Island Life: This just in: incumbent President worst in history of the union
132 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
He spoke to the media, even against direct orders... He explained that he did so because there was "definitely a cover-up" underway by the Army.
By the way, James, was that what you meant by:
the Army was on top of it anyway
-
Go through that list again and highlight the ones that the US got rid of, after helping put them in their positions of power/selling them chemical and conventional weapons/etc.
I presume you are talking about Saddam as the others in the list don't fit and are all examples of US power being used for good.
OK, the US did provide some support to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. Even though the degree of this support is significantly exaggerated by critics of the US it was certainly a very bad thing to do.
But continue your logic for a bit. The countries that did actually do what you allege - helping put them in their positions of power/selling them chemical and conventional weapons/etc - were France, Russia and China - the very countries that opposed the war and prevented it from being carried out under the auspices of the UN (of course - they wanted to restart business with Saddam).
Who is worse, the US that aided Saddam in a minor way and got rid of him or those countries that really did enable his regime and didn't want to see him go?
It's worth remembering that prior to the invasion Saddam was kept in check only by the US and British military. When they decided that that situation could not continue no other country stepped up to say they would take over being Saddam's warder. It's all very well to criticise the US for unilateralism but the other side to that argument is that the international community has to have a credible alternative.
-
Who is worse, the US that aided Saddam in a minor way and got rid of him or those countries that really did enable his regime and didn't want to see him go?
If supplying of Anthrax, botulism, the supply of Hughes helicopters that were used to deliver such, and a free flow of intelligence is helping in a minor way, then so be it. And if the degree of this support was overstated then so was the threat from Saddam that the US & the UK contained (although they happily turned a blind eye when he massacred thousands in 1991, and Kurds earlier).
There is of course the thought that France Russia and China (all of whom had long since, despite US claims, stopped supplying Iraq) didn't want any part of the clusterfuck post 2003 that intelligence, academics and diplomats warned was the very likely outcome of the invasion. I would imagine that the families of hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis might agree with them.
This affidavit is worth reading
-
Funny too how Noriega only became the Demon Du Jour in the War On Drugs after he told the US they would have to pay significantly more for access to the Panama Canal...
-
I presume you are talking about Saddam as the others in the list don't fit and are all examples of US power being used for good.
And the Taliban. From wikipedia
What actually marks the beginning of the Taliban is when, in the late 1970s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) started the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing these U.S. backed training camps for the Muslims. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war"
Note also, their support for Osama, who's not exactly on most people's Xmas card lists these days.
Who is worse, the US that aided Saddam in a minor way and got rid of him or those countries that really did enable his regime and didn't want to see him go?
I don't know what minor means in your world. Selling chemical and conventional weapons which were then used to massacre Kurds, and then going to Iraq and shaking his hand... and then coming back a couple of decades later and capturing Saddam and having him executed for using the chemical weapons you sold him, isn't minor activities in my world.
It's worth remembering that prior to the invasion Saddam was kept in check only by the US and British military. When they decided that that situation could not continue no other country stepped up to say they would take over being Saddam's warder. It's all very well to criticise the US for unilateralism but the other side to that argument is that the international community has to have a credible alternative.
There's no indication imho that Iraq (or indeed the Middle East, or the rest of the world) is better now for having gotten rid of Saddam. Indeed, if you listen to the Australian Minister of Defence there were possibly/maybe not other reasons for being there. Some people would say things have gotten worse as a result of the occupation. There's certainly no credible plan going on there for the past four years, so the alternative might indeed have been better.
Personally I'm quite happy for Saddam to be gone. I could even make a reasonable list of other places that the US and other countries should go into and remove some other complete arseholes. None unfortunately involve oil, so we'll see how that works out.
-
There are of course a few that do involve oil.... but Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and, oh, Saudia Arabia are playing the oil-game with the Texans and have "protection".
-
In a nutshell:
The US backed Saddam because he was at war with Iran. The Saudi's had been telling the US that they wanted to get the US airbases out of Saudi Arabia, so they needed somewhere new to go. When Saddam tried to annex Kuwait (for drilling diagonally under the border and into Iraqi oil fields) the US had its chance. Nevermind that Iraq told the US consulate of their plans, Saddam was now the enemy (his reward for not defating Iran).
The plan was to 'defend' Kuwait by invading Iraq. Install a puppet administration and start a new 'muslim' 'democracy' to serve as a beacon for the entire Mid East.
It took them two tries (Bush the Elder seemingly lacked the nerve of his neo-con buddies, and Powell certainly did) but they finally got what they were after. Oh, except for the last bit. Kinda stuft that up big time.
-
Some people would say things have gotten worse as a result of the occupation.
