Genocide’s Percentage
Forget “comfy with genocide.” Try cuddly. It is not just acceptable, it’s preferred.
But I digress. Must-read “Getting Comfy with Genocide,” Ron Rosenbaum at Slate, on the world’s desensitization to genocide, on dickering about what constitutes genocide, and when and whether it is acceptable. The major point he misses:
Obama and the New York Times aren’t so agreeable to mass murder in Iraq because they are necessarily hard-hearted, coldly calculating scale and definitions, desensitized, though Rosenbaum makes a good argument for that in Obama’s rationalization. It is however a rationalization rather than a statement of principle, as Obama and the Times would be among the first to denounce the next fashionably unpopular genocide that came along, and demand to know why it wasn’t stopped, as Rosenbaum notes in the popularity of “feel-good” opposition to genocide in Darfur.* In Iraq, Obama and the Times are simply poo-pooing an unfashionable, unpopular genocide fear. Cavalierly saying “Bring it on,” if you like. Obama is ignoring the fact that unlike Darfur and Congo, this would be a genocide directly laid at America’s door, avoidable by action by U.S. troops who are already there and making headway. Because, when genocide occurs, President Obama and his supporters expect it would be laid it at George Bush’s door.
Obama and the New York Times, I am confident, are not enthused about genocide. Charitably, they may be entirely miscalculating scale, lack the imagination to understand what they are saying, and this may be part of what makes them blithe about it. But their motivation for such willful myopia, to blurt things out like this, is at heart the most base and traditional of historical genocide rationales. Politics. It suits their political aims, a domestic victory, to allow mass ethnic murder to take place.
Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic and their people benefited from genocide materially, at least in the short term, grabbing property and territory. But the cold calculation of those murderous leaders was that genocide was to their political advantage, allowing them to leverage and direct the will of their people. Their game was a cynical rise to power, Hitler on hatred of the Jews and Slavs, Milosevic on hatred of Kosovar Albanians, Bosnians and Croats.
The genocide that leading Democrats and anti-war voices are willing to allow in Iraq is a fascinating new twist on that old concept. The anti-war elements don’t hate the Iraqis or even want their property. They just want the power that they believe overlooking genocide will bring them, and they don’t believe they risk being smeared with blame for genocide. It is a politically motivated genocide by proxy, the dismissal and acceptance of which rather than the actual commission, they hope will vault them to power. Like Hitler and Milosevic, they don’t give a damn who dies in the process. Hence the rationalizations. They have a percentage in genocide.
* Obama in fact has demanded vigorous U.S. diplomatic intervention and heavy U.S. pressure to field a proxy force of other nations’ troops to stop genocide in Darfur, and similarly advocates non-military U.S. involvement to stop in the Congo. Genocide is an appropriate diplomatic concern. He is consistent here in his unwillingness to avoid spilling any American blood to prevent genocide, however. Other people’s deaths should be prevented by other people’s troops, whoever you can angle to get in there. The New York Times also cares about genocide in Darfur, and feels very strongly the United States needs to institute tougher sanctions. Both, however, are insistent that it is unacceptable to continue an ongoing U.S. military mission that is stabilizing a nation and preventing a high likelihood of genocide, and have made no realistic proposal for which troops would do that in our absence.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:00 am Comments (55) on Friday, August 3, 2007
55 Responses to “Genocide’s Percentage”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
“I was for genocide before I was against it it” – Obama
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
When Obama (or anyone) attempts to equate why we’re still in Iraq with why we’re not in Darfur, my mind blurs.
There has got to be a name for these simplistic kinds of attempts at parallels between 2 disparate situations.
As for genocide or “a” genocide (when did the word get the article appended ?), it took “The UN” quite awhile to name Darfur as “a” genocide. I think C. Powell was still SOS when that happened, and STILL nothing has happened relative to UN troops in Darfur.
Liberals who blame the US intrusion into sovereign Iraq will, in nearly he same breath, bemoan the US failure to act independently in Darfur. Why don’t they ever call for an EU force to go to Darfur or a Chinese force ?
(Oh, wait, China is profiting handsomely building pipelines and other installations in Sudan, using Chinese workers, never mind. And Europe wouldn’t act on Milosevic on its own back doorstep.)
No one ever mentions that certain elites in Khartoum and the al Bashir government are worlds away from “the situation in Darfur” and profiting handsomely, selling oil to China first and foremost.
