Saturday, December 30, 2006
|
|
Trevino: Tears for the Devil
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:49 AM
|
|
A guest post from Josh Trevino:
Question: is any major event not fodder for the online left's complaints about the Administration of George W. Bush? They are, to be sure, by and large obsessive cultists in form and effect; but surely reason may kick in at points. One gets the impression of a class of people who wake up, drink their coffee, go to shave, cut themselves, and promptly curse the war in Iraq. The monomania simply does not end -- and the execution of Saddam Hussein is no different. I have already expressed my dislike for executions: but I also retain the bare capacity for rationality that allows me to understand the end of the dictator as a fundamental good.
The leftist "netroots"? Not so much.
A quick survey of what's up front at DailyKos right now -- c.9:30pm PDT -- yields a slew of reader diaries denouncing the execution of Saddam Hussein(!), and/or using it as a jumping-off point to circle against the real enemy. That's George W. Bush, of course. A sampling follows -- and these are the diaries, not the comments:
I want the whole world to be reminded that Saddam's evil excesses were made possible with the aid of BushCo officials.
[P]lease tell me what f------ moral standing does the US (or any other country for that matter) have to go into another country and do what we just did to Saddam? The fact that it is the US - that "shining beacon of freedom" is even worse. What does that say? What message does that send? And who made us World Police anyway? This is a mockery of justice.
Why would I write an obituary for Saddam Hussein? Because he was a human being. He did some horrible things while he was alive, but he was still human. By murdering him we have become no better than he was.
The administration will, in due course, stand to account for a war crime committed in Iraq by executing the Iraqi dictator.
There a lot of great diaries about the execution of Saddam. However, in the few that I've read, little emphasis has been placed on the real reason Saddam had to be executed now, before the New Year ... Politics and the rush to war, this time Iran, compels Bush to execute Saddam now. Bush will squint and glare towards Iran with...Saddam Swinging as Visual Backdrop....
So, overall, did my life change with the execution of Saddam? Only time will tell... if South Park does a really funny episode on it that I can watch on YouTube, I think I can say yes. Otherwise, no. My life is no different in a world without Saddam.
Recall that when the President was still governor of Texas, he never met a death sentence he didn’t like. Uh isn’t that the same sort of justice that cost Saddam his life? ... Saddam’s regime was found guilty of killing 148 Shiite villagers. The purpose of those deaths reportedly was to suppress insurrection ... Now let’s turn our attention to Iraq as it stands today. Most estimates place the number of Iraqi casualties – even those not associated with the military – at somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000. This number makes Saddam look like a piker.
I write this assuming that the early reports are true, that Saddam Hussein has been hanged by the neck until he was dead, dead, dead. Do you think George Bush even stayed up for this? Heck, he sleeps well as it is, so why would he even bother staying up for the execution of the man responsible for...what was it?
Admittedly, DailyKos is not exactly a known font of patriotic feeling or good sense, and there's a sense that the powers there are vaguely aware of this. (The site's founder and proprietor, false bravado about "vindication" to the contrary, has a permanent redirect in place for the direct link to his infamous "screw them" comment deriding dead Americans in Fallujah -- it's in this diary, and you have to scroll down to find it.) To that end, frontpager mcjoan -- who, full disclosure, I rather like -- restricts herself to a sensible, "Would that this could bring peace to the people of Iraq." A single diary begs the dKos community to cut the apologist crap, to no avail -- as of this writing, his attendant user poll has George W. Bush as "more evil" than Saddam Hussein.
A brief look-through of the other major left-blogs reveals little better. Again, a blow-by-blow listing seems appropriate:
Digby moans that she wonders "what would have happened if the US had behaved like a world leader and sent [Hussein] to be tried in the International Criminal Court instead of having the 'Iraqi government' (which clearly has no real legal system) stage a show trial and now execute him in the middle of a civil war." (Ed. note: What is the rationale under which a thing is legitimate because it is "international"?)
Josh Marshall whines about the gap between official rhetoric and deeds, and pronounces the execution of the dictator to be "a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation have been."
Duncan Black stand-in "Attaturk" declares that the death of Hussein is an example "of what 700,000 lives and half-a-trillion dollars can get you nowadays."
Matthew Yglesias mourns that it's "Sad to see even something as justice for a major-league war criminal rendered tawdry by this administration." He then follows up with an outrageous lie: namely, that Saddam was not tried for the "Anfal Campaign ... in order to spare Donald Rumsfeld embarrassment." As if Donald Rumsfeld was in any way responsible for the genocide of the Kurds; and as if the BBC simply fabricated this timeline of -- Saddam Hussein's trial for the Anfal Campaign!
Robert Farley at least has the good sense to recognize that Saddam Hussein was, you know, bad, but tries to save his netroots cred with a lengthy disclaimer: "I don't think his ouster was worth the bones of a single Prussian Grenadier, I'm sure that his execution will have no effect on the course of events in Iraq, I wish that his trial had been conducted according to international standard, and I don't believe in the death penalty."
As it happens, I actually agree with Farley, to varying degrees, on all those points -- but what a pity this is the price for maintaining good standing with the "netroots" crowd. A man can't say it's good to see the tyrant gone, and be done with it.
But then, they don't think the real tyrant is the man who hung today. That is their peculiar madness: an inability to see a fundamental good done without the reflexive, "Yes, but...." They think it a function of their power of perspicacity, but it is nothing more than the very thing that drove the dead man himself: the marriage of persistent paranoia, and enduring hate.
|
|
Saddam's execution was unjust? It's a bad thing the US was involved in the prosecution of this man? He only got executed because WE wanted it? Wow. what planet do these people live on?
Had we NOT captured Saddam, and held him, his execution at the hands of angry Shii' or Kurds would've made the lynchings of Caucescu or Mussolini (and his family) look like garden parties. EVERYONE in Iraq was directly affected by this man, for three decades. Either in a positive way (if you were a tribal member in good standing) or negatively (everyone else, mainly Kurd and Shii'). Our involvement made it as semi-civil as it was, we should be getting praise for guiding the Iraqis through a (admittedly improvable) example of western justice (double entendre intended).
Good on you, Iraq. Good riddance, Saddam. Trevino, you da man. |
|
Laborlawyer,
Trevino didn't even do a whole lot of writing in this particular post---all he did was write, "Saddam has been executed, and here's what the netroots have written about it !"
And you can't dispute that the netroots wrote what they wrote.
Therefore, you're trying to conflate what the netroots have written with your notion that Trevino believes the netroots' blogging represents the beliefs of "all liberals."
(Trevino has said nothing of the sort.)
That's called setting up a straw man, and it's a dishonest debating tactic.
Laborlawyer, the irony is that last week, you were attacking Trevino because you claimed Trevino was assessing Matthew Yglesias' 'motives.'
Yet now you are howling at Trevino about what you believe are Trevino's motives are for this particular post.
Hilarious stuff, Laborlawyer.
|
|
I'm the one saying there are a whole lot of confused liberals out there in regards to right and wrong but that is nothing new. They don't understand good and bad nor what justice looks like. They have misplaced sympathies and efforts. They are rationalizers, ostriches. They pick on the US because they know they are safe to do so. This is not bravery.
But I digress. Trevino is ONLY pointing out the kookiness and madness on the left BLOGS. He is not indicating that the left in general is deranged. His point is that the most influential (which LL thinks should not matter) libs happen to be mad and also happen to have powerful blogs that do, indeed, make Pelosi and them roll over and beg for money.
My point is that this is the logical extension of the far left colliding with technology. This gives the impression that the left is nuts. This also begins a cycle wherein lefties go and read these crazy blogs and become (through osmosis) more and more crazy themselves. A vicious cycle.
The laugher is that no matter how much internet time the far left gets, their politicians know that they cannot win across America with those anarchic views. So you get Tester and Webb and not Lament. Mark my words: when Kennedy finally collapses and Pelosi goes home to her grandchildren the psycho lefties will wait a loooooong time to get their kind back in. |
|
You write:
"Trevino merely provided evidence that the lefty netroots are writing disturbing, morally confused diatribes in response to Saddam's execution."