Indeed, and there goes James' most recent theory "it had nothing to do with US Foreign Policy" out the window
MI5 and MI6 were yesterday investigating the role of al-Qaida cells in Iraq as they began to build up a picture of the foreign contacts of those involved in the plot to bomb London and Glasgow.
-
Indeed, and there goes James' most recent theory "it had nothing to do with US Foreign Policy" out the window
While still believing jihadism is not entirely to do with foreign policy, yep, I reckon. The Iraq angle emerging around this thing is pretty striking.
Whether or not the crowd in Iraq is really Al Qaeda, or just a cheap franchise, the fact remains it wasn't there before.
-
There are of course a few that do involve oil.... but Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and, oh, Saudia Arabia are playing the oil-game with the Texans and have "protection".
Uzbekistan ... isn't that the place where they boil people alive as a form of torture? Can't be.
-
Ahh, moral relativism. A certain species of modern right-winger delights in using this as a pejorative, but they do not seem to know what it means. Aparently, thinking rape, tourture, and murder is wrong makes me an evil moral relativist, while thinking it's OK if an American does it imakes one a moral absolutist of impeccable standing.
-
I/O
Panama was the Blue Print for the invasion of Iraq & control of their resources.
1/ Back a dictator
2/Demonise the dictator
3/ Offer support to the democratic element if they rise up
4/ Don't offer support when the rise up and are slaughtered
5/ Wait for sanctions and reprisals to take their toll
6/ Demonise dictator
7/ Invade on any grounds
8/ Control resource of value (annex canal in Panama - Protect Oil in Iraq)
9/ Leave the rest to hellThis requires US to stay in Panama & Iraq to control their newly aquired resources.
-
Yup, and Grenada was the training exercise for Panama ...
-
Uzbekistan ... isn't that the place where they boil people alive as a form of torture? Can't be.
and a delivery point for processing for some of those rendition flights authorised by Human Right's protectin' GWB
-
Now we even have articles in such non neo-con publications as the NZ Herald that highlight the central role of Islam in Islamic terrorism:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10450086
As far as the role of Iraq in the London and Glasgow bombings, the guy who was on fire at Glasgow was chanting "Allah, Allah!!" as he was trying to get into the back of the Jeep. He wasn't chanting "Bush and Blair out of Iraq!!".
You may also recall that Islamic terrorists were blowing up buildings, trying to sink ships and flying planes into buildings well before Dubya went into Iraq.
But does Iraq have a role as a motivator or a priority for Al Qaeda? Of course it does. Bin Laden and Zawaheri have stated numerous times that Iraq is the central front in the war on the west. It has to be, how could Al Qaeda have any credibility with its supporters if it allows the Great Satan to simply come to the heart of the Islamic world, plonk itself down and create a western leaning, democratic state, the anthesis of everything for which Al Qaeda stands? For heaven’s sake, such a state might even grant woman some rights so they don't have the legal status of a chattel as they do under Islamic law!! The stuff of nightmares for Osama and Ayman!!
So according to Bin Laden's view of the world, if the US does bug out of Iraq, as the Dems and many others so fervently wish, it would be a huge victory for Al Qaeda. Doesn't sound like a good way to defeat Al Qaeda to me.
As for Abu Ghraib, yes, bad stuff did happen there, but not in proportion to the fuss and stink that was created over it. Yes, Abu Ghraib is a stain on the US and the US Army. Is it representative of the US and the US Army? No, not even close. The US Army in Iraq is probably the most disciplined in the history of warfare. For example, until Jan 07 they were even tied up in overly cautious rules of engagement that were so strict it greatly impacted their ability to do their job. Abu Ghraib was being investigated before it got into the media and people are in jail as a result. Was every aspect uncovered and is everyone who should be in jail, in jail? Who knows, but the whole thing has been dug over a number of times.
Was there any comparison between the Hussein regime's activities in Abu Ghraib and the US Army's? No, but Kennedy's ridiculous and offensive remark about Abu Ghraib opening under new ownership was typical of the hyperbole and overreaction on the subject by so many.
-
Rendition.
I believe the rendition program was started under the Clinton, and Richard Clark was either involved in its set up or was a strong supporter. So whether it is right or wrong, the rendition program predates Bush. Has it ramped up since 9/11? I am sure it has.I forget who it was who said it, but “the constitution is not a suicide pact”. A very sensible sentiment that covers issues like rendition and robust interrogation quite well.
-
Ahh, moral relativism. A certain species of modern right-winger delights in using this as a pejorative, but they do not seem to know what it means. Apparently, thinking rape, torture, and murder is wrong makes me an evil moral relativist, while thinking it's OK if an American does it makes one a moral absolutist of impeccable standing.