Or that the al Bashir gov’t has said absolutely nyet, no, no way jose to “UN” troops coming into that country, until very recently when there was some verbal bet hedging that “a UN peacekeeping force” might be allowed in.
(I’ll believe it when I see it)
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Jules–Absolutely brilliant post.
“politically motivated genocide by proxy”
The dem cong and their withdrawal caucus have stepped through a door which there is no return.
Genocide is their political ally. They just have to rename it, repackage it, and sell it to unwitting consumers.
How does this “restore our moral authority around the world”?
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The US will, for the foreseeable future, be blamed for any and all public genocides in the world, either as a sin of comission or omission. No one expects China or Russia, two thug-led states, to do a thing about mass slaughter for the simple reason that these two states are comletely comfortable with mass slaughter, as recent history amply demonstrates. The US is also the only nation with the capability to intervene on any significant scale to stop such a slaughter.
What I want to know is why Europe gets a pass on having emasculated itself, both morally and militarily, to the point that all its castrated grandees can do is cluck when the excrement hits the ventilator.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“The US is also the only nation with the capability to intervene on any significant scale to stop such a slaughter.”
The North Korean army is huge, something like the 4th largest army in the world.
The Iranian army grows by leaps and bounds as we speak.
Send in the Norks, al Quds, to stop the genocide in Darfur !
(I can see that my suggestions aren’t getting much play)
Europe has emasculated itself as a function of socialism and élitism, briefly put. And it hasn’t had to “defend” itself.
A good emasculated socialist naturally disdains the messiness of “war”.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Jeffersonian says: “The US is also the only nation with the capability to intervene on any significant scale to stop such a slaughter.”
Not true, J. The “emasculated” French intervened in Sierra Leone a few years ago after the US refused to send in troops.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
After the Cote d’Ivoire debacle, I doubt anyone really wants the French intervening anywhere.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“while the French Military does a peerless job of gunning down unarmed Africans, it is incompetent at modern warfare. And France’s foreign policy consists only of onanistic fantasies of undercutting American power while continuing the Gaullist tradition of embracing every Arab or African dictator (or Balkan or Russian strongman, for that matter) willing to trade bribes and share delusions.”
Ralph Peters–”New Glory–expanding America’s global supremacy” 2005
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
corndog, I believe that was the “emasculated” British that went back into their former colony.
Sierra Leone
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Ah, no MikeH, that was the “emasulated” French I was talking about (below from Wikipedia):
“France sent in troops to maintain the cease-fire boundaries, and militias, including warlords and fighters from Liberia and Sierra Leone, took advantage of the crisis to seize parts of the west”
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Wrong, corndog, the UN intervened. Look at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unamsil/
(Note to Jules: does your moderation filter set to reject Turtle Bay? I’ve had two comments on this topic vanish!)
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
BTW, Mike, I think that the British intervention was pretty specific in support the President of Sierra Leone, and that the UN came in later.
But it’s important to note that what happened in the Ivory Coast and Seirra Leone were brutal rebellions with mass murders and multilations, and not genocide as such. So corndog’s comparison of the Iraq invasion to the Sierra Leone intervention (while ignoring the French fiasco in the Ivory Coast) is not completely valid. Different missions, different threats, different consequences from lack of action.
The only commonality between the two is the humanitarian nature of both missions.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Jeffy,
I’m not talking about Sierra Leone. This is the first I’ve ever mentioned Sierra and Leone in a sentence on this blog. I still mean that France intervened in the Ivory Coast; MikeH corrected me and said I must be talking about Sierra Leona and the British, and I corrected him to say, no, I mean Ivory Coast.
As far as your point about brutal murder and mutilation, the Genocide Convention defines genocide as:
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
This is a quibble, really, but Mike H is right.
The French had little to do with Sierra Leone. That was the Brits and UN forces (though there may have been French troops under the UN command).
Corndog’s reference is for the Ivory Coast, not Sierra Leone, when the French went in to secure their embassy and French interests in the cocoa plantations and evacuate their nationals. They also brokered a cease fire.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Cross posted, but:
Not true, corndog. You specifically said:
“Not true, J. The “emasculated” French intervened in Sierra Leone a few years ago after the US refused to send in troops.”
Doesn’t affect your point when applied to the Ivory Coast, but you did say Sierra Leone at first and it’s the source of the misunderstanding since.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
OMT,
Oh, I see. Thanks for that. I had meant Ivory Coast.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
corndog, your original comment specified Sierra Leone:
Not true, J. The “emasculated” French intervened in Sierra Leone a few years ago after the US refused to send in troops.