No, actually he provided statements taken out of context to "prove" a false premise.
"As to this:
You're conflating the netroots with "all liberals."
Trevino is not saying this is symptomatic of "all liberals,"---he's just providing evidence of what the netroots are writing."
I think your disagreement is with Scarlet Pimpernel and all the others who understood Trevino's point perfectly well (as in, nod, nod, wink wink). Or do you agree with Scarlet that all us libs are nutty as fruitcakes? It'd be truly interesting to see you take on Scarlet and all the others- that is, if you really don't agree with them.
Again- what is the point of quoting a bunch of Kos diarists, if not to make a larger point about us libs? If that's all he was doing, he sure wasted a lot of cyberspace for nothing. |
|
|
just because there are a lot of people standing close together it doesn't mean it's a crowd. Just because the most popular liberal websites are chockful o' nuts doesn't mean there are a good number of nuts out there nor does it demonstrate what they think. That's why Pelosi and 'em ignore them so;/ |
|
Laborlawyer,
You're conflating the netroots with "all liberals."
Trevino is not saying this is symptomatic of "all liberals,"---he's just providing evidence of what the netroots are writing. |
|
Laborlawyer,
Sir, stick to debating specifically the merits of what Trevino writes.
But please, don't debate against arguments he hasn't written---what you're doing is called setting up a 'straw man.'
You asked me the question,
"Why is Trevino so obsessed with the diarists at Kos, if not to argue that this is more generally symptomatic of liberals?"
And Laborlawyer, again the answer is, Trevino hasn't written that it is "symptomatic" of liberals.
Trevino merely provided evidence that the lefty netroots are writing disturbing, morally confused diatribes in response to Saddam's execution.
|
|
|
Well then what's the point? Why is Trevino so obsessed with the diarists at Kos, if not to argue that this is more generally symptomatic of liberals? Certainly, most of the comments posted here used Trevino's post as a jumping-off point for making generalized condemnations of "the left" (see the two comments just above yours). Did they all miss what Trevino was trying to say (um, provoke)? |
|
Laborlawyer,
You're attempting the same tactic which you used last week in attacking Trevino, which is to set up a straw man, knock it down, then parade around the boxing ring as if you just knocked down Mike Tyson.
Trevino did NOT make a claim that his examination of diarists at Daily Kos is representative of what "most liberals or progressives think about Hussein."
Rather, Trevino was explicit that this was an examination about the "online left," and "the netroots", and stated such in his opening sentence;
"Question: is any major event not fodder for the ONLINE LEFT's complaints about the Administration of George W. Bush?"
Trevino later wrote, "A brief look-through of the other major LEFT-BLOGS reveals little better" and also "...but what a pity this is the price for maintaining good standing with the "NETROOTS" crowd."
Laborlawyer, Trevino certainly did not claim that his examples reflects "all liberals or progressives" as you claim, and it is dishonest of you to make that assertion.
|
|
Bush and the U.S. are big enough and coordinated enough to do more than one thing at a time. They can set up a democracy, kill lots and lots of bad guys, deter another loon, rid Afghanistan of the Taliban all while sorta looking for OBL. OBL is so 5 years ago.
As for our foreign relations, well, strategy and alliances change all the time. If the good dog hadn't turned bad he wouldn't have gotten executed. I suppose, based on some short-term thinker's worldview, we should really still be enemies with the Brits, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish and the Japanese since we once fought them. I say our foreign relations are "nuanced" which should very much please our liberal friends.
I can't wait to find out what other qualifications we must have so that we may comment on subjects of the day. |
|
It is only going to be a matter of time when the United States gets whacked again, and we are going to whacked real, real hard. Then the Left will go through the predictable gnashing of their gums, flaying of the arms, and making appointments with grief counselors to why the government didn't do anything to protect them.
Will they look upon themselves as being the main stumbling block in protecting this country? No. Its always someone Else's fault. All through their little pitifully miserable lives it has always been someone else's fault. The Left has gotten in the habit of blaming others for their problems its has become second nature to them.
The Left is the product of the baby boomer generation who has catered hand and foot to these whiny bunch of malcontents who aren't happy with anything in their lives. They are constantly in group therapy, got their kids hopped on on Ritalin, and always on the look out for a group hug. The sad part to all this is that the Left thinks the world thinks like they do.
Well, Lefties heres some news to you. Many in the world don't think like you do. There is tyrants, bullies, murderers, psychopathic dictators who would like nothing better to do destroy and take by brute force what you have.
There will be no time outs, there will be no grief counselors, there will be no refills of Prozac prescriptions to help you cope. There will just be the ugly fact that there are really ugly people in the world that want to institute their brand of fanaticism upon you.
So go ahead lefties call me your cute little sound bite catch phrases because I don't care anymore, I'm tired of trying to convince you that the boogey man is very very real out there, and he is coming to you in the night and there isn't no amount of Prozac that will save your miserable little worthless carcass's, but the sad part of it there will be allot of good people that will fall along side you because you didn't have enough courage to stand up and protect yourself. |
|
....dominate Trevino's "analysis". Following the link to Digby's post reveals that the first words state she will "not lose any sleep" over the execution. Further review f Josh Marshall's blog posts show that while he does object to how the execution was handled, he also states:
"Plenty of people deserve to die. And Saddam Hussein ranked very high on that list. And there was more than a little poetic justice in the way Saddam met his end."
IOW Yrevino leaves out crucial statements by the bloggers he cites in order to make a point which fails under further analysis. That's what generally happens when you try to make a silly argument such as that progressives think President Bush is a "worse tyrant" than Hussein. As if concern over process equates to sympathy for the "devil". Try again, Josh. |
|
...by Trevino. Quoting from "diarists" at Daily Kos is hardly representative of what most liberals and progressives think about Hussein. It's a bit like quoting the Vatican and using that to attack Catholics; in case Trevino missed it, the Vatican's condemnation of Saddam's execution is here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240158,00.html
Most of us over on this side hold no brief for Saddam. Personally, I generally oppose capital punishment, but I tend to view this a bit like the State of Israel executing Eichmann despite otherwise opposing the death penalty; those who engage in mass repression can hardly complain when the victims of that repression rise up against them. I just don't see this as making any great difference in the battle against Islamic radicalism, nor as any particular vindication of our failed policy in Iraq. I suspect most on my side feel much the same. |
|
Why did your Great President Bush admit there were no WMD's? Do you need the actual quote? Here's what he knows and everyone else except your bunker mates know. They found evidence of the WMD's sold or given to him by the Reagan and Bush-daddy administrations. Yeah, the enemy of our enemy is our friend until he wants to use his country's oil against "our" multinational oil companies interests.
So, cafrench, how many in your family have gone to war for your precious Bush? How many in HIS family have gone?
|
|
The devil has left the planet. Now Bush can fully concentrate on finding that Saudi Arabian fellow Osama bin Laden. His brilliant mind has been fully taxed by the war on Saddam Hussein (even though Reagan, Rumsfeld and Cheney supported Hussein during his most outrageous crimes against humanity.)
I wonder if it'll take more than 3,000 dead troops to get that guy from SAUDI ARABIA.
Oh, to the people who are drinking the neo-con kool aid of "55,000 people die in car accidents every year and no one complains about that", go shut yourself in a room, you're not fit to live in society.
Impeachment: It's not just for blowjobs.
|
|
|
I totally agree with the story. It is pathetic that the liberals would cry over someone so wicked. He was discusting and deserved every bit of what he got. Liberals lie and hide THE TRUTH. They forgot when he raped all the women and children. By the way I believe in the death penalty. |
|
I can understand and respect a position averring that capital punishment is ineffective, unevenly administered, too often imposed on innocent people, or unfairly applied based on race. What I can't waste time on is the argument that it's not justice. Unless you water its meaning down to "doing what's right," which is a cop out, it means fairness, getting what you deserve. It's a concept that the littlest child understands. If you hurt somebody, you deserve to be punished, and the punishment should be commensurate with your misdeed. That's justice.
The argument against capital punishment boils down to the postmodernist claptrap that everyone has his own truth, or that all truth is relative, all justice is subjective, wrong and right have no meaning. People who buy into that aren't serious. Their opinions always boil down to "I don't like it."