Rape, torture and murder is wrong whoever does it. But berating the US Army for the activities of a handful of its soldiers, clearly an exception and not the rule, or for accidently killing civilians while trying to kill terrorists that are trying to destroy any hope of a decent society, while at the same time making excuses for terrorists and head hackers (root causes!!, Iraq!! blah blah) whose very objective is to kill as many innocents as possible is not okay. In fact it is a lot less that not okay. It is absolutely idiotic f*#ing bullshit. But it is a disease currently of plague proportions.
-
I forget who it was who said it, but “the constitution is not a suicide pact”. A very sensible sentiment that covers issues like rendition and robust interrogation quite well.
I watched Road to Guantanamo last night. You're talking out a hole in your head James. Bush's (largely successful so far) attempt to find a space between American law, and international law, to hold these people and treat them worse than dogs is truly horrific. Talk about human rights abuses.
-
RB,
"Everyone hates Congress" - Time Magazine
Apparently, like me, now Time Magazine is spouting Republican talking points. Must be contagious I guess.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1640263,00.html
-
-
(By comparison, in 1999 at the height of impeachment proceedings, only 32% wanted Clinton impeached).
-
Apparently, like me, now Time Magazine is spouting Republican talking points. Must be contagious I guess.
Anyone with any basic training in marketing knows that "repition sells". If you play an ad repeatedly it get into peoples subconscious and they can't help but think 'Coke is the real thing', 'everyone gets a bargain at the Warehouse', or 'Fox News is fair and balanced'.
The Republicans have had a grip on the Whitehouse that until recently meant they determined the talking points and US media, not wishing to seem unpatriotic, followed. The GOP shrewdly kept talking up a 'liberal bias' in the media to the point that media outlets started appointing conservatives to key positions to ensure 'balance'.
The people who own the media mega-corps like Time/Warner, Fox, et al don't tend to be Lefties. Rupert Murdoch is a smart c#nt who knows that if you gently turn up the heat the lobster doesn't know it's being boiled alive. His continued acquisition of media outlets on a global scale means one day he really will (if not already) determine who gets elected, anywhere.
-
James,
I was going to ignore your posts, but ah, f**k it....Was there any comparison between the Hussein regime's activities in Abu Ghraib and the US Army's? No, but Kennedy's ridiculous and offensive remark about Abu Ghraib opening under new ownership was typical of the hyperbole and overreaction on the subject by so many.
my torture is better than your torture, and like virtually everything else you've said today, makes me feel a little queasy when I hear it as a an excuse, an ugly copout, that's repeated ad nauseum by people like you.
Most everybody I know doesn't give a rats arse whether the regime of torture began under Bush or Clinton or what Kennedy said. None of that gives people like you a get out of jail free card for the blood, mayhem, and gore you've visited on large parts of the world. You have blood on your hands just like any Islamic terrorist chanting Allah Akbar" (so what James, don't millions of people going to their end evoke their maker...what a silly statement driven by blinkered bigotry). And yes, bombs were going off prior to 9/11, but history didn't begin on that date, and neither did the production of the AH-64 helicopters and Hellfire missiles that Israel uses. And the targeting information for the Iraqi mustard gas on Iranian soldiers provided by the NSA predates 9/11. These things, and thousands of other things that have occurred over the past decades and far before all count in bringing us to the place we are at now. It's not all about those big old bad "islamofascists" James, its not that simplistic, although in the remaining hard right wing rump I guess it still is. Bush didn't even know the difference between Shias and Sunnis when he invaded Iraq, for gods sake.
Nobody is giving Radical Islam a free pass (me least of all, I live in Bali), and neither should they, neither should fundamental Christianity (I'm part way through Glen Greenwald's new book as I type, read it before you waft back with the routine "where are the Christian terrorists?") be given a free pass. And neither should the flag wavers like yourself. That, as stated above, over 50% of Americans now want to see Cheney impeached is a start, but that's all it is.
You sit back and ruminate about Osama. Why is he any worse than you (both singularly and as a mass)...you've killed far more people...you've championed more death and destruction, more torture, the disappearance of thousands of people into a gulag system which tortures and kills in a way that Castro has never come close to (in law if you hire proxies, you are still guilty) than him. And Abu Ghraib, completely missing the simple point, or ignoring it when it's inconvienient as you seem to, is merely symptomatic, that's why there is the outrage.
-
Apparently, like me, now Time Magazine is spouting Republican talking points.
Apparently, that is, until you read the piece. Even within its pitched-to-the-concentration-span-of-a-mosquito-with-alzheimers Time-Warner formulaic style, there's precious little endorsement of any 'talking point', Republican or otherwise, to be found in your linked article. More a dawning plague-on-both-your-houses sullenness from an electorate that realises it's been roundly shafted by a bunch of clueless idealogues and a collusive opposition.
If you're looking for an endorsement of your faith-based world view you'd be better off studying the entrails of a chicken.
-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.