Then, in your reply to Mike, you said:
Ah, no MikeH, that was the “emasulated” French I was talking about (below from Wikipedia):
Still focused on the French, referring to Sierra Leone and Liberia, but not specifically mentioning the Ivory Coast. But implying it, if one reads these posts from bottom to top (By the way….just which Wikipedia entry were you referring to?).
You didn’t correct yourself to refer to the Ivory Coast until you replied to me. So any confusion was generated by your vague replies.
But we are agreed, the French intervened in the Ivory Coast, but they certainly screwed it up. From Wikipedia*:
” By lunchtime the French interjected to assist the government; it is disputed as to whether their interjection into the situation helped or hindered the situation – but by the end of the day, they had lost control of the north of the country, which is still divided from the south today. ”
And, by the by, while the Genocide Convention is correct, did Turtle Bay declare any genocide in the Ivory Coast? Or Sierra Leone? They’ve been reluctant to do so in Darfur, where genocide is in fact in progress. So maybe there wasn’t any “official” genocide there, hmmmmm? At least, by the lights of the UN Security Council.
Hmmmmmmmmmm…….and as per the Genocide Convention (as you quote it), Al Quaeda is guilty of genocide. In Iraq, against various national, ethnical, racial or religious groups. I appreciate the heads up on that.
======================================================
*: Presumably, this is the same entry that you referred to earlier, since you apparently quoted from the same paragraph a few sentences later. Odd that you skipped over the part where the French “emasculation” might have been demonstrated, eh?
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Thanks, OMT, you pointed out the error better than I did.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
OMT,
France’s role was wider than the “protecting the embassy” role you’re letting on:
“Mobs loyal to the Ivory Coast government militias clashed with French peacekeeping troops in Abidjan in the worst violence observers have seen between France and its former colony in decades.
The fighting began after Ivory Coast warplanes bombed a French position near Bouake in the north Saturday — killing nine French peacekeepers and an American citizen — in a move that violated a cease-fire between the government and rebels.
French troops retaliated by destroying five Ivorian aircraft, sparking battles with government supporters in the southern coastal city of Abidjan, who fought to wrest control of the airport from the French military.”
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Nice hijack, corndog, since the thread specifically began with the Democrats’ willingness to accommodate genocide in Iraq (not in Africa, last I checked) by forcing our troops to withdraw. Obviously they don’t believe they’d be blamed for it, but they are mistaken.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Jeffy,
Yes, I cop to all you say. I typed Sierra Leone when I was thinking Ivory Coast and the confusion ensued. My point (Becca’s scolding aside) still stands: contrary to Jeffersonian and others above, the US is not the only one out there bold and brave enough to go after genocidal maniacs. Because, however bloody a mess they made in their intervention, the fact is, they intervened. Score one for the Corndog.
As to whether Turtle Bay intervened, that’s beside the point. (I may be wrong here on this next point, but have no time to look it up, so reader beware): I believe Darfur is the only action since Rwanda that has been declared a genocide by the Security Council. But the UN isn’t always right, you know. And since that vote is weighted down with politics, I thought it would better to just go to the jugular and consider the definition on our own:
Has there been genocide in the world where a country other than the US has intervened? Answer: yes.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
But, but…the Janjaweed in Darfur are just a tribe armed by their government to fight terrorists.
That always works, right?
Some may even call it “progress.”
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
How do the dems come to the conclusion that they will not be held responsible for the death and destruction that will follow if they succeed in surrendering in Iraq? They are now on record as saying that they are willing to accept that consequence if it means that we will pull out. They are cutting off their collective nose to spite Bush. I hope they continue to be honest in this matter. The American people need to understand that these people know precisely what they are advocating and are willing to accept mass slaughter, chaos, and a war that will not be confined to Iraq alone.
That they consider this to be a political winner says better than anything exactly what they think of their fellow Americans. Cynical hardly begins to define such a perspective.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
“OMT,
France’s role was wider than the “protecting the embassy” role you’re letting on:”
I’m pretty careful about tense when I write. Don’t always vet, so I do hit submit and send off something confusing now and again, but not in this case.
When I said:
“…when the French went in to secure their embassy and French interests in the cocoa plantations and evacuate their nationals…”
That’s why they went in and no more or less than exactly what I meant to say. I wasn’t letting on anything else and did complete the thought by recognizing that they stayed on:
“…and evacuate their nationals. They also brokered a cease fire.”