One reason we have laws is to keep people from seeking justice for themselves. Cynics call this vengeance, but to the injured the two terms mean the same thing. A free society must provide justice, or at least some means to seek justice, what claim does it have to our respect?
That question goes extra for Muslims. Those who support Sharia law see it as a just system and an alternative to the vendettas and blood feuds of their tribal pre-Islamic societies.
If we want the Iraqi government to be trusted by Iraqis, they must see it as just. To view this execution as a deed of the Bush administration is an insult to the Iraqis, but people from an upstart society only a few hundred years old.
To fail to punish one who deserves it as richly as a monster like Saddam does is as unjust as punishing an innocent person. |
|
I should distinguish assertions without evidence with the gratuitous assertion. Gratuitous assertions are often assertions of the absolute, "Everybody this..." or "Nobody that...". A single instance refutes the assertion. An assertion without evidence may prove valid, but only when the evidence shows up. Otherwise it's somewhat like the 'so's your old man' assertion. (The 'so's you old man' is a logical fallacy known as tu quoque, pronounced, to-coke-ay.)
blogagog, you are not stealing from me, just learning something where I did, the Greeks. |
|
"Who Bears Responsibility For Our Dead?
Who bears the blame, and the moral and legal responsibility for the approximately 3000 Americans dead, and a mind-numbing estimated 655,000 Iraqis dead (civilian and military)? George W. Bush and his administration and no one else. Saddam was hanged for much less than what George Bush has wrought. When is Bush's trial?"
A ridiculous assertion that supposes there is no moral or legal distinction between outright murder the death of soldiers in the course of war-fighting.
Do you really believe this, Jeff?
|
|
|
|
Could someone explain these things? Why did the European Union find Iraqi WMDs? Why did they watch as Syria tested them in Sudan during the summer of 2004? Why did Libya admit to many tons of WMDs materials in 2004 and allow UN / EU inspections? Can you explain why the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists mentioned Saddam's atomic program in 1998? Most of these articles are archived and may require a registration, which is not malicious, but allows you to access their web sites.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1998 article from Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on Saddam's secret program
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so98hamza
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dutch role in nuclear deals with countries such as Libya
(and the article mentions Iraq)
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?channel_id=2&story_id=4878
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Syria's recent testing of chemical weapons WMDs in Sudan
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/106666/1/.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
European Union versus Syria over chemical weapon WMDs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-nation&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59724-2004Apr7.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59724-2004Apr7?language=printer
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28606670.htm
(just how did Syria get chemical weapons to begin with?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Qaeda's poison gas in Jordan (next to Iraq -- western border):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202501_pf.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Moving banned items across the border
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iraqi Engines in Jordan?
http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap/current/h52393407.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UN's own report on things leaving Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/international/middleeast/10nati.html
Printer-friendly
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/international/middleeast/10nati.html?pagewanted=print&position=
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Europeans' admission to uranium claim:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295002&p=1012571727092
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uranium in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/politics/07NUKE.html
printer friendly:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60910FB3F5F0C748CDDAE0894DC404482
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CIA recruited Saddam's foreign minister
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UVDDPCMUIOQZJQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/22/wirq22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/22/ixworld.html
(what's this about chemical WMD stuff?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sarin WMD warheads:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Qaeda and Iraq:
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.169852178&par=0#
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5326544/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369892/site/newsweek/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,1-1167096,00.html
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD91205
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Syria and nuclear scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/26/ixportaltop.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Libya's 22 tons of Mustard Gas (may have to look in archives for this):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gas6mar06,1,1493912,print.story?coll=la-home-world
(just who were they going to kill, and just who supplied them with the materials to make them?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Libya's plutonium:
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/21/wlibya21.xml
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Libyan missing nuclear devices:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63785-2004May28?language=printer
Original URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63785-2004May28.html
(just who taught the Libyans to make these?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iran with weapons grade uranium and plutonium (Iran is just east of Iraq):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/international/middleeast/11NUKE.html?pagewanted=print&position=
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=42DF9A83-393D-4255-815D684FE624E594
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw040810_1_n.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5802133
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/27/wiran27.xml
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WMDs lost or found:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13168
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sudan orders Syrian WMD out of country
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/april/04_23_2.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WMD plans and preparations:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=383842004
http://news.scotsman.com/print.cfm?id=383842004&referringtemplate=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Escotsman%2Ecom%2Finternational%2Ecfm&referringquerystring=id%3D383842004
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did bunkers hold WMDs?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556813.html?from=storyrhs
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rape photos:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10775392?source=TiL
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why UN Inspectors stopped WMD hunt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=633667
Not the first time the UN Inspectors have been threatened, as was the case some times in the 1990s:
|
|
"Now, will there be debate on this assertion, or simply invalidation?" An assertion without evidence can be refuted by saying "you are wrong".
Well said, but now I'm going to use this line as if I came up with it on my own. Apologies in advance, Vasily :) |
|
|
Once we make Iraq more like us then judges and lawyers won't be killed as much. Then we won't have to listen to misplaced sympathy by ostriches. |
|
Vasily,
Ask the Kurdish Iraqi's what their interests were in Sadamm's trail? Hint; justice for the thousands and thousands dead at the hands of Saddam's orders. Ask the Shia what their interests were in this trial. JUSTICE for the thousands and thousands raped, mutilated and killed at the call of Sadamm. Did the U.S. have an interest in the trial, absolutely. Did it abrogate the Iraqui's, NO.Can't the death of Sadamm go without the libs reflexively thinking it's a George Bush plot, strategy or coup? Do Libs wake up and stub their toes and blame George Bush? From reading the blogs one can't help but say yes. |
|
Spoken by his mate to a very young Sean Connery portraying a Sgt. Flannigan in the film D-Day: "You know, there are some very odd blokes on this beach."
There was a very odd bloke asserting some very odd things here,I'm-uh *certain*.
" I'm asserting that the trial was run by US interests, not Iraqi interests. In fact, if you can define 'Iraqi interests', I'd be very appreciative. C'mon. Prove me wrong..."
I think it is not possible to assert that the trial was 100% run by US interests, without knowing what Iraqi interests were present or absent. That our sturdy commenter himself does not know what the Iraqi interest were, or are, proves the point. One must know the 'interests' in order to dismiss them as irrelvant. If you do not know what they are, how can it be said they had no impact or importance? "C'mon, prove me wrong". (Example from real life: After Paul Wellstone received the stigmata in a planecrash into a bog in northern Minnesota, his stand in, Walter Mondale asserted about the Coleman campaign, "This has been the most negative campaign in history". I would have quickly asked him, "Which was third worst?")
"Further, I didn't say that Iraqis weren't involved. I am asserting that the US was the driver for the capture, incarceration, and quick trial." And this is a bad thing...? If so, why? Quick compared to what or whom? The Ceaucescu's? The Lincoln assination conspirators? Hideki Tojo? Natan Sharanski? Dreyfuss? "C'mon, prove me wrong".
"Now, will there be debate on this assertion, or simply invalidation?" An assertion without evidence can be refuted by saying "you are wrong". In vernacular parlance, the ball is now in your court. If you don't shoot at the basket, you cannot just assert points scored. Without evidence to support an assertion, an assertion remains half asserted. The inability to 'unprove' an assertion does not mean the assertion is valid. (See arguments about the existence of God. Prove God does not exist, I dare you!) "C'mon, prove me wrong".
Like "Shrimpin'", reasoning is "haarrrd".
|
|
|
|
"It is hard from a distance to fathom the depths of his [Saddam's] cruelty -
it is words to us, but to the Iraqi people it was daily life."
More generally, it's hard from a distance to fathom the depths of _anyone's_ cruelty.
flaws in [Hitler]"Nature is cruel, therefore we, too, may be cruel...."?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136822816.386743.26980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
sloppy 'reasoning' regarding Saddam's views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137783927.156295.39350%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
some atheism-adherents' development and use of brutal terror tactics
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Wurmbrand, Pastor Richard. 1967, 1998. _Tortured for Christ_ (USA:
Living Sacrifice Book Company), 169pp. On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Tortured-Christ-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0340863684/sr=8-5/qid=1167135805/ref=sr_1_5/105-8508322-0625202?
