Friday, September 21, 2007

USA: The Anti-War Movement, the Troops & Some Lessons from Vietnam

By Mark Vorpahl
Thursday, 20 September 2007



Life inside the U.S. military reflects the conflicting class interests in this country, often in its deadliest forms. While technically a “volunteer” military, the great bulk of its recruits come from working class families and are largely joining because of a lack of job and educational opportunities. For them, signing up is a chance to acquire the skills they need to get a decent job once they become civilians, though, in reality, military service has little to offer in this regard. On the other hand, the majority of the military’s professional officers and policy makers come from more privileged layers of the population. For them, the military is a career where they can take their “rightful place” lording over the grunts and climb the ladder as they would if they were working for a corporation or financial institution. Because of this divide in opportunity and expectations, which is rooted in class inequality, the great majority of soldiers are subject to the arrogance, lies, and disregard for their personal well-being at the hands of their superiors, as are workers are to the capitalists in civilian life.

Potential working class military recruits are promised money for college, a brighter job future, and sometimes even that they will be able to avoid combat, though few soldiers ever see any of these promises fulfilled. Once in the war zone, they are frequently given missions that unnecessarily put their lives in danger in order that some officer can get a promotion for having had his unit draw out and engage the “enemy”. Rank and file soldiers are exposed to depleted uranium, the anti-malarial drug Lariam, and infectious diseases, not to mention insufficient body and vehicle armor, much of which could be avoided if it wasn’t for the criminal disregard of the military’s higher ups. In Iraq, many troops have been deployed multiple times in tours of duty averaging eleven months each. 50 percent are on their second tour and 25 percent have toured three or more times. This is creating a tremendous strain on the soldiers’ families and their own mental health. Army studies have found that up to 30 percent of soldiers coming home from Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety, or post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Army’s suicide rate is the highest it has been in 23 years: 17.3 per 100,000. When the soldiers make it back home, they find that the VA is strained at the seams because of corruption and insufficient funding, and their attempts to get help with PTSD are frequently denied. For some, this lack of support leads to homelessness. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs has so far had some 1,200 cases in which Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are dealing with homelessness, and this is likely only a fraction of their actual numbers.

While the Republican and Democratic politicians pontificate on the heroism of the troops, in practice they disregard their needs. The recent $100 billion bi-partisan vote to continue the war would have likely been enough to ensure that all returning veterans’ needs were met. Instead, the war continues and the troops are left hanging out to dry. The cost and effects of this criminal policy will grow exponentially as more soldiers return and their health requirements increase.

It is therefore in the interest of the majority of soldiers to oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They have a key role to play in ending them. The anti-war movement must find effective ways of supporting the growing discontent in the armed forces by linking the soldiers’ material needs to the anti-war movement’s aim of bringing all the troops home. This includes not only supporting conscientious objectors (CO’s) and AWOL soldiers in their legal and living challenges, but, even more importantly, engaging with and helping rank and file soldiers actively oppose the wars. Pacifist appeals to individual soldiers’ consciousness alone will not effectively utilize the discontent in the military. These isolated incidents of resistance, while symptomatic and symbolic, cannot end the war. In fact, this is precisely what the military would want in order to weed out and isolate the “bad apples” from the rest of the soldiers. The anti-war movement must do all it can to encourage and support the mass education, organization, and action of active duty soldiers, in order to bring the war to a grinding halt.

The experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement is rich with examples of what can be done to build unity between the anti-war movement and the troops. The popular image of anti-Vietnam War protesters spitting on troops has more to do with right-wing demagogy and urban legend than the actual attitude of peace activists toward the soldiers. In reality, the efforts of many of these activists to build solidarity with the troops, including going into the military when drafted in order to do anti-war work, helped to create one of the most powerful social movements in U.S. history. While the military during Vietnam was made up of draftees and today there is a volunteer army (more accurately described as a “poverty draft” army) many of the same approaches and tactics can and are being used today.

The first and foremost important aspect of the anti-Vietnam War movement was that it was broad-based and built through mass actions. The massive demonstrations proved to be the most effective tool for displaying the strength of anti-war sentiment, bringing more people in as organizers, and encouraging more people to take a stand against the war – including the troops. Without this approach the soldiers in Vietnam who questioned the war would have been left isolated and powerless.

Anti-Vietnam War activists recognized the need to develop ways to encourage troops to resist the war. Initially this started with publicizing and defending COs, AWOL soldiers, and those who refused deployment. The case of Lieutenant Henry Howe Jr. and the Fort Hood Three were some well-known examples of this work at the time. But it was quickly recognized that these efforts by themselves would not be enough. The anti-war movement needed to reach the active duty troops.

Activists passed out leaflets to GIs at bus stops and outside of military bases, engaged them in conversations where ever they gathered, and helped to set up GI coffee houses where the troops and anti-war activists could discuss and make plans. They also publicized and defended the right of soldiers to organize and speak out against the war, as was the case with the Fort Jackson Eight. All this work planted the seeds for active duty soldiers’ opposition to take on a massive character as the war wore on and moral plummeted.

Soldiers began to play a more active and prominent role in the movement. Numerous marches were led by active -duty soldiers such as the October 12, 1968 “GIs and Vets March for Peace” in San Francisco. There were many teach-ins and conferences focused on defending soldiers’ freedom of speech. Opposition to the war among active duty soldiers was beginning to swell.

Hundreds of anti-war papers such as “Vietnam GI” and “Stars and Stripes for Peace” began to circulate within the military’s ranks, with a combined total circulation in the tens of thousands. This was all the more remarkable since the editorial boards of these papers were subject to harassment and frequently broken up by arbitrary transfers.

The linking of the anti-war movement and the “grunt” soldiers’ interests began to translate into action on the battlefield. Whereas the troops had previously been considered mindless and disposable killing machines, they now began to assert their collective power. The “Search and Destroy” missions that officers sent their units on in order to increase the body count and earn the officer a promotion, became known as “Search and Evade” missions. Mutinies or soldier strikes began to spread to a degree never before seen in U.S. history. The military officially recognized 10 major occurrences of such actions, with hundreds of smaller mutinies during the course of the war.

“Fragging”, or the killing of a commanding officer by his own troops, became common during Vietnam. This practice, or even the threat of a fragging, proved to be an effective way for the soldiers to assert their control over battle plans and defend themselves from gung ho officers. Eventually, the soldiers’ rebellion became so widespread that the top-down command practices of the military were often replaced with a form of collective bargaining called “working it out.” No longer could a commander expect his troops to blindly obey. He had to negotiate with them. Since most of the troops no longer saw the point of fighting and dying in Vietnam, the officer corps lost their ability to conduct the war.

This history demonstrates a number of important lessons relevant to today’s anti-war movement. It shows the effectiveness of broad-based mass mobilizations. From these organizing efforts, activists were able to come together and effectively pursue different areas of anti-war work such as outreach to the GIs. These demonstrations also helped to reinforce a mood of wide opposition to the war that gave confidence to the troops to speak out and organize. It also shows how the initially modest and awkward attempts to build solidarity between the civilian anti-war movement and the troops helped to lay the foundation for a massive, united movement against the war. As the war wore on, the conflicting interests of the grunts on one side, and their commanders, the policy makers, and the war-profiteers on the other, became intolerable.

Most importantly, the experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement shows how the collective action of the youth and working class, both in and out of uniform, was able to help bring the world’s largest imperialist power to its knees, when previously it appeared unstoppable. Unfortunately, the anti-Vietnam War movement did not develop into a catalyst for the socialist transformation of U.S. society. However, the struggle against the war showed that even in times when capitalism was expanding, it was possible to strike a debilitating blow against imperialism to the benefit of the international working class and the oppressed in general.

The Iraq War is taking place in a different historical period. The U.S. is by far the largest imperialist power, but its economic and political foundation are more unstable then was the case during the Vietnam War. Furthermore, it is now more clear to tens of millions of Americans that the Iraq War is being accompanied by a war on workers’ historic gains, living standards, and democratic rights here at home. The situation today is potentially far more combustible then it was even at the height of the Vietnam War.

To take full advantage of this we must first have a united anti-war movement building the largest demonstrations possible to end the war now. We must link up opposition to the war with defending active duty soldiers’ democratic rights, including advocating, when possible, that they have the right to elect and recall their own officers, the right to trade union representation, freedom of speech, etc. We need to link the troops’ needs with those of the entire working class by fighting for quality jobs and universal health care for all. The anti-war movement can highlight the role soldiers have to play in our demonstrations, teach-ins and conferences. The anti-war movement must approach the rank and file soldiers as workers in uniform since the working class as a whole has nothing to gain from imperialist war but more misery.