What happened beyond France’s brokering isn’t something I addressed or inferred.
I do recognize your point as valid that the French have intervened in situations that could have degenerated into genocidal conflicts in response to someone else’s observation. However, the example you chose was one where France went into the situation for reasons not based on altruism or simple morality, but rather national interests. I don’t see any close analogy to the rationale for our going into Darfar. That wouldn’t be for national interest, or at least none readily apparent to me. And I’m not addressing whether we should or shouldn’t, just that our rationale for either course of action would not be the same as the French in the ivory Coast (or the Brits in Sierra Leone for that matter.)
And as Jules points out in his post and Rebecca just stressed, Iraq is not comparable to either the Dafar or western Africa situations. Intervention is not required to head off a genocidal conflict, but rather continuing an ongoing effort that is preventing a genocidal conflict from starting until the dynamics that would start and sustain it change.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Oh, fine, I’ll address Rebecca’s point to (consider it get-well flowers, Rebecca).
It’s far from certain genocide will follow if we withdraw. Most Iraqis, for instance, seem to think things will be better for them if we leave. And if we do leave, there are ways to prevent genocide, even if we don’t have the ground presence we now have (such as having a strike force to prevent organized genocide).
So in answer to your question, does withdrawing necessarily spell genocide? No.
But if genocide is certain, then can we prevent that by keeping our troops there? No, because if genocide is certain, it will always happen after we leave. And we will leave someday… won’t we?
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
I was aware of that, hence my use of the adjective “significant.”
True, but NK can’t deliver them to any place not within 30 miles of the DMZ without everyone starving to death.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“But if genocide is certain, then can we prevent that by keeping our troops there? No, because if genocide is certain, it will always happen after we leave. And we will leave someday… won’t we?”
This is a distortion and I guess the way to dismiss it is to put the question of genocide in Iraq back in the context in which Obama addressed it rather than where the thread has gone.
It is Obama’s opinion that the troops in Iraq should be pulled out as soon as possible without any further efforts or support given to stabilizing the political dynamics there. He addresses the risk of genocide by claiming it is manageable for various reasons (that I think illustrate what a lightweight he is but that for another time).
It is the opinion of others who are neither willing to accept the human cost of a genocidal conflict starting, nor naive enough to think his management criteria will work if or when it does, that he is a jacka**.
Me…I think he’s not so stupid that he doesn’t understand that our continued military presence there is meant to buy enough time for the political dynamics there to shift and the risk of genocide abate. Like Jules, I think Obama thinks that being on record as advocating pulling out immediately, whether it happens or not, will buy a few votes and that’s what matters to him human cost be d**ned.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
The “emasculated” French intervened in Sierra Leone a few years ago after the US refused to send in troops.
And the 5,000 they got on the border of Darfur have done everything in their power to throw a monkey wrench into the AU operation…including threatening them.
A $200,000,000,000 oil deal will buy you a lot of genocide assistance with the French.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I have a very hard time following your reasoning on… well, just about everything, corndog.
And if we do leave, there are ways to prevent genocide, even if we don’t have the ground presence we now have (such as having a strike force to prevent organized genocide).
This is exactly what we had before 2003. Are you advocating a return to the status quo before we deposed Saddam? How is that progress? And if we maintain a strike force there, then we haven’t really left, have we?
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
America helped the Chadian dictator kick the Janjaweed over the border into the Sudan in the first place, PA.
With French help, of course.
Nobody’s hands are clean in this mess.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Incidentally, anyone who thinks Iraq wouldn’t collapse into genocidal chaos if we precipitously pulled out our troops is naive beyond belief.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
corndog, that is the lamest attempt to deny the possibility of widespread violence in Iraq if we leave that I’ve seen.
First of all, your attempt to just address “genocide” is deceptive as the most likely outcome is increased amounts of sectarian violence among a multitude of armed militias, not “organized genocide”. Such militias would be of the same order as the insurgents and terrorist bands we are already fighting, if some vague “strike force” would solve that problem, we would not be working so hard on the surge we currently are.
Your answers are just nonsense.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Rebeccah,
Are you saying the vast majority of Iraqis, who just want us to leave, are naive beyond belief?
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“Genocide was seen as something that demanded both immediate action and blame for inaction.”
I once had hope that the United Nations would take care of issues like Genocide.
But they’ve been blamed for inaction too often for me to believe in them now.