On 36:
They are materialists. For them nothing besides
matter exists and to them a man is like wood, like
an eggshell. With this belief they sink to
unthinkable depths of cruelty.
The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe.
factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terror
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%40l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
the secular religion of atheism has a bloody history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
|
|
One way to cut back on spending and to free up more military personal would be to close some military bases around the world. We could put it to a vote by the citizens of those countries. If they want us there we stay. If they don't we should pack up and leave. |
|
Of course, a leftist Blog is going to attack the comments and rantings of the right. A right wing Blog is going to attack the rantings of the left. There will never be any real difference between the two, left or right, and both will constantly complain bitterly, as here, that the otherside is bad and unable to accept the truth and so on.
After a while it gets boring.
Why cannot a few of the more intelligent Bloggers - perhaps including the author(s) of this Blog?) finally come to accept that neither side is always right, nor wrong.
I accept your opinion, although I do not share it, now let's move on.
I know, I know, it isn't going to happen, since it is always the otherside who started it first ... |
|
Whenever I read the lefty blogs, it is like watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead or something. Reminds me of a bunch of 14 year-old kids seeing who can out-do each other in dissing a teacher or something.
Doesn't seem like much content over there, just a lot of emotional outbursts. They must be "more in touch with their feelings". I get the impression that the only logic they use is in rationalizing or validating their initial gut feelings on an issue rather than thinking things through before checking in on how they feel about it. The left seems more emotion driven and the right more logic driven to me. Well, except for the far right. The extremes on both sides are pretty much emotion unchecked by logical thinking. |
|
As one can see from all the leftists crying on this thread!
To the rest of you, Happy New Year! |
|
|
Has anyone read the book Saddam's Secrets by Iraqi General Georges Sada? This was written by a man who was there and had dealings directly with Hussein. He had seen Hussein's brutality, cunning and duplicity. It is hard from a distance to fathom the depths of his cruelty - it is words to us, but to the Iraqi people it was daily life. Having lived under his dictatorship for so many years, life will not change overnight; not when fear is imbedded in your psyche. I do not rejoice at the death penalty but I believe it is necessary. |
|
|
I would like to know how many of the bed wetting whiners posting about how bad it was to hang Saddam have actually been in country. If you have not been there than you do not know what evil really is. |
|
"Saddam was hanged for much less than what George Bush has wrought."
Thanks for stopping by! |
|
|
Who bears the blame, and the moral and legal responsibility for the approximately 3000 Americans dead, and a mind-numbing estimated 655,000 Iraqis dead (civilian and military)? George W. Bush and his administration and no one else. Saddam was hanged for much less than what George Bush has wrought. When is Bush's trial? |
|
The Iraqi tribunal missed one. They should have hanged one of Saddam's main lawyers (Ramsey Clark) right alongside. Tsk, tsk. Since they didn't guess we need to make sure he gets himself a good lawyer for his return home.
Taproot |
|
How is taking any excuse to bash Bush different from taking any excuse to bash the Left? In essence, I mean? Surely, anyone taking a moment to reflect, as you’re purporting to have done, would also acknowledge that an execution as high-profile as this is going to push very emotional (read: most likely irrational) buttons in nearly everyone (e.g., the salivating at redstate.com is particularly repugnant, regardless of whether one believes in the death penalty or not), so why choose this topic to illustrate how cult-like the left is? Again, I mean?
With respect, the subtext of your critique seems to be that if any event should unite the country, surely the departure of the demonic dictator should be high on the list, but rather than walk the walk on that topic, you’re joining in and bashing right back…. Do you recognize your own role in the behavior you’re denouncing? |
|
What amazes me is that we still expect Liberals to like us. They hate Republicans. I don't care. They were in control for forty years. I used to be very Liberal. The Liberal mantra more money for our schools is what woke me up. Money was not the solution for our liberal government schools.
I do not care what Liberals say or think. |
|
|
|
|
|
41 comments and for the most part all we get is some lame derivative of "It's our fault," and a name calling contest.
Beautiful to see how the conservative-haters want to make it all about conservatism, W and the United States' "dirty-hands" than about the rule and acts of a truly loathesome tyrant. |
|
The military reported the deaths of six more American troops... (My note: this is catching up with deaths previously announced, but not identified publicly yet. "Only" two US soldiers died today.)
In Baghdad, 12 bodies bearing signs of torture were also found in various parts of the city...
Two car bombs detonated one after another in a religiously mixed neighborhood of northwest Baghdad, killing 37 civilians and wounding 76...
Another 31 people died and 58 were injured when a bomb planted on a minibus exploded in a fish market...
The sad part is that this really isn't any better or worse than most other recent days. Obviously, if killing Saddam had an effect, it hasn't been shown today. |
|
First of all, let's save each other some time, and stipulate going in that if a democrat is talking, he's blaming George W. Bush for something.
That point aside, The usual suspects are chanting the usual mantra about how his death isn’t going to change Iraq for the better. I see these efforts as misguided; Iraq was changed the moment he was deposed… and secondarily the moment he was captured. His death at the hands of his own people, as I have suggested, was a foregone conclusion, once THOSE events took place. The question that our press here should be asking is” “What would be different had he remained alive?”
For my part, I suggest that Iraq would have been a more violent place. Both from people angry that justice had not been served, and from people seeking his reinstatement as dictator for life. Both of those situations will not now happen, and I can’t say that I’m unhappy about that. His death, you see, seals those changes made on his removal, in stone. |
|
Thanks for responding in a mature fashing Brad. In all seriousness and candor I will attempt to answer your questions on this issue as I see them.
"Yes. Please. Point me to some debate. Any debate. Anywhere."
Examine the debate surrounding the intial invasion of Iraq. Examine the arguments of those on the right who believed (and still do) that invading Iraq was not required and politically stupid (some examples would include Pat Buchanan, Brent Scrowcroft and the recently deceased Gerald Ford). Look at the debate surrounding the confirmation of Harriet Meyers on this site. Take a look at the debate between business conservatives and those who think stricker immigration enforcement is needed. The debate is there Brad and it seems strange that one would need to point it out. If you are a newcomer to this site then I guess that is understandable.
"Great. I'll go with that. I just want to know: Who are the "Iraqi interests"? That's it. That's all I'm asking for."
The Iraqi interests would be those brave souls who took to the polls in millions to decide the fate of their country and who wish to live in peace and security. The ones who realize that a free Iraq is not possible with Saddam and his ilk plotting to undermine it.
"Further, I didn't say that Iraqis weren't involved. I am asserting that the US was the driver for the capture, incarceration, and quick trial."
The U.S was the driver for the capture and incarceration because it is the stongest force in the country at the moment. The one force capable of rooting out the slimebag from his spiderhole. If the U.S had wanted to be the driving force to kill Saddam why wait for a trial? Why not kill him on sight? It was the Iraqis who decide the fate of Saddam after his capture. To suggest otherwise is silly.
"Yes, I do. The Ba'ath Party is Sunni-based. Saddam was a Sunni. The definition of Saddam as a dictator depends on the Sunni minority."
But that has little importance once Saddam is gone for good. Once he has vanished the practical means for survival for Ba'athists is quite clear. Muslims (those who take themselves the most seriously anyway) owe allegiance to religious icons. Those are the individuals that they are willing to wage war for. Name the secular icons from the Muslim world they are willing to die for please.
"That's the difference between opinion and assertion. Opinion doesn't require evidence."
Opinion does not require evidence to make an argument but in order for that argument to be taken into serious consideration such evidence is essential.
|
|
Well. It is possible that I was looking for something, you know, self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe I thought, "This is probably just another conservative nutjob site, I wonder whether they'll respond the way I predict if I bait them."
In that regard, I suppose I have been trolling for disagreement.
It's obvious that I won't be granted any credibility, and you all seem to have everything figured out for yourselves, so really, go on and enjoy.