With such an approach, the anti-war movement can and will help to end the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the final analysis, the problem of imperialist war cannot be solved under capitalism. To win a peace that is more then just an interim between further wars, we must fight for socialism based on workers’ democracy.RENEGADE EYE

179 comments:

Farmer John said...

If you don't want the soldiers to fight, you've got to offer them something better. What is the anti-war movement offering them, other than unemployment and a chance to feel like a righteous quitter? Nothing that I can see.

beatroot said...

The experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement is rich with examples of what can be done to build unity between the anti-war movement and the troops.

But it is also rich with the example that is wasn’t the anti Vietnam movement who brought the troops home – it was a series of defeats in Vietnam.

The anti-Iraq war ‘movement’ has not led the way in making this an unpopular war…it has been the situation on the ground that has done that – just as it was in Vietnam.

And that is not surprising. In the UK we have an ‘anti-war movement’ – led by the RESPECT coalition – which means SWP plus Galloway/Conservative Muslim alliance.

And in the wider sphere we have a campaign under the banner: ‘Not in my name’. That is not a political slogan, it’s an apolitical sign of disengagement.

The ‘anti-war movement’ broadly has been shifting its reasons for being against the war ever since it began. ‘They lied to us,’ Moore screams. So, if they hadn’t lied to you then you would still support the war?

But the UN didn’t support it?

So you would rather Kofi Anan did the bombing instead of Bush?

This has not been an anti-war movement at all – because most of them are not against war. They are against politicians lies and for the UN to act the world policeman instead of Washington.

So it’s no wonder that the antiwar movement hasn’t been leading anyone anywhere.

Once again it shows that what is left of the Left could not organize a piss up in a brewery.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Life inside the U.S. military reflects the conflicting class interests in this country, often in its deadliest forms. While technically a “volunteer” military, the great bulk of its recruits come from working class families and are largely joining because of a lack of job and educational opportunities.

Which is why Mexicans are streaming into the United States in droves to join the Army.

Alex1234 said...

WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!!

I am a would be DREAM Act beneficiary. Senate Republicans will block and obstruct the DREAM Act next week. WE NEED ACTIVISTS!!!!

I am reaching out to everybody to help us in the passage of the DREAM ACT.

The DREAM ACT is not an amnesty. It will be an adjustment of status for students that have lived their entire lives in the US, to attend college and join the military.

THE NEXT WEEK THE DREAM ACT WILL BE VOTED IN THE SENATE. PLEASE HELP US!!! JOIN THE DREAM ACT SUPPORT PORTAL:

http://www.dreamact.info/forum/

join the passage of the DREAM ACT CAUSE IN FACE BOOK:

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/view_cause/8894?h=plw&recruiter_id=4393330

and call your senators in support of the dream act!!! THANKS!

Renegade Eye said...

Farmer: I'm not advocating martyrdom.

Beatroot: I agree with you about the early arguments against the war. They were almost as dishonest as the arguments for the war. To top it off the so called antiwar liberal politicians gave Bush full authority to start it. In the US, the Republicans had more honest discussion about Iraq. I was confused by the debate at the time, if it wasn't for anti-Islamists who are antiwar like you and Maryam, I might be a 'Weekly Standard" writer.

The "Pentagon Papers" show that the antiwar movement against the war in Vietnam, did influence decisions about the war.

Ever hear of the "Vietnam Syndrome"? It has played a part in every military and political decision the US made, since the Vietnam War. Just read General Paetreus's military writings.

I hate the politics of Galloway and the SWP (UK). I agree the leadership is bankrupt.

In the US, the problem is that there are several antiwar coalitions, that don't work together. It is made worse by the phony antiwar Democrats, who siphon activism into their campaigns.

The most effective antiwar action, was coalitions promoting legal, peaceful demonstrations, organized around principled slogans. In the time of the Vietnam antiwar movement, it took years to persuade the antiwar movement to oppose negotiations, and adapt out now.

Beamish: I don't know if you are right or not.

MarxistFromLebanon said...

This year more Iraqis died under US mandate than Saddam's entire brutal regime history...

Some liberation they are undergoing... funny though Renegade... the US Marines over there according to some of my friends who did some visits prefer to watch al-Jazeera rather al-Hurra, guess their own channel is not that credible...

:D

sonia said...

This article is pure bullshit.
John Lennon's immortal prophecy, 'What if they gave war and nobody showed up', has been fullfilled with Saddam Hussein's army in 2003, not with the US Army.

All that has been written here applies far more to the militaries of America's enemies... It's almost like the author has found an article by a Russian anti-Communist dissident denouncing the Red Army, and simply changed all the names and references...

Pure bullshit. The part about soldiers killing their officers applies far more to the Red Army in 1941 (and even later in Afghanistan), than to US forces in Vietnam.

thepoetryman said...

Sonia,
This article is pure bullshit.
John Lennon's immortal prophecy, 'What if they gave war and nobody showed up', has been fullfilled with Saddam Hussein's army in 2003, not with the US Army.


So you conclude that the US Army killed only innocent civilians that were not resisting. There was not an Iraqi "army" to fight, right?

I agree, for the most part, with that conclusion.

thepoetryman said...

Farmer,
"If you don't want the soldiers to fight, you've got to offer them something better. What is the anti-war movement offering them, other than unemployment and a chance to feel like a righteous quitter? Nothing that I can see."

The answer to your question, which can easily qualify as rhetorical, is peace.

True power is when we have every justification to kill, and don't. __Oscar Schindler

beatroot said...

To top it off the so called antiwar liberal politicians gave Bush full authority to start it. In the US,

It was the same in the UK, Ren. There are a lot of MPS going around these days saying that Tony Blair ‘lied to them’ and that is why they voted for the war in the house of commons.

But only a moron could not have seen that Powell’s little presentation at the UN was a load of bull.

It’s because they have no PRINCIPLED stand against the war that they have got themselves duped.

Ever hear of the "Vietnam Syndrome"? It has played a part in every military and political decision the US made, since the Vietnam War. Just read General Paetreus's military writings.

And there will be a ‘Iraq Syndrome’ now. But that is because Oval Office, Downing St has discovered that the world is rather different and complicated from they thought. They will be more cautious next time.

Hence Darfur. It appears to be a no-brainer for them. Good against evil. But, once again, they will see that interventionism simply does not work.

But I agree with Sonia that much of the article is fantasy. Soldiers are not about to mutiny. Nor is there any kind of ‘consciousness’ among troops. I mean, where would they get this consciousness from? The anti-war movement? Don’t think so.

The troops are being given some very confusing signals from Washington, though, so I pity them a little. The Democrats want them back home because it hasn’t gone very well and they can position themselves as sticking up for Our Boys’. It’s just electoral opportunism, not a prncipled stand against the war.

The Dems make Bush look like the principled one.

And there are all those Blackwater type firms doing much of the fighting…the US army has been in a type of occupation by proxi….so the troops must wonder what exactly they are going over there to do in the first place.

And I saw an anti-war demo on the TV last week and the spokesman was wearing a beret and dark glasses!!!! Twat!

Renegade Eye said...

Beatroot: The Vietnam War was fought with a conscripted army.

When Congressman Rangel floated the idea of a conscripted army, he was dismissed, as not talking seriously. Actually some Democratic Party think tanks have seriously recommended restarting the draft.

I doubt if the writer believes the antiwar movement of today, with its fragmented actions, compares to the one during the Vietnam War. His post is more about pointing the way to go.

During the Vietnam War according to the Church Committee documents, the CIA monitored my political activities.

Graeme said...

I believe that one reason why the anti-war movement is suffering is the fact that they don't seem to acknowledge the resistance. Iraqi in particular. I am not even suggesting supporting the resistance, but it should be a universal truism that they are justified in attacking occupying foreign troops.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

I was being sarcastic. Your analysis of our military is incomplete.

Yes, we have a volunteer military. But those volunteers had to pass a battery of aptitude tests and undergo physical training and conditioning before they were ever sent to war. The military doesn't take just anybody off the street.

Uncle Sam doesn't want you, he wants the best. There's talk of LOWERING recruitment standards to fill quotas in some areas, but so far it's just talk.

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: I don't really care, which army killed more officers. I'm not advocating anything illegal, just giving a picture of rebellious soldiers.

