Letters to the Editor
-
Realpolitik
Why must you misstate the positions of others? I'm not *defending* Saddam.. I'm pointing out that just removing him while making no provision for the ongoing security of the Iraqi people was a profoundly evil and stupid act. -- HRH
Heh. Of course you're defending Saddam. You just don't like that picture.
The choice was Saddam or us, in Iraq. You've decided that Saddam was better for the Iraqis and and are in the unenviable position of explaining why that's so. That is defending someone. -- shooter242I have no problem "defending" the evil old fuck, Saddam, given that I accepted our government's support of him in the 80s. He was "better" for the Iraqis than the partitioning & theocracy they are now facing.
The U.S. government supported Saddam during the 80s, while he consolidated his hold over Iraq by slaughtering all viable opponents. Then it tried to squeeze him out after all opposition had been left hanging (literally usually) after Gulf War I.
Any distaste I might feel in "defending" Saddam is quickly ameliorated by the sight, sound and smell of what is happening in Iraq right now. But it's more quickly soothed by the fact that the current Iraq clusterfuck is not in our national interest. Routing Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is in our national interest. We don't have bin Laden or Al Zahwiri in custody. They are alive, they were responsible for 9-11, and the Great Warrior Bush did not go after them. He squandered our rare opportunity to pursue our interests without alienating our trading partners' populations. I can't guess at how many deals or how much business American companies have lost over the Iraq occupation -- but I know damn well there is a pecuniary price being paid by U.S. business abroad.
These are not "mushy liberal" facts; they are ugly points of realpolitik analysis.
The idea that underpins most of your comments on this board is that you are defending brutal commonsense against the over-refined imbeciles of Liberalism. This masturbatory notion is the exact opposite of the truth.
-
so shooter, wouldn't the US be better for Saudi Arabia then the House of Saud as well? And wouldn't the US be better for Egypt, Syria, China, Kuwait, Darfur, Tibet, etc. etc. etc.?
Since taking out oppressive tyrants, monarchs, and dictators, and replacing them with Freedom and Democracy is a valid reason for invading other countries and occupying them, what excuse do you have for Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, and all the other oppressive police states we support? Do they get a pass because they are our "friends" and "stalwart allies"? Because, if I recall, Saddam was once our "friend" as well, like when we put him in power to do battle with Iran.
-
Jebbie
It you don't mind, a serious discussion is going on. People like Holly are probably embarrassed
in Glenn's behalf.
Bring the thread up.
It can get real low.
Now if you smelled Nixon's poor deceased secretary, Rosemary, buy a tin can of nosegay.
Grow some lavender.
Make pillow sachets.
-
I see a vision ...
... of 2.7 million Iraqi refugees hauling their TVs from camp to camp, railing against the Americans because they can't watch them but a few hours a day. Damn them for embarrassing the US by not rising above their humanitarian crisis and to seizing the glorious gift we've given them to be able rebuild their country in our image, from basic infrastructure on up.
It's all a matter of perspective ... when life gives you lemons and all ... they are very useful for holding to your nose to cover up the stench of refugee camp squalor.
-
I often feel like...
Throwing your up in despair is capitulation. Surely someone invested in telling us all how smart you were five years ago can do better?
-- shooter242
Throwing my up in despair and disgust when Bush speaks or Shooter posts.
-
Media Script
Glenn writes, "The American media has a script to which they loyally adhere."
Are you suggesting some sort of Project Mockingbird? I wouldn't doubt it since there has to be some reason more than wanting to be cozy with the political elite.
-
@LibertyGal
The CIA involved in disinformation and media manipulation?
SAY IT ISN'T SO!
ANDERSON COOPER WE'RE WATCHING YOU! YOU CIA PLANT, DISINFORMATION SPREADING TWINK!
Guess where the IP Addresses of the people who edit Wikipedia the most come from?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
You too Buchanan, we're watching you, and the Jesuits. And Alex Jones.
-
@ Kitt
In one comment post after another you pretend to support bringing all troops home from everywhere. And now - as you've falsely stated so many times before - in the above comment you are telling us that to not support the invasion of Iraq was and is "defending" Saddam's Iraq. So if you, shooter, support bringing all of the troops home from everywhere, might we assume that you are defending any and all dictators all over the world? According to your logic...yes, we can assume that.
Absolutely correct.
Let me walk you through this.* Since WW2 we have been through many armed conflicts. None have come out well.
* We did it yet again in Iraq, because we over reacted to an act of terrorism we didn't understand. Now we know better.
* It's time to stop getting into armed conflicts, period. We don't have the national will to see them through, and it's time to let the rest of the world (that includes dictators) solve their own problems without our military. Sounds good, yes?
As with all things there is a downside to that idea, which is letting go of control. Once that happens, it's impossible to quantify how out of control the rest of the globe gets, but it's a condition of staying out of armed conflicts. The "might that is right" will belong to someone else, not us. Is that something you can live with? Is that something the nation can live with?Meanwhile, back in Iraq, you and others in a clear choice have decided that Saddam was better for Iraqis than the US. It's an either/or choice, there were no other alternatives. In the argument between which was better between those choices, you voted in favor of a murderous, lying, theiving, torturing, killing, maiming, dictator. OK, fine. At least be man enough to acknowledge that preference. Own it and accept the fact that it makes you look bad. I'm going to disagree with that choice, but given the stark realization that you and people like you are capable of knocking any armed conflict off the rails, I'm going to go with the flow while reserving the right to keep pointing out that you are less concerned with a nations freedoms than orderliness and stability.
As with all things there is a downside to that idea, which is letting go of control. Once that happens, it's impossible to quantify how out of control the rest of the globe gets, but it's a condition of staying out of armed conflicts. The "might that is right" will belong to someone else, not us. Is that something you can live with? Is that something the nation can live with?
Another example is the the downside of beating up the telecoms, is it gives terrorists a certain measure of protection that you folks concede might get some people killed. To many here the answer is yes, that risk is worth it. But has the nation had that conversation? Are we willing to accept a certain number of terrorist deaths as normal, like we do traffic fatalities? If it's discussed and accepted I can roll with it. I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page and understands the risks involved.
So in the end, I hope this escapade is the last for a good long while, but since we are in this, we should give the Iraqis a chance to grow into nationhood. Fair, no?