I think that what did it for me--that is, had me decide to just hang up on y'all--was the way that some of you twisted my words to mean exactly the opposite of what I intended. I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate misinformation. It's more like you guys read enough of any post (unless you already know the nickname) to decide whether or not you agree, and then post accordingly.
BTW, I don't wish for social unrest here, or worse conditions in Iraq, or anything else that would prove my assertions and predictions. I'm saying that the present plan hasn't worked, isn't working, and won't work. That's it.
So go on, post whatever you want. You can be *certain* that I'll never see it. |
|
"What I'm asking for is for someone to define the Iraqis who wanted Saddam tried and executed."
The ones shooting the AK-47's into the air?
"Think it'd be a different story for any of y'all if the draft was revived?"
Not unless they plan to draft me out of active duty.
"Okay. Not sure where you're going with this. I suppose you think I'm a liberal, since I'm not posting "me, too", "you're right", "go get 'em", or somesuch."
I'm not a liberal! I'm a free thinking independent progressive socialist peacenik! So there all you "me too" "you're right" "go get em" "somesuch" fascists! |
|
The three little troll stooges (Brad, BJ, and Snapdigger) make it quite clear what happens when a society forgets the consequences of ignorance.
Easy, now. I most certainly did not assert that there is no debate here. I *asked* whether there was, and for the third time, yes, I would like some examples. I found this entry (and these lovely comments) because it was #1 when I googled for saddam+hussein+execution. I was feeling lucky back then. Now I wonder why I'm wasting my time.
Yes. Please. Point me to some debate. Any debate. Anywhere.
BTW, you made excellent points on what debate is and its value.
"The trial of Saddam was administered for the purpose of both Iraqi and U.S interests."
Great. I'll go with that. I just want to know: Who are the "Iraqi interests"? That's it. That's all I'm asking for.
Further, I didn't say that Iraqis weren't involved. I am asserting that the US was the driver for the capture, incarceration, and quick trial.
Now, will there be debate on this assertion, or simply invalidation?
"Fuel for the Sunnis? Do you really think a majority of Sunnis bear some kind of beyond the grave allegiance to Saddam?"
Yes, I do. The Ba'ath Party is Sunni-based. Saddam was a Sunni. The definition of Saddam as a dictator depends on the Sunni minority.
"In a country where 15% of the population is Sunni? What sense does it make to dedicate yourself to fighting to the death against the remaining 85% for the memory of a savage dictator who brought you ultimately nothing but pain?"
That is a fantastic question. The answer is, "It doesn't make *any* sense. That's why religious fanaticism is required to keep it going."
I think you're also suffering from the delusion that Saddam inflicted pain on each and every Iraqi, indiscriminately. He favored his fellow party members, and his fellow Sunnis--as long as they weren't trying to assassinate him or undermine his leadership.
"If you think this period will surpass Vietnam in turmoil where is your evidence?"
That's the difference between opinion and assertion. Opinion doesn't require evidence.
"Where are the marching crowds of milllions of leftists?"
None yet. Sorry, just my opinion. To me, the patterns are all present again. Unpopular President escalates an unpopular war. Surveillance on private citizens is up. Secret prisons are acknowledged this time, whereas before they were merely suspected.
Like I said, just my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but don't insult anyone's intelligence by refuting a prediction of the future with current events.
"You attempt to smear your opponents by claiming they all march in lockstep and engage in dishonest rhetoric."
Where, exactly, did I do this? I'm willing to accept that I remind you of someone who did this, but I honestly don't think I've done it here. Really, show me what I typed that could be taken that way.
"Some debate and argument will always devolve into personal attacks and smears from both left and right. If you examine the core of the arguments beyond this you may find yourself open to new thinking."
This is the weirdest of all, because I agree with this completely. Especially the "new thinking" part.
"Now you can blow me away Brad."
Help me out, here. What were you expecting? And did you get it? |
|
Sorry, debate and discussion often involves disagreement. I thought my statements and observations were fair. In #2 I even suggest that you could be right, though I personally don't believe you are. If you simply want me to provide some sort of feedback that you agree with I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I would imagine disappointment is something you are used to even at your young age.
So call me out, crow or engage in some other sort of electronic bravado dude. I only hope my username can stand the verbal torrents.
"I heartily disagree with societal division. It is my opinion that our acceptance of Richard Nixon's pardon was the beginning of the tar pit we find ourselves in today."
Well, it's my opinion that this has almost zero to do with this post. As I said earlier, I was around during Viet Nam and the division you speak of was occurring long before most people knew who Gerald Ford was.
|
|
Lessee if I got everything . . . guitar; patchouli oil; Che! t-shirt . . .
Yup. I'm all set.
[clears throat again]
[tunes guitar]
This one's for all our oppressed brothers and sisters out there.
Oh gather ‘round, good people,
And learn the wretched course
That led to the unfair murder
Of a Unifying Force,
Who held tough against oppression
In the form of the U.S.A.
And the Zionist cabals
That run rampant in our day.
Oh, sure, he torched a well or two,
And filled a few mass graves,
And his appetite for torture
Almost rivaled Abu Ghraib’s;
But the scamp had one fine virtue
By which all else must measured:
He was the enemy of our enemy,
And for that let him be treasured.
Thank you! You're too kind. Next show's at midnight, but first I need to light one up.
[cross-posted at Hot Air] |
|
"Dude. Seriously. If you don't want to, just don't answer. I promise, I'm not the type to call anyone out, or to crow in victory at an unanswered post. You seem predisposed to simply disagree with me. If that's the case, no harm, no foul. Like I said, I'm looking for debate and discussion, not a defensive posture."
Translation: I'm above all this petty stuff. You are predisposed to disagree with me because you don't agree with me. I'm looking for debate and discussion unless you don't agree with me. In which case I will call you a lemming. Now debate away!
|
|
"EVERY ONE OF TREVINO'S POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT QUALIFY."
Okay. Hey, no need to shout. I'll have a look. Any pointers? Links? Anything? Okay, thanks.
"SHOW US SOME VIDEO OF A U.S. OFFICIAL STANDING NEXT TO THE IRAQI JUDGE WHISPERING IN HIS EAR."
Sorry, don't have that. What I do have is a raft of articles and official papers which show a distinct pattern of anti-Ba'ath moves by the Provisional Authority which led specifically to the capture, incarceration, trial, and execution of SH. I also have a dozen references to how the judges were chosen, and how different the entire process was from any comparable process in the past.
"HMNNNN, AN IRAQI INTEREST: 'Saddam, please stop throwing us into industrial paper shredders. Thank you very much.'"
Heh. That's pretty funny. What I'm asking for is for someone to define the Iraqis who wanted Saddam tried and executed. For bonus points, include those who wanted him executed on one of the holiest days in Islam.
"It is called 'majority rule.' You know...elections? Democracy?"
Hey, you've got quite a sense of humor, there. Yes, I'm familiar with these concepts. I'm also familiar with the Sunnis' long and colorful history of reprisals via terrorism. Look back at blogagog's post in this thread, the Sunni attacks are laid out pretty well, there.
I'm guessing that you don't think there'll be any Sunni reprisals--especially with the execution being held at the holiest time of the holiest day in the Islamic calendar. It's either deliberate, or a colossal blunder.
"I DON'T PLAN ON BURNING MY BRA ANY TIME SOON."
Thank you for that.
"By the way nor do I see mass rioting."
Oh, just wait.
"Everything with liberals is about Vietnam."
Okay. Not sure where you're going with this. I suppose you think I'm a liberal, since I'm not posting "me, too", "you're right", "go get 'em", or somesuch.
Everything's not about Viet Nam, but the fallout from the misguided invasion of Iraq is. Especially now that we're being told that there will be escalation. Y'all notice that they're testing the Selective Service machines? Think it'd be a different story for any of y'all if the draft was revived? Hmmmm... why in the *world* would we need more troops at this point in time? |
|
The three little troll stooges (Brad, BJ, and Snapdigger) make it quite clear what happens when a society forgets the consequences of ignorance.