Graeme: Unity around principled demands, is the problem in the antiwar movement. There isn't any force to give political support to. The question is how to bring together the pacifists, anarchists, even Democrats and Republicans against the war in a principled manner.

Beamish: I served in Nam, during the Gulf War.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

Then you know our military is not a slacker's ride.

adarna said...

off-topic: whatever happened to celtic fire? would you know?

Daniel said...

Hey, Renegade, it seems you too are getting static because you're trying to get a movement going.

It's amazing how many obfuscators there are whenever someone tries to do something! Suddenly the world is full of experts who all know why nothing can be done or that there really is no problem anyway.

Good luck, my friend.

Farmer John said...

The answer to your question, which can easily qualify as rhetorical, is peace.

A bullet between the eyes is also an offering of "peace". Most slaves lead a very "peaceful" existence.

Shakespeare, "Hamlet"

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.--Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.


Join the army so that you can fight for peace! LOL!!!!!!!!!!! After your "unionization" of the US Armed Forces, all the "workers" will have to do is "strike" to end all war. You people are tooooo much.

Surrender monkeys.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

FJ,

War is the low-hanging fruit in the leftist quest to root their delusions in a contemporary event. You know, where whatever local conflated tragedy is suddenly the symptom of an ill that's largely the fault of the "capitalist oppressors." Even Don Quixote would have killed the windmill builders by now. We're not talking about an ideological framework that places much stock in having a grip on reality.

I relish articles like this one of Ren's. Is there no ongoing struggle of consequence on our planet in which leftists are more than spectators?

It demonstrates plainly how weak and powerless the left is in America and the world, to my immense satisfaction. Back to work, wage slaves.

Farmer John said...

Critical Theory is just sooooo lame, beamish...

TRUTH-PAIN said...

Ren, As an ex military serviceperson, I can see the merits (and critics) of this article. It gives creedence to one of the "true-ism's" I have found,... that one can take one set of facts and frame it to fit nearly any ideology or view,...

Tina said...

I am the daughter of a Marine who served in Vietnam and a mom who strapped her eldest child (my sis) on her back and protested the war. My dad was not offended by what my mom was doing back home while he endured that unspeakable hell in the jungle.
He was proud of her and happy that she tried like hell to get him and his beloved buddies back home.
My dad knew pretty early on that the war had zero to do with keeping America safe and that he-- like all of the other service members there-- were being used and willingly tossed into a meatgrinder for anything but US security.
Did he kill a whole lotta civilians?
I'm sure he did.
With the exception of funny, lighthearted stories, my dad NEVER talks about Vietnam.
His silence tells me that he did and/or saw things there are better left unsaid.
Did he resent his superiors?
I gather that he did.
There is a longstanding holiday-table tale from his brother (who was also serving in Vietnam) that when he asked my dad what did he hope for when preparing to land for the Battle of Hue, my dad reportedly said: "I hope somebody shoots the Lt."
Our troops can love their fellow brothers and sisters in uniform AND despise the war and the fools who have/are needlessly putting them in harm's way.

sonia said...

Tina,

Your are so self-centered, it doesn't even occur to you that there was a far bigger tragedy occuring right behind you father's back in Indochina. Khmer Rouge killing 2 millions of their own countrymen. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese starving to death in 're-education camps'. Vietnamese boat people devoured by sharks trying to escape the red hell of communism.

You can be proud of your mother protesting in support of totalitarian murderers...

Renegade Eye said...

Tina: Real military people don't talk much about their experiences. My father was in combat in WWII, I never heard any stories.


Sonia: Your not making sense. The Khmer Rouge were supported by the US, Thailand and China. I rejoiced in the Vietnamese victory over them.

Beamish: There are only bad scenarios for Iraq's future. Rumsfeld even admitted, he didn't expect to be fighting in Iraq, and he said it one year into the war. No matter what the outcome, both of us know, you'll blame the antiwar movement.

Farmer: Surrender to who? Maliki? Hussein?

Adarna: I emailed CelticFire.

Daniel: The first peace movement in the US, in modern times, was the pacifist "Ban the Bomb" movement.

Tina said...

Sonia: I'm so self centered?
Because I despise this current war, and most wars for that matter, that are not waged in self defense?
Because I do not despise my father for doing the military job he was made to do and resented?
Because I do not despise my father for being tossed into an unnecessary hellish nightmare situation along with tens of thousands of other young men of his generation?
Because I do not despise my sweet and would never harm a fly mother for protesting that horrific war instead of sitting at home like a war-happy housefrau?
Are you for fucking real??
My father was a working class kid who was asked to serve.
He did.
Nobody said he had to love it or ask for more.
My mother waited at home anxiously for him and exerted the only power she felt she had in the situation. Poll 100,0000-- hell, 1,000,000-- Americans if the "selfish crimes" you accuse us of constitute self centered acts.
I'd LOVE to see the numbers on that.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

Beamish: There are only bad scenarios for Iraq's future. Rumsfeld even admitted, he didn't expect to be fighting in Iraq, and he said it one year into the war. No matter what the outcome, both of us know, you'll blame the antiwar movement.

Keep in mind the Pentagon also announced to the media that it was shutting down its Office of Strategic Information, its primary media disinformation / propaganda office.

I don't blame the antiwar movement for anything except making me late for work blocking traffic one day.

Well, I take that back. I blame the antiwar movement for allowing Communists to delegitimize and marginalize itself.

Renegade Eye said...

Well, I take that back. I blame the antiwar movement for allowing Communists to delegitimize and marginalize itself.

I don't understand.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

What's to understand? The antiwar movement (if one dare stretch the meaning of the word "movement" to include small throngs of naked, hairy fat womyn yelling "Bush = Hitler" platitudes at passersby), has the social impact of a gnat trying to make a potato blink.

When the war's over, you'll all go back to crooning for the trees or trying to sell us the idea that smoke from forest fires is environmentally friendly, with no more or no less than the zero coherence leftism has always had. And you'll still be crying for more recruits to the cause to put down "the Man" that oppresses you no matter what you do.

Admit it. Your "antiwar-ism" is opportunistic, not principled. A cry for attention despite the lack of having something to say.

sonia said...

Tina,

, I'm so self centered?
Because I despise this current war...


No, you're self-centred because you only seem to care about what your father and mother did.

It reminds me of this hilarious US newspaper's headline : 'A meltdown like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island could happen today'...

And I am sure there was a headline from 1945 in a local newspaper in some US town of 2,000 inhabitants or so: 'Pvt Adam Jones was the only boy to die in the war'...

Tina said...

Sonia: I'm self centered because I only seem to care what my father and mother did?
If you knew anything about me at all and/or my blog, I don't know how you possibly could say that.
But regardless, the post was about this topic: "...the anti-Vietnam War movement shows how the collective action of the youth and working class, both in and out of uniform, was able to help bring the world’s largest imperialist power to its knees, when previously it appeared unstoppable."
I was not born until 1974. Sorry that very conscious choice I made of when to be conceived rendered me unable to offer up a "more" personal story about the anti-war movement during the Vietnam war. Guess when I "decide" to get conceived for my next life, I had better carefully consider how my time of birth might affect a future war, eh?
Given that the post was about classism and the anti-war movement, I "wrongly" offered up the self centered story of my parents, who were both children of working class immigrants, who both came of age during the Vietnam war, and my dad served as a Marine in Vietnam. Again, I guess that was a "wrong" choice because I can see how those facts clearly have no relation to the post whatsoever.