Solution: Who’s up for policing the world? Anyone? Arab countries maybe? Muslim countries? Help their brothers, maybe…
*sound of crickets*
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
“Are you saying the vast majority of Iraqis, who just want us to leave, are naive beyond belief?”
No. It was pretty clear. She’s saying morons, (and liars – vast majority of Iraqis etc etc) like yourself are naive beyond belief.
Me, I don’t think so. You don’t even understand what the thread is about. That’s not being naive. Naiveté implies a grasp of the issue at hand, but advocating a approach that’s too simplistic, misinformed, or lacking sufficient background. You’re just stupid.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Oldman,
Admit it, you guys are rooting for genocide.
You are far worse than the Democrats.
And by arming non-governmental forces in Iraq, the U.S. military is doing everything they can to ensure genocide happens when they leave Iraq.
But, despite the neocon’s ghoulish fantasies, I think the Iraqi people will surprise us all.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Oh puhleaze, I am so tired of hearing about how the Iraqis will be better off without us,do people really believe that the Bush administration would go through all this if the military and political people who are actually involved in the process believed that?
it is stupid. I am sure that someday that might be the case, but not now.
And as for genocide and the French and the Democrats, there is always Rwanda. The French helped provide the means for the genocide and Bill told us all how awful he felt about the million or so dead. Sniff.
I think they just don’t really care. They have but one question, will we get blamed?
When the sanctions were in effect for Iraq, there were critics out there claiming that something like 100,000 people were dying in Iraq everywhere from lack of food and medication and yet the Democrats did not care then and today that treat that time in Iraq as if it were Paradise on earth. Kite flying, laughing children, stable and happy and well fed people….etc.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I do not think the vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave. I don’t care what some idiot poll says. If they wanted us to leave and if they would be better of without us the majority of people being killed over there would be our troops, not the Iraqis themselves.
After all, if the violence is reduced to manageable levels and if the Iraqis can learn to build some political institutions and maintain them and if the terrorists are defeated so that they are not slaughtering civilians..then we will be able to leave.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
“…I think Obama thinks that being on record as advocating pulling out immediately, whether it happens or not, will buy a few votes and that’s what matters to him human cost be d**ned”
Well, yes.
Saying we can live with the genocide in Iraq doesn’t seem like a real or genuine “policy” statement, beyond the hope that any mass slaughter would be laid at the feet of the current administration.
All this kind of verbiage is impossibly…dumb…in my view of the planet.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“I don’t care what some idiot poll says.”
That’s why you guys are called the faith-based community, Terrye.
You only believe things that agree with your partisan political beliefs.
There are far more attacks on our troops than Iraqi civilians each day, but Iraqi citizens don’t have bases, armored vehicles and body armor.
So they tend to die for your cause in far greater numbers.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
As I’ve said before, al-Phie, win the 2008 election and the pull-out is all yours. You can begin on 1/20/09….but you won’t, and you know why.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“I don’t care what some idiot poll says.”
Terrye,
They don’t. Trust me on this. This is just one more instance of alphie’s absolutely stunning stupidity.
He’s used this argument before and even ‘quoted’ his figure. What his figure actually represented was the answer by self-identified Democrats in a poll of AMERICANS on whether they THINK the Iraqis want the US out.
Think about just how superficial, stupid, and gullible he must be.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
BTW:
I know exactly how alphie will try to come back on this. So alphie, forewarned is forearmed. (though I have no doubt the inference won’t take in that scooped out pumpkin you use to carry your hat around.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Haha, Oldman
I’m glad you know, because I don’t.
You guys want to keep our troops in Iraq, so you have to believe things will be worse there when our troops do leave.
You have to believe it.
But believing it doesn’t make it true.
Again, that’s why you faith-based folks seem so bizarre to most Americans.
You think your beliefs equal reality…even when your belief is in something that hasn’t happened yet.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Amazing how collectivists cannot imagine that not all people who disagree with them fit into their little box of others. I am constantly tossed in with neo-cons, and now I’m being tossed in with so-called “faith-based” folks. Of course, it could be worse. I could be tossed in with folks like Alf who spew nothing but assertions based on nothing whatsoever. For instance, the assertion that there are “far more attacks on our troops than on Iraqis every day.” I’d ask him to back that up, but. . . well, you know.
Betting on tea and cakes if we leave is a very dangerous position–for the Iraqis. It costs American politicians absolutely nothing–except, one hopes, the election.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
salty,
We have to leave sometime.