Snapdigger thinks todays lib paint sniffer crowd actually responds to "real" threats. To back up this undeniable fact he cites Harbor,Pearl (perhaps he has missed the significance of 60 or so years since this happened). He forgot bombing asprin factories in Sudan or passing 11 years worth of UN resolutions to "deal" with the threat of a Saddam run Iraq too. Or perhaps he meant John Kerry and friends protesting against fighting the Soviets and their proxys. Perhaps Snap thinks WWII was fought by brigades of bellbottom wearing flower children who think America is an evil racist entity needing destruction. No wait, that was the Liberal crowd during Vietnam. The peroid that Brad thinks will look tame in comparison to the divisions being sown today by evil right wing neo cons. Of course Brad probably knows little of history and the divisons that wracked American society say during the run up to and after the Civil War. Or the divisons between Americans during the Revolutionary period.
Here you go Brad I'll take the bait and answer your oh so challenging questions.
1. Debate is a hallmark of free thinking individuals. Those who take pride in themselves as individuals. Consequently you will find much debate among conservatives on this and most center right blogs amongst ourselves and with your kind (If you wish to read some examples I would be more that happy to supply them). You assert that eveyone here is interested in parroting one another simply because you yourself cannot debate these issues with any sort of impact. If you can't persuade others, simply invalidate their positions by claiming no debate exists.
2. The trial of Saddam was adminstered for the purpose of both Iraqi and U.S interests. That mutual interest being a free, open and secure society in Iraq. One can argue wether or not executing Saddam will ulitmately accomplish this. One cannot argue that Iraqis were not involved in the process or that they had no stake in it.
3. Fuel for the Sunnis? Do you really think a majority of Sunnis bear some kind of beyond the grave allegiance to Saddam? In a country where 15% of the population is Sunni? What sense does it make to dedicate yourself to fighting to the death against the remaining 85% for the memory of a savage dictator who brought you ultimately nothing but pain?
4. If you believe this I would suggest you examine the periods of societial conflict in past peroids in America. Above were mentioned both the leadup and aftermath of the Civil War and the Revolutionary period.
If you think this period will surpass Vietnam in turmoil where is your evidence? Where are the marching crowds of milllions of leftists? Where is the rioting? Where are the arrests and violence? Healthy and sometimes feeling insensitive debate has occured before and will occur again once we are gone. You attempt to smear your opponents by claiming they all march in lockstep and engage in dishonest rhetoric. Some debate and arguement will always devolve into personal attacks and smears from both left and right. If you examine the core of the arguments beyond this you may find yourself open to new thinking.
Now you can blow me away Brad. |
|
"Brad, Snapdigger, and I offer a few counterarguments...."
That's overstating things, eh? |
|
Dude. Seriously. If you don't want to, just don't answer. I promise, I'm not the type to call anyone out, or to crow in victory at an unanswered post. You seem predisposed to simply disagree with me. If that's the case, no harm, no foul. Like I said, I'm looking for debate and discussion, not a defensive posture.
I heartily disagree with societal division. It is my opinion that our acceptance of Richard Nixon's pardon was the beginning of the tar pit we find ourselves in today.
|
|
"Britain screwed up that part of the world for ever and ever, so America must pay."
I had to put this one up front. It's just too rich a vein not to mine. It may even be the motherlode.
What are you saying, that you think that this is or is not the case? Hard to tell through the irony. Surely you agree that the Brits did a horrible job, and it's obvious that the US has taken over since the creation of Israel. What do you mean by "...so America must pay," though?
Otherwise, nice job on the sarcasm. Not sure why you invoked the "terrorism didn't start with the invasion of Iraq" thing, but otherwise, good form, very consistent.
I get the impression that you're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that, nor do I mean to infer anything like that. Maybe because I mentioned a desire for debate and discussion, you looked in your tool chest and that's all you found. In particular, where do you get the "it's our fault that they attacked us" crap? Who believes that?
It's quite another thing to consider one's responsibility in the matter. See, we have one word for "blame", and another for "responsibility", so they're not the same thing. If you prefer to use them interchangeably, hey, that's your choice.
It is my opinion that US foreign policy is a required factor for consideration of problems in geographic areas where we have spent money, time, and resources to have our way. It would be awesome if everyone loved us and presumed that we were always there to help, but that is most certainly not the case. Our history of collateral damage hasn't helped that image. Plus there are political interests which profit from tarnishing our image.
So, yeah, I don't view the US as 100% innocent. Do you? And what is "the US" to you, anyway? Everyone on our soil? Just the citizens? Citizens and invited guests? Or is it the Federal Government? Maybe it's the Feds + the military (but not the National Guard, those are state troops)(oh, wait, they're most in Iraq now, anyway).
Or maybe you don't have a static definition for what "the US" is. Guess what? Our enemies do.
In the same way that you think of Iraqis as a congealed mass of blood, bone, and beliefs, the rest of the world thinks we're all of one mind.
BTW, what exactly is Islamofascism? I keep seeing this term, and I guess it refers to state-enforced Sharia law. Anything else to the term, or is that it? |
|
Just before this one, posted at 10:40 this morning describing the execution:
-Brought to You Courtesy of the Red, White And Blue-
Brad, Snapdigger, and I offer a few counterarguments and now you're walking it back! "We had nothing to do with the trial! It was all Iraqis! Really!"
This entire show trial has been conducted as if those performing their parts were thoroughly ashamed of what they were doing for the occupying force.
They should have been. |
|
Well thanks for boiling it down for me, but I'm not sure there was much to boil down to begin with. Yours is the diatribe sir, not mine. If you want lucidity, you might begin with some of your own.
"1. I don't notice any debate or discussion here, just invalidation and dogma. Do you guys ever do that here (could you point me to an example or two)?"
I'm, not here often but I would imagine there is everything from debate, to name calling and echo-chamber rattling. I'm not sure what part of your rant meets the criteria of debate? The thrust of what you said seems to be that those who don't agree with you need to further educate themselves.
2. I'm asserting that the trial was run by US interests, not Iraqi interests. In fact, if you can define "Iraqi interests", I'd be very appreciative.
You might be correct, and you might not be. Either way you don't offer any supportive evidence to your claim. You can assert all you like. As occupiers, we may very well steer, run, cooperate or push the Iraqis in one direction or another. It is possible however, that if we truly wanted to control things, we'd have been better off shooting him in his little hole where we found him, rather than give him a stage at his trial. As for Iraqis interests, I am not Iraqi but I would suggest that deposing a dictator responsible for death and torture on such an unimaginable scale might be said to be in the interests of his victims.
3. The execution is nothing more than fuel for the Sunnis, who consider the present government as a US-backed Shiite government.
With respect, there is no shortage of fuel in Iraq, literal or otherwise. People bent on killing generally need no fuel unless they need to manufacture some to make a statement.
4. The techniques used here and elsewhere are increasing the divisions in US society, such that the unrest during Viet Nam will look tame by comparison.
I was around during Viet Nam. Civil divisions are fine. While I agree that there is vitriolic BS on both sides, it is and remains my opinion that the vast majority comes from the left, as it did during Viet Nam.
And to you the Still Caring Snapdigger, FDR and Kennedy for that matter, would not recognize the current left. To include them as part of the left's current ranks is historically ignorant. |
|
No, I'm not old enough to have done anything besides wonder what the big deal was with Viet Nam. I just happen to know a lot of people who fought there, commanded there, and created policy for use there. Plus quite a few who used to live there, and a few who still live there.
Not sure what you mean by "David Crosby" type. Short hair, no facial hair, no drugs, no guns, no sperm donation to lesbian couples, can't sing my way out of a paper bag, much less harmonize. Sorry to disappoint.
So I don't actually *remember* what happened. I've researched it very thoroughly, though. Your choice of key events reveals that you have not.
BTW, it distracts from the discussion to engage in ad hominem attacks. Your made-up metaphors about how I feel are most unappreciated. You know next to nothing about me, yet you're willing to label me in unattractive terms. This indicates that you don't have any logic to back up what little you have to say.
I think that all you have to say is, "You're right" to the regulars here, and "You're wrong" to everyone else. If that's all that this site is, hey, that's great. Y'all enjoy.
1. What do you mean, my "larger assault against authority and American institutions"? Just define the terms. I understand that you've labelled me and therefore have made sweeping assumptions about what I stand for. I just want to know what you mean by "authority" and "American institutions".