My father was a working class kid who joined the military because he needed a way to provide a decent life for his new wife and unborn baby. His Italian immigrant father, whom was naturalized at age 12, had joined the US Army 3 weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor. My dad was always very proud of that fact. My dad's older brother had already joined the Army, (yet hadn't gone off to Vietnam) so my dad figured that maybe he also could find honor and an education in the military, as did his father and brother. In early 1965, my dad joined the Marines.
He was asked to go to Vietnam under the false pretense that this war was for America's security interests. He said America spent plenty of time protecting Michelin rubber factories in Vietnam, but little time protecting America's freedoms or security.
But guess what? He went.
He-- like so many of his generation-- became very bitter when he realized that the war he was asked to fight had no clear cut enemies, had nothing to do with protecting America, required him to be a target for the Viet Cong and pissed off Vietnamese civilians while at the same time being some kind of grotesque "goodwill ambassador" for the US while he was killing civilians. Civilians, whom by the way, despite your rose colored glasses, did not appear to want him there to fight off the VC or Khmer Rouge and prevent their untimely deaths.
But guess what? He went.
He fought as was asked of him until he had the misfortune of suffering a spine injury in Dec. 1968. This injury got him stateside, but left him languishing in VA hospitals-- strung out on painkillers and bad physical therapy-- for nearly 2 yrs.
Despite losing nearly 2 inches off his height due to curvature of the spine, and never being able to lay flat on his back without screaming out in pain, he was grateful that he could walk and that he was alive and out of that hellish place where so many of his fellow Marines and soldiers weren't lucky enough to get out of.
His spine was never truly corrected until my parents paid for private spinal surgery themselves in 1988 because the VA said he did not need further surgery. Instead, they kept him on permanent painkiller prescriptions.
Yeah. You're right. He has absolutely no reason whatsoever to resent his govt and his time spent fighting in Vietnam, or his treatment as a veteran. He has no reason at all to look at the troops in Iraq and wonder how many of them feel exactly as he did 40 yrs ago. He has no reason at all to wonder how many of our current troops in Iraq will be made to do God knows what to God knows how many people. He has no reason at all to resent what happens to you when you are made to do God knows what to God knows how many people.
He was just sooo damn selfish. He should have only thought about the Vietnamese people who hated him and his kind for occupying and destroying their nation. He should have shook off that spinal injury and fought some more because he alone could have stopped the Khmer Rouge and changed the plight of the Vietnamese people. And that selfish mother of mine should have just sucked it up, forgotten about her misused Marine, gotten a divorce, became a single mother, and happily applauded the war and bloodshed.

Renegade Eye said...

Beamish:Well, I take that back. I blame the antiwar movement for allowing Communists to delegitimize and marginalize itself.

You changed the subject and didn't answer the question. Explain that statement precisely.

A coalition is a type of formation that naturally includes those you disagree with, as those who have an emotional definition of fascism.

sonia said...

Tina,

he alone could have stopped the Khmer Rouge and changed the plight of the Vietnamese people.

Yes, he could. US soldiers helped to liberate Europe from Hitler in 1944-45 and are now revered as heroes in Europe and elsewhere. US soldiers in Vietnam failed miserably. The 'progressive movement' in United States failed miserably. It wasn't just your parents fault, but they certainly didn't do anything positive in that respect. In Vietnam, millions of Vietnamese died in a pointless war against capitalist exploitation, only for their 'free' country to accept capitalist exploitation twenty years later. They all died for nothing !! But I doubt if you will ever be able to understand the tragic senselessness of that struggle. Few Americans, left-wing or right-wing, are capable of such empathy...

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

You know as well as I do that the current "antiwar movement" is geopolitically insignificant and worse, irrelevant.

You also know that your "opposition" to war is fatuous opportunism to sell the laughably ridiculous class struggle fantasy. It's the war's fault a bridge in Minnesota fell down, and so on.

Millions of people who might pause to consider what this week's "anti-warist" might have to say, if not immediately turned off by the Naked Medusa look-alike contest, are turned off by the Communist pamphleteers.

You kids don't even have a General Giap to take you seriously this time around.

roman said...

ren,

Most importantly, the experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement shows how the collective action of the youth and working class, both in and out of uniform, was able to help bring the world’s largest imperialist power to its knees, when previously it appeared unstoppable.
TO ITS KNEES? Sounds like some literary license is being taken with this statement. I beg to differ. The peace movements and protest groups had VERY LITTLE say in bringing our troops out of Vietnam. Having lived through that period of time, I never had an inkling of the USA having failed or being defeated. I still do not. The failure and defeat was self-imposed by politicians pandering to peaceniks and war-weary folks for a few votes. By cutting off funding for the South Vietnamese and looking the other way when the North Vietnamese treacherously broke their Paris Accord agreements, the USA was not defeated but was betrayed by political panderers. This betrayal cost the lives of untold numbers of South Vietnamese people who placed their trust in the USA by working and fighting alongside our forces. These panderers are very similar, if not the same, as the present day surrender crowd that want a speedy exit out of Iraq and the hell with those Iraqis who work and fight alongside our forces.

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: I know that you are familiar with the Stalinist doctrine of socialism in one country. You also know Uncle Ho was a Stalinist, who followed the lead of USSR. The one country wasn't Vietnam, or any colonial country. Stalinists in colonial countries, close to the USSR advocated national liberation or what was called democratic revolution. The Maoist call it 2 stage revolution or New democracy. The Vietnam war was led by Stalinists, so only national liberation was the goal. Not a war against capitalist exploitation. The Stalinists in the US, don't advocate socialism even for a country like the US.

Beamish: You are correct, that the Iraq War has no General Giap.

Last week I attended a demo in St.Paul, MN. There were several hundred people marching. The pro-war counter demo, was under 10 people. I think that was an accurate reflection of the sentiment, in this country.

The antiwar movement being fragmented, is its main problem. The sentiment is there, not the organization. If the groups combine, and don't get snookered by a peace candidate, thge movement will be tremendous.

Roman: The Pentagon Papers made clear, that the antiwar movement effected decisions about the war. The Domino Theory was ridiculous, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident a lie. It was a war against colonialism. One side won, another lost.

Tina said...

Sonia: I'm well aware of how US soldiers and Marines have been hailed as heroes for their service in WWII. My maternal grandfather served in the Navy and my paternal grandfather served in the Army, and was part of the "after-liberation" crew at Flossenburg concentration camp.
But the real truth is these WWII GIs were like any other military member: They were merely following orders. They did not choose their battles or policy. Those safely tucked away from real battle and those in govt offices decided that. Exactly as it was in Vietnam, and as it is now in Iraq.
Grunts don't decide who to fight, how to fight, when or where to fight. Grunts follow orders. If you honestly believe otherwise, you truly must be delusional, and/or have zero exposure to military life.
Besides, your assertion that my father is personally responsible for what unfolded in Vietnam and Cambodia clearly washes away any sins of hundreds of yrs of Chinese influence and French colonialism, not to mention the very obvious fact that thousands of Vietnamese did not want nor appreciated US involvement in their affairs.
The US went there at the behest of the very French influenced and aristocratic South Vietnamese govt... not the South Vietnamese people. Face it: How removed does a govt want to be from their people when they don't even bother to learn to speak Vietnamese but instead speak French, the language of the colonialists? Perhaps that is why so many South Vietnamese did not fight the Viet Cong side by side with our US troops. They simply did not want to, and even if they didn't love the Viet Cong, they sure as hell liked us even less. Hmm... an occupied people who resent their occupiers and seemingly are unwilling to fight forces alongside their occupiers? Sound familiar?
But you're right. This year for Father's Day, I need to scour the Hallmark store for a card that says: Happy Father's Day, you selfish bastard. How dare you do the job that was asked of you? How dare you fight in battle after battle for a group of people thousands of miles away from home, who seemingly did not want you in their country. How dare you follow the orders of your supposed smarter and more knowledgeable superiors instead of make political policy? Simply put, how dare you do the job of a Marine?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

The antiwar movement being fragmented, is its main problem. The sentiment is there, not the organization. If the groups combine, and don't get snookered by a peace candidate, thge movement will be tremendous.

Please. The "antiwar movement" can't seem to find enough useful idiots to get off the ground, even if they've filled the void with nutbags chanting "9/11 was an inside job!"

Organization isn't your problem. Coherence is.

The most sucessful organizers of "antiwar" protests have been Communist organizations. Saddam Hussein's defense attorney Ramsey Clark and International ANSWER come to mind.

It isn't much of a shock that the best funded anti-Iraq War demonstrations were initially founded by recipients of Saddam Hussein's largesse with UN oil-for-food vouchers. Look down that list of Communists and socialists sometime. (Hiya, Galloway...)

The antiwar movement has an image problem. How do you conceal that you're a joke?

sonia said...

Tina,

your assertion that my father is personally responsible for what unfolded in Vietnam and Cambodia clearly washes away any sins of hundreds of yrs of Chinese influence and French colonialism

No, it doesn't wash it away. The US military adventure in Vietnam was like an incompetent doctor trying to cure an ALREADY SICK patient, but killing him instead, while the doctor's wives were out protesting against medical profession and in favor of viruses...

Brian said...

To compare the profession of soldiering to the medical profession is just sick.

sonia said...

Brian,

To compare the profession of soldiering to the medical profession is just sick.

You are right. I am therefore appologizing to all the heroic Red Army soldiers from Stalingrad who don't deserve to be compared with rich American doctors making millions of dollars a year doing breast implants and fighting malpractice suits after their patients die during liposuctions...

