is bad, therefore anything he does is evil - and assembled point of view in an attempt to support that contention. No matter how hard you try, you will fail (and look like an idiot in the attempt).
I don't know if you're one of those "all war is bad" morons, or if you've just focused in on this war in particular. Your initial foray into this discussion featured this gem: "Democracy relies on free speech."
How pithy. how glib!
Democracy relies on defense.
Equally pithy. Even more true!
What value does "free speech" hold if it literally come at the cost of your head? Or being rammed into a wood chipper? Maybe you prefer it that way? After all, being good in school (the way I figure you were good in school) was to be a yes-bot. Blind acceptance of whatever drivel you were told. It oozes out of every pore of your scribblings.
It amazes me that feminists can't see the illogical irony that they put themselves into! You demand an absolute right to "free speech" and yet defend the very sorts that would not just stifle your speech, but would likely bludgeon you to death for even opening your mouth. But then I have learned not to waste my precious time trying to lift up liberals, I prefer to see them wallow in the muck of their own misunderstanding.
I must congratulate you on getting one thing right (it's true, and I'll readily accede to it!) I'll give you a gold star for this statement: "The American people are paying your salary to protect our country's interests." Bravo! Now if you had only put it into its proper perspective. Of course our military pays soldiers to provide for our defense. How else would you you have it? Maybe hire out like the pool boy? Or did you think that if we don't maintain an army someone else would have to come in to save our sorry asses? Oh Oh! I got it! You would prefer that the UN be our protector! Am I right? The next time we got in trouble (after all we're always getting in trouble because we're intrinsically evil, right?!), we just call on the famous UN fighters of truth & justice to come rescue us, right?
Whadda ditz!
The US military is there to protect our interests. Interests like being able to go to work and not having the building you're in get slammed by an airliner. Interests like being allowed to travel without being kidnapped and having your head sawed off. There are people out there who will do this to us, and wishing it away will not make it go away.
So there you have it. claire, the good little yes-bot who was good in school, grew up to be a dysfunctional liberal, unable to discern fact from opinion, and proud of it. claire the good little liberal, who never learned that a good house is built on a solid foundation, got her butt handed to her by someone who apparently did learn it.
Go ahead claire, tell us another one about now the big, bad, evil bush crept up on little red riding Hussein, or maybe you can tell us one about Karl Rove next time....
Whatever you do, I'm sure it'll be fascinating......and wrong ;'}
No head of the class for you!
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 24, 2005 10:01 AMBy the way, I happen to have a degree in Actuarial Science (I'm sure you don't know what that is, but you can look it up), so if I was really interested in your data, I could actually develop a mortality table with multiple decrements associated with it. However, as I said, it is not relevant, so I'm not interested.
Posted by: Bill H on September 24, 2005 10:14 AMBill H, You are right about her solution. She doesn't have one.
Posted by: cc on September 24, 2005 10:19 AMDespite all the insults, I am encouraged that you read most, if not all, of my posts. I hope they've given you something to think about, lord knows your posts have given me something to think about.
Enjoy the weekend.
Cheers
PS - given that you two are such big fans of war, here's a website so that you can join the Marines - I proudly served four years and it changed my life.
http://www.marines.com/
PS2 - in case you're too old to take advantage of the opportunities the military offers, here's a link to the IRS where you can make additional voluntary tax payments to support the occupation of IRAQ
http://irs.com/
Posted by: Claire on September 24, 2005 11:30 AMYour are spot on.
During Claire’s exhaustive pursuit of her GED, she neglected to obtain any education. Goerge Bush's pretexts for executing the Iraq war were and are explicit, exhaustive, undeniable, and clearly established. Apparently Claire was busily pursuing her women's studies or comparative Kwanzaa classes when the numerous individual instances of provocation occurred, but that doesn't mean they didn't occur. Had slick Willie been president when 911 happened he would have invaded Iraq, and had Dillweed insane Al Gore been President he would have invaded Iraq, and had moron phony big shot liar pretend-hero Kerry been president he would have invaded Iraq.
The important difference would be that they would have prosecuted the war poorly, they would have the press on their sides to cover for all of the mistakes they made in doing so, and because they are shameless liberals, liberals like Claire (who defend slick Willie) would keep her compliant partisan pile hole shut.
Idiots like Claire pretend that facts are things you make up as you go along, and history is intellectual silly putty that you can use to manipulate to suit your prejudices, or more often simply ignore. Her arrogant liberal condescension is only exceeded by her unwitting deluded stupidity.
Hint--Claire listens to and believes Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi among others. Need I say more?
Posted by: Amused by liberal arrogant morons on September 24, 2005 11:34 AMIt's a damned good thing for those of the military who are doing the great job they currently are that you are no longer "serving," with them, that is--if you actually did.
At any rate, if you ever did, it is quite apparent that you learned nothing of any value from the experience.
BTW, amused, your sign-offs are getting funnier!
Posted by: cc on September 24, 2005 09:34 PMHowever, I've never seen a playground rid of its bully through diplomacy. It took a black eye. It took a bloody nose. It was reality. It still applies today. It will apply on the future earth and it will apply in space, if we encounter anything threatening there. Did I cover it all--even for the Trekkies?
Why have we turned (rational) self-defense, proud nationalism and common survival into shame? Any animal fights to its death to defend itself--why is that lost on humans? Something is twisted.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 24, 2005 10:47 PMMy most profound respect and admiration to your brother for his service. I believe what you write because unlike Claire, you don’t pose his achievements as a cheap tactic, esp. sequel to a line of disproved accusations wearisomely (and quite disingenuously) recycled as facts.
Good men have fought in many conflicts including Vietnam to protect us from those who would take the law of nature into their hands. Liberals like Claire seek to blur and ameliorate the legacy of his service in order to justify their own stupidity and cowardice. After doing so, they demand credit for being brave.
Claire's ex- Marine claim airs too much like a hasty attempt to reconstruct withered credibility. While in the context of this thread, a real ex-marine would scarcely make such a claim to justify pusillanimity, the claim does narrowly belie a hint of recognition on her/his part that the military might be a province of momentous duty worthy of association. Nevertheless, it is refuge for a scoundrel who will stoop to any level to establish lies, win points contrary to the facts, and sustain depravity despite the consequences. One thing is certain. Anyone who says "America was a far better country under the Clinton administration," is obduratly ignoring reality. The record is clear for all to see. If Claire served in any combat roles under the Clinton administration, (think Mogadishu) she is simply insane.
With all due respect to you, I don't believe her.
Thanks for your clarity of reasoning.
cc,
My pleasure, and regards.
By the way. Excellent, accurate, and clear arguments all.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on September 25, 2005 09:36 AM