2. "... the totalitarian state of the "Communist Revolution" which your North Vietnamese brothers were inflicting, was the ultimate expression of 'authority.' They didn't allow for any 'Woodstock' celebrations, I assure you." 100% accurate, IMHO. Not sure why you bothered typing all of this.
3. "Your tearful eyes on behalf of Saddam's broken neck emanates from the old addage that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'" You totally lost me here. I don't give a rip about Saddam. I will say that it was a colossal blunder to hold the execution during the Haj. Watch: the Shi'ites will regard it as a gift, and the Sunnis will go crazy. I'm not saying that the trial or the execution was a bad idea. I'm saying that it was run very poorly--just like everything else since the invasion. How do you get from "the enemy of my enemy.." to imagining that I'm somehow for Saddam? BTW, I don't think that way. The enemy of my enemy is simply that, my enemy's enemy. To assume friendship in any context is foolish beyond description.
4. "And we've figured out that your enemy is President Bush, rather than the Islamo-fascists." Oh, you have, have you? Please show me how you figured that out. And who's "we"? I was under the impression that the aliases here represent individuals. President Bush isn't my enemy. He's my President.
5. "If you're a student of Middle East history then you surely recognize that the Middle East paradigm is different from Vietnam." Yes. The paradigm is different. We got involved with Viet Nam because of concerns over the spread of Communism. We invaded Iraq because of concerns over the development and proliferation of WMDs.
6. "At the very least, I'm sure you recall the slaughter which occurred after we LEFT Vietnam." No, actually, I don't. I'm sure you recall the slaughter which occurred after we promised support to the Shiites in Iraq 15 years ago and then left them hanging, though. Would you please refer me to your resources on the slaughter in Viet Nam after the US withdrew? You do have some, don't you? Surely you're not just repeating someone else's talking points, are you?
7. "Remember when Ted Kennedy & the Democrat Congress stridently opposed supplying our Vietnamese allies with medical supplies & weapons for self-defense ? You do know how that turned out, right ?" No, but I'll spot you that one. How did it turn out, again?
8. "The fact that Iraqi judges, bailiffs, lawyers, et al, were targeted for murder during the course of the Saddam trial proves..." It proves that the person whose post I responded to left something out. That's all I was saying.
9. "...how brutal our Islamo-fascist opponents are---thus, we have no choice but to defeat them." OK, wait. You're saying that our opponents are brutal, and therefore we must defeat them. Could you flesh that out, just a little? And while you're at it, would you please explain to me who our opponents are? Is it the Sunnis? The Shiites? All of Iraq? Just the men? Surely we have a well-defined opponent to justify spending TRILLIONS of dollars.
10. "And whether or not you wish to fight them---they want to fight YOU." Okay. And who are they, again?
Look, I understand that you like this blog, and that you're, like, a regular around here. That's great, but I'm looking for someone to explain the conservative (or whatever you're calling it) viewpoint. I'm sick and tired of reading liberal blogs that just react to news they don't like, and conservative blogs doing pretty much the same thing, plus they both find what they do like and emphasize that.
I should add that I don't expect much. I've tried this on several other blogs of "both" (like there are only two) persuasions, and it ends up the same way. C'mon. Prove me wrong. |
|
1. I don't notice any debate or discussion here, just invalidation and dogma. Do you guys ever do that here (could you point me to an example or two)?
EVERY ONE OF TREVINO'S POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT QUALIFY.
2. I'm asserting that the trial was run by US interests, not Iraqi interests. In fact, if you can define "Iraqi interests", I'd be very appreciative.
SHOW US SOME VIDEO OF A U.S. OFFICIAL STANDING NEXT TO THE IRAQI JUDGE WHISPERING IN HIS EAR.
HMNNNN, AN IRAQI INTEREST: "Saddam, please stop throwing us into industrial paper shredders. Thank you very much."
3. The execution is nothing more than fuel for the Sunnis, who consider the present government as a US-backed Shiite government.
SO.
It is called "majority rule." You know...elections? Democracy?
4. The techniques used here and elsewhere are increasing the divisions in US society, such that the unrest during Viet Nam will look tame by comparison.
I DON'T PLAN ON BURNING MY BRA ANY TIME SOON. By the way nor do I see mass rioting. Everything with liberals is about Vietnam.
|
|
"There is nothing of any value to address in your ramblings."
I'm so sorry. I did go on for quite a bit, there, didn't I? Let me boil it down for you:
1. I don't notice any debate or discussion here, just invalidation and dogma. Do you guys ever do that here (could you point me to an example or two)?
2. I'm asserting that the trial was run by US interests, not Iraqi interests. In fact, if you can define "Iraqi interests", I'd be very appreciative.
3. The execution is nothing more than fuel for the Sunnis, who consider the present government as a US-backed Shiite government.
4. The techniques used here and elsewhere are increasing the divisions in US society, such that the unrest during Viet Nam will look tame by comparison.
Address even one of these in a lucid and cogent fashion, and I'll be very, very impressed. Please. Blow away my prejudice. |
|
Good points, Brad! Because there was no islamofascism or terrorism before we invaded Iraq. When someone asks why some peace loving muslims attacked the WTC twice, blew up the USS Cole, bombed our embassies, blew up clubs in bali etc, we can tell them the truth. It was all our fault for removing that great and peaceful benefactor of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Besides being such a great guy, he was only slightly murderous - well within the parameters of 'peaceful' as long as you are only talking about the progressive definition of the word. You know, like Arafat was 'peaceful'.
It's all our fault that they attack us! Maybe if we run away and apologize for ousting such a great guy, they will go back to killing Americans in terrorist attacks only once or twice a year. That would be kind of bad, but we deserve it, because Britain screwed up that part of the world for ever and ever, so America must pay. After all, we speak the same language. Maybe if we set up some kind of dhimmi tax to give to them until the end of time, they could forgive us?
Geez Brad. "Not that I think you'll follow a shred of my advice." I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm going to start not following a shred of your advice right now! |
|
Liberals have a history of responding with force to actual threats to our national security (see Harbor, Pearl).
Conservatives, current ones anyway, have a history of using force against imaginary threats (Saddam Hussein) and then, when it's pointed out that the use of force was totally useless, conservatives respond by accusing liberals of not caring enough about what a bad guy Saddam was.
Conservatives are all touchy-feely, more concerned with feelings (doesn't it feel good to take out Saddam?) than actual national security interests (it was never in our interest to topple Saddam). Liberals are the ones who are more concerned with threats than "feelings." |
|
You're descending further into incoherence as conservativsm's failure grows too big to ignore.
I notice that now you're anxious to give all the "credit" to the "Iraqis" who in actuality did nothing but stand around taking orders from Washington. But this was supposed to be your BIG MOMENT! This was WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT! Killing Saddam was THE NEXT TURNING POINT!
(As I posted on another thread, I also find it just amazing that Bush botched the show trial so thoroughly, ending with scheduling the execution for minimum press coverage. This would never have happened if Karl Rove were still alive.)
The divisiveness was the Right wing's doing. Period. You decided to make this "war" a partisan issue, which worked in 2002 and '04, and now you're whining because you're losing. You rejected all advice from anyone who disagreed with you in any way, so this defeat's all on you.
If you right wingers think "all is lost," then like Denethor in the Lord of the Rings, you have a way out. The rest of us will be living our lives. |
|
Brad Eleven,
After reading your angry diatribe, it sounds like you're an older David Crosby-type who still revels in fighting against the Vietnam War as part of your larger assault against 'authority' and traditional American institutions.
The irony, naturally, is that the totalitarian state of the "Communist Revolution" which your North Vietnamese brothers were inflicting, was the ultimate expression of "authority."
They didn't allow for any "Woodstock" celebrations, I assure you.
Your tearful eyes on behalf of Saddam's broken neck emanates from the old addage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And we've figured out that your enemy is President Bush, rather than the Islamo-fascists.
If you're a student of Middle East history then you surely recognize that the Middle East paradigm is different from Vietnam.
At the very least, I'm sure you recall the slaughter which occurred after we LEFT Vietnam.