Tina said...

Sonia: For once, we agree upon something: "The US military adventure in Vietnam was like an incompetent doctor trying to cure an ALREADY SICK patient..."
And of that list of criminally incompetent doctors, it appears only former Secretary of Defense McNamara and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt confessed repetance and responsibility. Such confessions never came from General Westmoreland, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, or LBJ, although it is common knowledge that LBJ's health began to fail as the horrors and failures of Vietnam ate away at his conscience.
As for your assertion that my mother can somehow be compared to "doctor's wives who were out protesting against medical profession and in favor of viruses..." let me be clear: You couldn't be more dead wrong. My mother protested the war because she detested the annihilation, futility, and bloodletting of the war, and wanted more than anything in the world to have her 21 yr old husband and father of her baby daughter returned to her alive and still sane, although I suppose you wouldn't understand that kind of love and devotion in a marriage because she wasn't deluding herself into believing that serially cheating on her husband with women does not equal adultery nor betray her husband.

Renegade Eye said...

Tina: You fight for your position, harder than some so-called socialists.

Sonia: It's bizzare to me making your argument center around Tina's father.

Yout whole scenario is different if the Vietnamese War was a war of national liberation. Stalinists don't want socialism in the colonial world or anywhere else.


Beamish: In MN a pro-Iraq war grouped, sponsored TV ads thanking Norm Coleman, for his support of the Iraq. The Dems had a field day with that. Just recently Bush attended a fundraiser for Coleman here, he tried not being photographed with him.

You are so correct about Gallaway. He is languishing in prison now, because the charges were proven.

You can show a direct link between oil for food $$, and antiwar demonstrations? Show me?

ANSWER is a coalition including communists.

You didn't mention taking part in the antiwar the ordinary families, church goers, pacifists, unionists, students etc.

All you offer are straw men and red baiting.

Unless you support Bush, you are not even allowed in the audience when he speaks.

Bush all the way down to his trigger happy mercenary friends, fear a principled, united antiwar movement.

Rudy said...

Sonia: Are you trying to say that America was in Vietnam to fight capitalist exploitation? Really? You said, "US soldiers in Vietnam failed miserably." Nice. How many of your countrymen fought to defend Vietnam from capitalist aggression? Probably about as many who died to shut down the sweat shops of Sai Pan that put the clothing on your back.

sonia said...

Tina,

you wouldn't understand that kind of love and devotion in a marriage because she wasn't deluding herself into believing that serially cheating on her husband with women does not equal adultery nor betray her husband.

I am glad you visited my blog...

Ren,

It's bizzare to me making your argument center around Tina's father.

It's Tina who dragged her parents into this argument. I am glad Tina admires her parents. But I don't admire her parents...

Rudy,

Are you trying to say that America was in Vietnam to fight capitalist exploitation?

No. I am saying that Viet Cong were fighting against capitalist exploitation. And that their sacrifice was for NOTHING!!!!....

Rudy said...

Sonia: Thanks for the quick reply.

Liberals did not ruin the chance of America being the victors in Vietnam. As a matter of fact LBJ was a liberal. Am I wrong? No. Yet just like Geedub - LBJ lied America into a war it could not fund. The fact that you attack Tina's father for...??? Wait, WTF did you attack a US Marine for in the first place? He did his duty - no questions asked - and still you bash him. How dare you. He risked his life - you bash him. How dare you!

YOUR sacred war messed up his spine and his ability to be the macho prince that your - not a US marine hubby - ever even thought of becoming. Your husband is a rich pussy!!! And so are you.

You truly disgust me.

sonia said...

Rudy,

Liberals did not ruin the chance of America being the victors in Vietnam.

I never claimed they did. It was Nixon who surrendered in Paris, not liberals...

WTF did you attack a US Marine for in the first place?

I never attacked any Marines. I attacked Tina for not caring about the suffering of the Vietnamese and Cambodian peoples.

He risked his life - you bash him. How dare you!

I didn't bash him. I simply stated a historical fact that he miserably failed at whatever he was supposed to be doing in Indochina.

YOUR sacred war messed up his spine

It wasn't my 'sacred war'. It was a sacred war of Vietnamese Nationalist-Socialist-Communists, blinded by their hatred of the West and pointlessly dragging their country into an abyss of destructtion and misery.

the macho prince that your - not a US marine hubby - ever even thought of becoming. Your husband is a rich pussy!!! And so are you.
You truly disgust me.


Good. You deserve to be disgusted. It's your punishment for your lack of concern for the human misery created by leftist totalitarian ideology in the Third World.

Jae said...

In this wildly convoluted series of responses, I have to say this: I'm not impressed with the conservative commentary. They don't have much moral capital as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say the whole "support the troops (STT)" line is a load of crap from conservatives who are trying to shape the conversation and make apologists of we on the left. Fuck it. I'm not apologizing. We. Should. Not. Be. There. Everything we hope to accomplish could have been done through diplomacy and economic clout -- and with less death on the part of our soldiers and Iraqi people. Anyone who thinks we haven't made the problem worse is being disingenuous. Americans thrive on the revenge motive - it's in all of our films; it's our legacy. So, for any American to think Iraqis will witness wholesale slaughter and destruction of their countrypeople and nation and be sanguine about it is either a fool or in denial. I don't support soldiers. I support human beings who are in the middle of all this crap because of some old fashioned greed and stupidity. And, for the soldiers who support it. I understand them, once again, as human beings. After all, even hostages succumb to Stockholm Syndrome. I will not be cowed by those who say I'm unpatriotic because I'm not supporting the soldiers. Screw 'em. First, prove to me that this war is making our nation safer. Prove to me that this war is about something other than oil. Prove to me the justness of this military action. Until I believe that, then, to me, these are simply young men and women needlessly in harm's way because of mad generals who are lockstep in support of Bush/Cheney. Follow the money. Who benefits -- financially -- from this misguided episode? Bush. Cheney. Halliburton. Saudi Arabia. None of these strike me as reasons for soldiers to die. And, I dismiss the Vietnam references simply because, conservatives tend to lie to reshape history. And, besides the Civil Rights Movement, conservatives have lied more and more passionately about Vietnam than any other American endeavor. No. For a liberal/progressive to even the playing field, the talk can't be of "support for soldiers." That's code. Once that card is played, our tendency to to support life-affirming circumstances is treading on a slippery slope. How can we support a soldier and not support a war? Losing proposition. The real question is and always will be: why are we fighting THIS war. Don't go off point. In my mind, these people who play the STT card dont' give a rat's ass about the soldiers. For me, there is the faintly germanic hint of those Nazi soldiers who insisted they "were only doing our duty." Guess what. Citizens supported them, too. I ask any conservative blogging to explain to me the difference between our support of our troops and the German people's support of theirs.

roman said...

jae,

I ask any conservative blogging to explain to me the difference between our support of our troops and the German people's support of theirs.

Err.. we were attacked for one. Remember 9/11? Also, unlike Hitler's forces, coalition forces were enforcing a plethora of United Nations demands which were ignored for over 10 years by the outlaw government of Saddam Hussein!
If you're seriously comparing our armed forces to those of Nazis, you will need to remove the tin-foil hat and start cracking those history books.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

I ask any conservative blogging to explain to me the difference between our support of our troops and the German people's support of theirs.

1.) American people who don't support the troops aren't being rounded up and cremated.

2.) America isn't fighting for the leftist cause (Marx, Proudhon, Bukanin, etc.) to exterminate Jews.

Tina said...