Better to do it before the Iraqis become completely dependent on us.
The $150,000,000,000 a year were spending to keep a few thousand troops there would triple the income of every single Iraqi…give it to them instead and a lot of suffering disappears.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:52 am
al-Phie, I disagree with corndog, but at least he does his best to bring a cogency to the argument.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:29 am
And those pesky facts, too, MikeH,
As for who is actually getting attacked in Iraq, you can look on page 34 of this report(.pdf):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07677.pdf
August 4th, 2007 at 7:00 am
alphie:
You really are stupid. We have lost about 3500 people in Iraq, a country with a population of 25 million. Think about that for a moment.
As for what all this costs, I remember the 90’s and while you might have been in grade school at the time, we were heavily invested in Iraq even then.
If we were going to walk away from Saddam and Iraq that would have been the time to do it. But now we are committed and while you might be hoping for failure and defeat and disgrace and genocide, most decent people are not.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Terrye,
Bill Clinton’s last defense budget was $286 billion for the year.
Congress is about to approve(or not, hopefully) a $649 billion defense bill for next year.
The extra $350 billion or so is pure pork, money that should be going to building Americas infrastructure.
And please don’t pretend the “decent” people are for staying in Iraq.
Iraq ain’t a “good” war.
It ain’t even a good attempt at colonization.
It’s slaughter for political and financial gain.
And a bone to Americas racist’s.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:33 am
“I am constantly tossed in with neo-cons, and now I’m being tossed in with so-called “faith-based” folks.”
You hafta think of the labeling phenomenon in terms of brain physiology :-)
When you have only 5 or 6 functioning neurons, you hafta try to slap someone into a category (neocon, chickenhawk, faith-based etc.) so as to “understand” them.
aka pigeonholing
August 4th, 2007 at 10:33 am
There are far more attacks on our troops than Iraqi civilians each day, but Iraqi citizens don’t have bases, armored vehicles and body armor.
These are your words, alp. Then you cite page 34 of an article that talks about insurgent attacks on the oil infrastructure in the north, that says nothing at all about attacks on troops, or fighting anywhere else. You did this once before with this same report. I wish you’d take the time to read the damn thing before you use it to “support” your argument. It doesn’t say what you seem to think it says, and it makes you look exactly what others here have said about you: stupid.
(And before you start making excuses about pdf and page numbers, I looked at the page numbers. Page 34. Just what you said. I even looked at Page 29, which was 34 on my page counter, and that was something about electrical output).
August 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Let’s see: It “ain’t” a good war.
No war is a “good” war. Wars are necessary or not. When you have been attacked repeatedly, it is necessary. And yes, Iraq attacked us repeatedly after they signed a truce. Iraq even plotted to assassinate an ex-president.
“Ain’t” a good try at colonialism. Which is a good thing since we have no interest in colonizing anywhere.
Then, after talking about how much it is costing us to fight this war, the ant says that it is a war for financial and political gain. I suppose he means that since we have industries that are capable of supplying the needs of our military, that someone is profiting. Personally, I’m glad we have industries able to supply our military. Just as we have industries that supply the rest of what makes our country worth living in. I guess the real complaint is that we aren’t a completely socialist economy as of yet, where the state owns everything and is the only entity who profits from any business. We all know how that worked out in Alf’s beloved Russia.
Alf’s concerns about the tax-payers money is touching. As all leftists, he thinks tax-payers money is in a big pot to be shared out among those who didn’t earn it–and he wants his. I know that he doesn’t mean that he is against the outrageous, and actual waste, of tax-payers money that goes with the millions upon millions of pork, and other monies spent in areas and on projects with which the government has no business concerning itself.
As for political gain, if he is talking about Bush and Co. I’d be interested in hearing about the political gain. If he’s talking about the dems, well, they don’t seem to be able to gain much either.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“As all leftists, he thinks tax-payers money is in a big pot to be shared out among those who didn’t earn it–and he wants his.”
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
~Hillary Clinton in a speech in SF on 6/28/04
August 7th, 2007 at 8:32 am
It is really best to refrain from engaging with a commenter who is only interested in disrupting the conversation. This person is not here for the same reasons we are, but simply wants to make people angry. Jules deserves better than this. We can be rid of these inane disruptions by applying a little willpower. Just don’t reply at all. That ends the game. It has happened at other blogs with this same time-waster. Silence is the one strategy that works.