Remember when Ted Kennedy & the Democrat Congress stridently opposed supplying our Vietnamese allies with medical supplies & weapons for self-defense ?
You do know how that turned out, right ?
The fact that Iraqi judges, bailiffs, lawyers, et al, were targeted for murder during the course of the Saddam trial proves how brutal our Islamo-fascist opponents are---thus, we have no choice but to defeat them.
And whether or not you wish to fight them---they want to fight YOU.
respectfully yours. |
|
|
Well, liberals "care" more about everything of course. What other fuel would they use to bolster their natural superiority over others? Providing more than lip service about anything is the problem. |
|
|
I am appalled that liberals care more about America's national security than about the death of a foreign dictator. |
|
"No, wait--don't. If you do that, you'll gain such a profound understanding that you'll stop running these blogs and posting these comments. *Then* where shall I go to find fools to mock?"
Your post doesn't indicate any understanding on your part, profound or otherwise. As to where you might mock fools, I'd suggest you start by mocking the fools that exist between your two ears.
There is nothing of any value to address in your ramblings. |
|
It looks like we have two sides, here, and more distortion than a Motorhead show. So "you guys"--whatever you call yourselves here--were all *for* the execution, and anyone who disagrees at all is a Leftist, whom you all know to be cowardly. And mentally ill.
"Alas all I can muster..." Riiiiight. Something tells me you haven't ever been ordered to muster *anything*. For sure you've never started a sentence to a superior officer with "All I can muster..." Let's be clear about this: That's all that you're *willing* to muster. And it's cowardly.
I think you guys are missing the point, and even though I'm pretty sure you have no interest in getting any point besides your own, I want to point out that it was not just "some of the lawyers" who were murdered during the trial, it was also some of the judges. And some of the bailiffs. FFS, the trial was in Baghdad, where some of the people are being killed every day, regardless of occupation.
Go ahead. Look it up. And while you're doing *that*, consider that you don't know it all, individually or collectively.
It's ridiculous to argue the involvement of Iraqis in the trial. You guys know what BJ meant, but you're intentionally distorting the question in order to fit your no-shades-of-grey answers. The people in the courtroom were 100% Iraqi, but the trial was 100% driven by US interests, starting with L. Paul Bremer.
Hey. Nut Job. When you reduce things to black and white, you clear the way for violence. Oh, and your stupidity is showing with that "Winning At All Costs" formula. Take your money to Vegas, all of it, and let me know how that strategy works, there.
Notice also how the divisiveness *right*here* is growing, daily. Any of you here old enough to remember Viet Nam? Never mind what went on there--what about what went on *here*? Have a look. It's disgusting, and this time I think we'll get twice the militias here in these United States. Maybe we'll even get twice the civil unrest. And just think--more murders of innocent civilians, right here on the local news.
Go ahead. Go for it. Damn the torpedoes. Keep on fighting the good fight, and keep telling yourselves that It Can't Happen Here.
Or is that what you guys mean when you say, "If we don't defeat 'them' there, 'they' will follow us here" ?? Do you mean the Islamic terrorists? Or do you mean the people that our tax dollars have paid to destabilize?
Give it some thought this time. Give your knee-jerk muscles a rest.
Not that I think you'll follow a shred of my advice. You guys seem to think this is some league-sanctioned game. I wouldn't be surprised if you were already stocking up on collectible swag.
Here's an idea: Why not actually dig in and learn the history of that region we call the Middle East? Look closely at who's messed with it, what the results were (and are), and then compare that list with who's messing with it now, and what the predictable results are.
No, wait--don't. If you do that, you'll gain such a profound understanding that you'll stop running these blogs and posting these comments. *Then* where shall I go to find fools to mock?
Yes. Please. Stay in for this one, and limit your sources of information to those which agree with you. |
|
|
In addressing the Nutroots at Kos, I vacillate between wanting to wax profound and or profane. Alas all I can muster is amazement and perhaps sympathy for an intellect that cannot even get up to bat let alone score a home run. My friends who are democrats when I point out the moonbat rants just get a disgusting look on their face and say “why do you read that crap!” Alas “that crap” is representative of a serious problem on the left that even those in the same party lack the ability to address. Add to that the complicate minions in the MSM and rational minds MUST stay engaged or all is lost. |
|
If nobody will know, how do you know? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are other outlets to tell one's story other than a witness stand, and that those who have a compelling story to tell, and a desire to tell it, will find someone willing to help them out.
Agree or disagree with capital punishment, execution is about justice, not punishment. There is no law in any legal system that I'm aware of that defers punishment to preserve a defendant for the application of additional charges. If that were the case, mass murderers like Saddam would die of old age getting all of the trials done. |
|
"Iraqis" had nothing whatsoever to do with the trial."
Let's see, the judge was Iraqi. The defense witnessess were Iraqui. The plantiff's witnessess were Iraqi. The prosecutor was Iraqi. The VICTIMS were Iraqi. Saddam's defense team was primarily Iraqi.The court room guards were Iraqi. Still think Iraqui's had nothing to do with this trial?
Mindless b.s will be absorded on other sites and dismissed, but not on this one. Do yourself a favor, think before you post or climb back into the pit over at HuffPo. |
|
|
I find BJ's patronizing attitude toward "brown" people noteworthy. The trial, he says, was as "Iraqi" as we are -- even though the judges, prosecutors, and most of the defense lawyers were Iraqi. Some of the lawyers even died because of their involvement, and the participants who weren't killed were obviously at risk. To most rational people that would show some real commitment. But to the "enlightened" such as BJ, of course, what they did doesn't count. Everybody knows they're just puppets of the U.S., and nothing they do is worth taking seriously. |
|
|
|
|
As a leftist, I had mixed feelings about the exectution. No one on Earth deserved it more than Saddam; he was arguably the worst dictator of the past quarter century. But now he'll never be tried for all the other crimes he did. He had thousands of other victims, and now their story will never be told. No one will know what they went through because of him. |
|
|
interesting initials for a mindless troll. |
|
was as "Iraqi" as you are. Hate to repeat myself, but "Iraqis" had nothing whatsoever to do with the trial, and Saddam wasn't in "Iraqi" hands until he was on the gallows.
As for the Iraq War, we had this argument in November. You lost it. |
|
If you are opposed to capital punshment, fair enough, but Saddam was tried and convicted by Iraqis who then hung him. 85% of Iraq wanted him dead for years of abuse he imposed on them. 15% wanted him to live (actually I doubt it is even that high) only because he helped them and their families by abusing the rest of the country. The patronizing (and in fact truly racist) bs from the Kos crowd is enough to make me throw up.
A two bit dictator, in someways yes. But Saddam was a threat to the world and a murderer and given the choice betweeen locked in a cell or hanging I think he got treated fairly.
Even if you hated the Iraq War and don't like George Bush--Saddam facing punishment from his own people is still ok. |
|
|
BJ: That's the difference between the Right and the Left in a nutshell. The Left identifies with the tyrant; the Right identifies with the victim. |
|
Doing something stupid, like invading Iraq because we're afraid of theocracies and then making it into a theocracy, is often much worse than doing nothing. This was not "the right thing" on any level.
And Saddam, who famously shook hands with Rumsfeld and with Dubya's daddy, didn't die for his crimes. He died in a 1/8-assed attempt to score a political point for a lame-duck administration. |
|
|
who are brown people, losers. They're the ones who found Saddam guilty and hanged him by his neck until he was dead. Way to go, insulting those whom you just want to patronize. If only they could be more like you. Wait, oh yeah, that's what they're TRYING to do if libs would let them;) |
|
|
being disappeared and tortured and raped and murdered does it take for you, BJ, to want to do the right thing? I guess we could hide like pantyboys until they get here. That'll buy us some time. Misplaced sympathy sucks. Rationalizing "do-nothingness petrification" is worse. |
|
The murder of Saddam Hussein wasn't even "winner's justice." It was loser's justice: we've lost the war in Iraq, but maybe if we kill one more brown person everything will be set to rights.
The two US soldiers slain so far today would probably not agree. Nor will the 3000th American murdered by the shrub later today or tomorrow. |
|
|
|