Jae: I don't fully grasp your comment. You say: "...the whole "support the troops (STT)" line is a load of crap from conservatives who are trying to shape the conversation and make apologists of we on the left." Do you honestly think for one nanosecond that I am a conservative? I'd sooner have my eyelids stapled and salted. Liberal I truly am.
I agree wholeheartedly that "...We. Should. Not. Be. There. Everything we hope to accomplish could have been done through diplomacy and economic clout -- and with less death on the part of our soldiers and Iraqi people." So does my husband's friend Chris, who served as a Marine in Iraq. So does my Vietnam vet dad. I've never really seen my dad cry, but since this war in Iraq has begun, I've seen him on the verge of it several times. He understands what senseless insanity our troops AND the Iraqi people are facing.
But the very point of the post was about classism, military members rejecting the fucked up war/mission their govt has carelessly tossed them into, and the anti-war movement. Sooo.... I offered up my personal story of my parents who were 2 working class kids during Vietnam. My final line of my 1st comment was this: "Our troops can love their fellow brothers and sisters in uniform AND despise the war and the fools who have/are needlessly putting them in harm's way."
My dad served in Vietnam. He joined the Marines because he was a working class kid who desperately needed a way to provide for his pregnant wife. College? Ha! Not bloody likely for the youngest kid of a Pittsburgh steelworker.
But when he went, as was asked of him, he realized early on that the war was a complete crock. That it, just like Iraq, Should. Have. Never. Been. Started.
My mom, at home with their new daughter (my big sis) decided the only thing she could do to end this insanity and bring her beloved home to her alive and still sane was join the anti-war movement.
My dad, thru his own words in old letters and conversations, was VERY proud of my mom for doing that and happy that other Americans realized what a complete boatload of bullshit the war was and protested to end it. Sonia, from what I gather, believes that I should be massively ashamed of both of my parents. I'm supposed to view my dad as a person who failed and someone who is personally responsible for the awful fate that unfolded for the Vietnamese and Cambodian people because he himself became anti-war WHILE serving IN the war. She seems to think that our US govt, the S. Vietnamese govt, the French colonialists, and the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge are somehow NOT failures and NOT responsible BUT that my dad is.
And as far as Sonia is concerned, my mother is a failure and personally responsible for the awful fate that unfolded for the Vietnamese and Cambodian people because she WAS part of the movement that called for the end of the war.
I know. It makes little sense to me, also.
There is NOTHING even remotely Germanic/Naziesque in being proud of my parents' actions. My dad DID go to Vietnam as he was ordered to do. He DID follow orders. Every single soldier/Marine does. Even those who are hailed as heroes, like both of my grandfathers who served in WWII. They weren't caped crusaders fighting Nazis. They were grunts following orders who happened to be a part of the military that defeated the Nazis.
My dad wasn't a bloodthirsty warmonger. He was a terrified grunt following orders who happened to be a part of the military that had their asses handed to them in an insanely bloody and futile and incompetant war... and he grew to despise and distrust his govt AND his military superiors for doing it to him, his fellow bros and sister in uniform AND the Vietnamese people.
If that sounds Naziesque or conservative to you, then I truly don't what to say.

Roman: "Remember 9/11?"
Yes. We all remember the horrific events of 9/11. And thanks to the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani, the ceaseless disprespectful whoring out of that solemn date will never end.
"Err.. we were attacked for one."
BUT WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BY IRAQ. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. NOT A SINGLE HIJACKER WAS IRAQI, NOR HAD ANY IRAQI CONNECTIONS. No matter how many lies BushCo spews, it simply won't make it so. Launching a war against Iraq because of 9/11 makes about as much sense if FDR has launched a war against Brazil after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

sonia said...

Tina,

Launching a war against Iraq because of 9/11 makes about as much sense if FDR has launched a war against Brazil after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

You really are an ignoramus. FDR HAS launched a war against GERMANY after JAPAN attacked Pearl Harbour...

Jae,

I ask any conservative blogging to explain to me the difference between our support of our troops and the German people's support of theirs.

Hitler lost the war and his country was occupied by its enemies.

But if Hitler had won, everybody would support his troops. You would support them too. Or you would be dead.

This should be obvious. Often, I think Beamish is right when says that leftists are incapable of rational thought.

Tina said...

Sonia: No, no. YOU are truly incapable of rational thought. I tried to think that maybe your life experiences have left you removed from US history, but NOT freaking reality.
Q: What part of the terrorist attacks upon the US on 9/11 were perpetrated by Iraq?
A: NONE.
Therefore, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO FREAKING sense for a nation to get attacked by a group of mainly Saudi terrorists (none of whom were Iraqi, and the attacks had ZERO connection to the nation, govt or leadership of Iraq) to then declare war on Iraq.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. NOT IRAQI.
So why the hell not declare war against another completely uninvolved nation , like say Brazil, after Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor? That is the same kind of insane reasoning Bush, Cheney, and his bloodthirsty Neo-Cons used when launching a war against Iraq. And it is certainly the twisted logic of the Project for the New American Century, who have been chomping at the bit since the 1990s to launch ANY war against Iraq at ANY cost.
I believe all of that sun on that island of your's has truly baked your tiny crumb of brain.

I'm an ignoramus?
Sorry, but history exposes your spew for what it is: Either blatant lies or blatant stupidity.
Let's take a stroll down history lane, shall we?

1. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941.

2. America declared war on Japan on Dec. 8th, 1941 by a Senate vote of 82 to 0, and a House vote of 388 to 1.

3. In Berlin on Dec. 8th, 1941, Adolf Hitler was elated and pissing his dictator pants in joy as he declared to Josef Goebbels that this event at Pearl Harbor was "The turning point!"
To Walter Hewel, an official from the foreign ministry assigned to Hitler’s staff, Hitler made a startling statement. "Now it is impossible for us to lose the war!" he said, wildly exaggerating the strength of Imperial Japan. "We now have an ally," claimed Hitler, "who has never been vanquished in 1500 years!"

4. The German dictator personally congratulated the Japanese ambassador to Berlin for his country’s success in catching US forces off guard: "You gave the right declaration of war! This method is the only proper one!" The source of Hitler’s confidence?: He imagined that the Japanese would tie down American resources indefinitely, rendering America weak to possible attack.

5. On Dec. 11th, 1941, Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration of war against the United States first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win.

6. On Dec. 11th, 1941, Hitler gave a speech to the Reichstag. Confused and rambling, he compared his own childhood of poverty to that of the wealthy Roosevelt. Attempting to justify his decision for war, Hitler concentrated on goading FDR, and echoed US isolationists who said that Roosevelt counted on foreign adventures with Japan to divert attention from the New Deal’s failure to mend the American economy.
He then declared war on the United States.

Didja catch that? Were ya paying attention?... GERMANY AND ITALY FIRST DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA ON DEC. 11TH, 1941.

7. THEN.... are you listening?..... THEN AMERICA COUNTER-DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY AND ITALY by a Senate vote of 90 to 0, and a House vote of 399 to 0.

So, it was Italy's and Germany's declarations of war that made FDR launch a war against the Axis powers. Who's the ignoramus?

Roosevelt, much to the frustration of Churchill and most of terrified Europe, had tried to stay out of the war that began in 1939. He tried so much so, that in his election campaign of 1940, Roosevelt promised not to send Americans to fight a foreign war. Did that make him a big pussy? Maybe. I'm sure some thought so. Probably plenty of allies in Europe facing the German and Italian threats, who were hoping America would help them out, but it certainly swayed people to vote for him. After WWI and The Depression, America really wasn't big on being tossed into another horrific and expensive war.
And, FDR faced some very basic and real problems: Immediately after the beginning of the war with Japan, he doubted that the American people could PAY FOR or would TOLERATE a simultaneous war with Germany and Italy. Afterall, it was the Japanese who had killed American sailors and soldiers on US territory in Hawaii. Not Germans and Italians.
It was the Japanese that American citizens most feared and wanted to punish. They had no such equal grudge against the German and Italian dictators.
And let's face it: For many American folks, the terrifying plight of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and Europeans, especially the Eastern Europeans, did not sway them to seek war. It didn't affect them, by and large, and those who were Jewish and/or cared, weren't able to get really clear cut info on what horrors were unfolding.
BUT... ultimately, it was Hitler and Mussolini’s declaration of war against the US on Dec. 11th, 1941, that overcame American opposition and led to a military crusade against the European fascist powers, and forced the United States to counter-declare war on Germany and Italy.
It was NOT the attack on Pearl Harbor that made FDR declare war on Germany and Italy. No matter how many times you try to say it did.

Aaahhh... Historical facts. They will expose bullshit, loss of reality, and stupidity everytime.

And to RENEGADE, I know you gave me props for fighting hard for my position (and fight tooth and nail, I do) but I am beyond tired of Sonia's personal attacks.

Sonia, I did NOT resort to such personal attacks until last night, when I had simply had enough of your bullshit of attacking my parents, especially my mom. You claim I'm self centered, care nothing about Vietnamese and Cambodian people, and that I am an ignoramus. I'm many things, but self centered, uncaring about others, and stupid I'm not.
The simple fact is you simply are incapable of debating someone with actual facts, so instead, you have to resort to childishly attacking them personally. Therefore, this is over for me. Give me an actual worthy opponent anyday of the week. Not an ignorant and immature name caller. I have 2 little kids under the age of 5 to raise. I don't have time to waste my time attempting to hold an intelligent and civil debate with one. I am finished with debating a snotty, nasty, idiot savant child.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Actually, if you wish to follow a strict course of history, Tina, America attacked French forces in Tunisia in response to Hitler's post-Pearl Harbor war declaration, which came after the leftist government of Nazi Germany had turned on its fuel and raw material suppliers and allies in the leftist Soviet Union 6 months earlier.

What strikes me as remarkable about the European theater of World War 2 after the failure to defend Russia's food supply in the Ukraine (the Soviet Red Army had historically never been a effective fighting force against targets that could return fire - see Finland and the Russo-Japan War 30 years prior) is the vast amounts of humanitarian assistance shipped into Russia at serious risk of death for themselves sailing or flying through Nazi controlled routes by allies who (Britain in particular) had felt the sting of bombs made from Russian volatile chemicals dropped by German planes powered by Russian fuel for over a year.

sonia said...

Tina,

You claim I'm self centered, care nothing about Vietnamese and Cambodian people, and that I am an ignoramus. I'm many things, but self centered, uncaring about others, and stupid I'm not.

My claims are based on the things you wrote in the comments above. They are either factually untrue ("the war had zero to do with keeping America safe", "the false pretense that this war was for America's security interests", "the war he was asked to fight had no clear cut enemies"), egoist ("WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BY IRAQ", meaning 'I don't care if Kuwait was attacked, or the Kurds were exterminated') and hypocritical ("My dad...Did he kill a whole lotta civilians? I'm sure he did", "enough of your bullshit of attacking my parents")...

You also lie about things you yourself wrote (Sept. 28: "I did NOT resort to such personal attacks", Sept.26: "you wouldn't understand that kind of love and devotion in a marriage because she wasn't deluding herself into believing that serially cheating on her husband with women does not equal adultery nor betray her husband.").

I am finished with debating a snotty, nasty, idiot savant child.

Let's hope this isn't another of your lies.

Yes, I am definitely "snotty" and "nasty". I am snotty and nasty because I lived under Communism. The same Communism your parents refused to fight against. And I hate them for it.

Tina said...

Sonia: I can't believe how fucking ridiculous you are. You can't come up with actual facts in a debate, so you lob personal attack after personal attack, and I finally toss it right back at you and you don't like it. Too fucking bad.
In addition to hating people who own absolutely NO responsibility for your life under Communism, you are simply unable to understand the concept of time now.
It is not a lie to say that I did NOT resort to such personal attacks until last night, Weds. Sept. 26th at 18:10 hrs (6:10pm). That is when I wrote: "...you wouldn't understand that kind of love and devotion in a marriage because she wasn't deluding herself into believing that serially cheating on her husband with women does not equal adultery nor betray her husband."

Why is not a lie?
BECAUSE WHEN I BEGAN WRITING MY RESPONSE to your complete inability to understand US history on declarations of war, and I referred to finally deciding to launching my own personal attacks against you in return for all of the bullshit you had already said about me and my parents) IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE 11:00 PM ON THURS. SEPT 27TH.

I know this hard for you, but here it is:
Weds night is the night that precedes Thurs night. Therefore if I say something on Thurs night about Weds night, I am referring to LAST NIGHT.

So, I started my comment on Thurs night.
But then my 6 month old son woke up crying, and I went to take care of him.
I stopped writing my comment to change his diaper, feed my baby and rock him back to sleep.
Then I then came back to my laptop, finished my comment and posted it, revealing a time of Sept. 28th 1:02 AM.
OMFG! Guess what? My comment missed the actual Thursday night deadline by a whopping 1 hour and 2 mins due to me being a good mommy. Call the clock police! I said it was last night when the time was just past midnight! Oh the humanity!!
Do you-- immediately upon the clock striking midnight-- refer to that time of darkness as THE NEXT DAY or do you do what most normal human beings do and still refer to it as THE NIGHT?
So, when I said last night, I was of course referring to Weds night because it was still late Thurs/early Fri for us normal human beings here on planet Earth.
But leave it to you to call THAT bit of minutia a lie.

Fuck you. I'm happy you lived under Communism.
It is a damn shame that plenty of good and worthy people did die under Communism, while a nasty harpy like you survived.
But then again, they do say that cockroaches will even survive a nuclear holocaust.

There. NOW you can FINALLY claim that I'm self centered and don't care about others.

sonia said...

Tina,

It is a damn shame that plenty of good and worthy people did die under Communism, while a nasty harpy like you survived.

This is a very perceptive observation. Those really were good and worthy people who died. And only mean and evil people like myself managed to survive this inhuman system.

Too bad your parents did nothing to save those good and worthy people, choosing instead to undermine the struggle against a system where only evil people like myself manage to thrive...

(P.S. Do you honestly think I care at what time you wrote your comment? WTF was that about???)

Rudy said...

Sonia:
The point that was forgotten was that the Vietnam War was sold to the American people and it's congress as a war of self defense. It was not originally labeled a war against the evils of communism.

Our American servicemen and women are not and should not be the police force to protect and serve the world. There's a group called the UN to handle these matters. Diplomacy and sanctions would have been much more effective in helping Vietnam to become a democratic society, it took time in the former USSR and it probably would have worked alot sooner and with much better results in Vietnam.

As a social conservative I am concerned with your soul. Lesbian acts are a sin in the eyes of God and His illegitimate son. I believe cheating on your husband with a strong, musky smelling man like me, H. Rudy Ericson could be your key to the Pearly Gates.

sonia said...

Rudy,

Vietnam War was sold to the American people and it's congress as a war of self defense. It was not originally labeled a war against the evils of communism.

Right. So if it was properly labeled from the start, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Abbie Hoffman would all support it ? You really believe that ?

Our American servicemen and women are not and should not be the police force to protect and serve the world. There's a group called the UN to handle these matters.

And they have been handling it brilliantly. In Rwanda, in 1994, UN peacekeepers were there during the genocide. Boutros Ghali forbade them from using their weapons; they watched hopelessly as women and children were being slaughtered.

Diplomacy and sanctions would have been much more effective in helping Vietnam to become a democratic society

This has worked wonderfully in Iraq between 1991 and 2003.

it took time in the former USSR and it probably would have worked alot sooner and with much better results in Vietnam.

Yes, especially in Chechnya... Not to mention Tadjikistan, Nagorno Karabach, Transdniestria, Abchazja, and South Ossetia. After 16 years, it will still take time...

As a social conservative I am concerned with your soul. Lesbian acts are a sin in the eyes of God and His illegitimate son. I believe cheating on your husband with a strong, musky smelling man like me, H. Rudy Ericson could be your key to the Pearly Gates.

Are you the same Rudy who earlier wrote to me 'You disgust me' ? Frailty, thy name is man...

Rudy said...

Frailty, thy name is man...

How dare you use personal attacks on my macho machismo, you social liberal hussy!


Right. So if it was properly labeled from the start, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Abbie Hoffman would all support it ? You really believe that ?

No. I don't believe that. If the war were presented to a DEMOCRACY in a truthful voice - what DEMOCRACY would ever choose to send their own servicemen to police the world?

The world needs to find another Jesus to die for it's sins. We ain't hanging around for more lies to save your asses.

Umm... speaking of asses. Have you considered my idea of saving your heathen soul?

Gimme gimme gimme.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Sonia,

If Bush and Cheney had sold the war as an opportunity to unseat the capitalist oppressor Saddam Hussein and divide the profits from renewed oil production equally among the Iraqi people, most of whom live no where near an oil well, the only people supporting the war would be the people making personal attacks now.

You know why this is.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

...in fact, if Cheney jumped up and decided to join the Democratic Party, he'd probably be up for sainthood.

Renegade Eye said...

Beamish: When Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, take over from GWB, will the war popular?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

You don't think I'll be President? :P

I know one thing, the situation in Iraq will be much more stable than now by the time the next President takes office.

Especially if Bush puts the spankin' on Iran 'tween now and then.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

As for popularity of the war, the Dems in Congress are in holding pattern until Valentine's Day, which will be the day you can honestly name the Democrat's candidate for President.

Whoever that candidate is will play in to the growing successes in Iraq as the "result of Democrats leading in Washington" (don't think you Commies are the only ones good at repackaging bullshit) and have the "victory plan." The war on terrorism is already over in the minds of Democrats.

Rudy said...

Beamish,
Are you actually admitting that you believe the Iraq War was sold as a lie?

Had Cheney decided to jump up and join the Democratic Party, he would have been beaten like chickenhawk Joe Lieberman was before he pussed out of the Democratic Party.

Do you actually believe a more sane group of individduals would have supported the dumbass neo con who said this back in '94? You people look at him as a saint. Yet conveniently forget his words 12 years ago. Did or did not this war become the "quagmire" as your conservative saint Cheney predicted? C'mon, point out where I am wrong.

As for popularity of the bullshit war: Dems went against what they were voted into power to do. This would explain the low ratings they and the pres have gotten. Can you give a better explanation of any recent polls? Has our nation suddenly become a bunch of ignorants since the truth as you explained above been found out against the will of the executive branch? Well? Is most of America ignorant of the facts now, or was most of America ignorant when this war --based on bullshit as you have admitted-- was SOLD to us?

Rudy said...

Talk about repackaging bullshit. I'm sure you voted for Cheney. This is HILARIOUS!

roman said...

Here is something that will really dissapoint the "pull out of Iraq NOW" crowd. The leading DEMOCRATIC presidential contenders are stealthily starting to concede that our presence in Iraq will be necessary until the year 2013. Now that they are cocky enough and assured of victory in 2008, they have no choice but to finally bring the peaceniks expectations back down to earth. Even Hillary, Edwards and Obama are starting to sing Bush's tune ( because that is the real state of affairs in the ME not partisan politics)
Also Tina,
I wish you would not use the "cherry picking" ploy of liberals to keep refering to the reason for the Iraq war as that of WMD's alone. This was ONE of MANY reasons for the war. Did you notice how you completely ignored my mention of 12 years of Saddam's ignoring of UN sanctions? By ignoring all the other reasons like kicking out the WMD inspectors, shooting SAMs at coalition planes enforcing the no-fly zones and committing genocidal acts upon the Kurds among others, you and your ilk are being more than disingenious by making statements like "BUT WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BY IRAQ"
Liberals do have a severe problem when it comes to putting historical facts in their proper time and space. A couple of chapters in the study of linguistics would be helpful I'm sure. But please not the slanted version of linguistics as taught by Chomsky.

Renegade Eye said...

Roman: I agree the war will be going on for quite awhile. You are closer to me on that, than you are toward Beamish.

I agree also that Saddam did nothing to help himself, with his belligerancy.

If the antiwar movement dissolves because of a Democrat in power, it as Trotsky said, "The main problem is leadership."

I don't see Iran bombed. It is too apocalyptic.

Rudy said...

Polls show that America is disappointed that Congress has not done what they (the Democrats) were appointed to do. As for the pres candidates, does anyone believe that they did not offer the best answer to help their run for office? Their acceptance of a continuing war sure has republican voters paying attention. Could it be a political ploy? Have they not stated they were anti-war already? YES they did!

Just as the Vietnam War was sold as a war to defend America the Iraq War was sold on the belief that Saddam had WMD's. Period. But as anyone with a memory can recall, it was given the name of, Iraqi Freedom" and then "a global war on terror." The idea of war with Iraq was first sold on the fact that Saddam defied the UN sanctions. The UN was told to pull out by who? The UN? No. The UN was told to leave by who? Conservatives have cherry picked through this war from the very beginning. FACT.

That said: Who has the balls to say that the world would be better off had Tina's father died in Vietnam, and she had never been born to become the mother of two babies? Who can say that their own family made the same sacrifice that her mother and father made? If you can say your parents made this sacrifice tell me why your parents survived. Or were your parents in Canada? Did your daddy have Limbaugh butt pimples? How the hell can anyone be angry that a wife wanted her husband home? What a sorry bunch of excuses to begin and prolong war. I suggest that those who agree with the current war - enlist.

roman said...

Rudy,

the Iraq War was sold on the belief that Saddam had WMD's. Period.

Thanks for making my point. Historical revisionism by the liberal press and Bush hate syndrome have found another convert. Don't you know that keeping in lockstep with those anti-America soundbites that the Dems have been using the last 6 years is no longer nessesary? Time to face reality.. looks like your leadership has already abandoned the peace platform now that they smell victory and will soon dispense with their anti-war supporters. The message will be: Thanks, Rudy, for your support but now get the hell out of the way. Its our turn now!

Cla said...

Sonia,

You stupid little rich girl. Vietnam was a pointless war from all angles. Needless loss of life on all sides. Just show some human, decent, respect. As others have said, you disgust me.

Silly little rich girls should just be quite. You don't know or understand the real world.

Mr Beamish,

Still talking shit I see....

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Rudy,

I know the leftist proclivity for hallucination is incurable, but honestly - I never did say the Iraq War was sold as a lie.

Cla,

My you take defeats personally, dontcha chickie?

Cla said...

Mr Beamish,

Listen here sweetheart. You couldn't beat an egg. I've told you before. Have you discovered what evidence is yet? Do you understand the word 'independent'?

Not once in any thread, have you provided evidence from an independent source. Mr Beamish, you are a fool. I've grown tired of laughing at you. Boring......

You have been a good laugh though. Thanks sweetheart. BTW - Are you out of the closet yet? Be free my friend. Sorry if I interrupted you watching Top Gun again. My sincere apologies. LOL! You're so gay. Do you still have all the half naked, muscle clad, army boys on your blog? LOL! Jockeying missiles? LOL! I've told you before that I wouldn't mind if you are gay. I have a few gay friends. Stop repressing it. It can't be good for you, sweetheart.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Cla,

How many times are you going to degrade yourself today? I'm starting a pool.

Cla said...

Mr Beamish,

How many times am I going to degrade you today?

Hmmm, not really sure. Do you want to make an argument about something? I can start now if you like, sweetheart.

Slave Revolt said...

"Your husband is a rich pussy!!! And so are you.

You truly disgust me.

Posted by Rudy | 27 September, 2007 03:58"

Rudy, hats off for that comment bro! Sonia is a spoiled, cynical, far-rightwing (fascist) apologist for the worst exploitation. Her ideology is the 'virus' that is despoiling our ability to live on a healthy planet.

Clearly, the Vietnamese were fighting more from a deeply felt nationalism than for 'communism'. As the years passed, the Vietnamese government opted for pragmatic capitalism (which is still not viable in the long-term because of the diseased, unsustainable logic).

Tina, you are an honorable daughter--I am sure your folks are proud of you. As an anti-imperialist, I understand that the reasons that people join the military are multifaceted--the majority of soilders are not storm-troopers for US imperialism, and most don't identify with the dominant propaganda that they are forced to regurgitate as part of being part of the US armed forces.

Ren, good post, and well thought out comments.

The failure of the US antiwar movement is due to lack of a coherent message, as well as the fact that both poitical parties are controlled by big capital. US corporate capitalists have decided that a long-term occupation of Iraq is necessary. What the deluded herd (the US masses that have been configured into mere 'consumers') want is really not too much of an issue---unless the people can become more unified in opposition.

A unified, popular movement will come to the forefront in the US with the next massive economic fall, similar to the great depression. Only then will the corporate capitalists be forced to address the needs and desires of the majority of the US citizenry.

You will notice that Beamish, Farmer John, and Sonia are not in Iraq fighting against the 'barbarians' at the door. LOL Typical chicken-hawks--all sqwak and no honor.

Jae said...

Thanks, guys. You’re really making this too easy. I said this:
“I ask any conservative blogging to explain to me the difference between our support of our troops and the German people's support of theirs.”

My expectation was that there would be the ad homunculum argument (personal attacks) and a subtle shift away from the argument. That is the Bush/Cheney way. Swift Boat ‘em… damn the reality.

Now, no written argument is perfect, but when I read my challenge, it looks to me that Americans supporting their troops would look pretty close to German citizens supporting their HOMELAND troops. (After all, the Nazi’s used the term, first).

Mr. Beamish said the support was different because dissenters weren’t rounded up and cremated. I’ve read a lot of WWII history and there certainly was a holocaust and people were horribly killed. But, I don’t recall the wholesale slaughter of Aryan citizens. Could you direct me to that fact? Anyway, his point was dissent was silenced – kind of like what the White House and conservatives are trying to do to the anti-war movement? Remember Rummy’s suggestion that anti-war protestors are like Nazi sympathizers? Or, better yet, kind of like what’s happened to a mainstream media that is BARRED from showing soldier’s coffins?
Secondly, there’s an interesting re-write of history by Mr. Beamish. He said WWII was about the extermination of jews? I’m pretty sure that was Hitler’s evil, secondary intent. Germany was looking more towards national expansion and recreating an earlier, larger, more powerful German state. Still, even if that was front and center to the German causus belli, I’m sure the Iraq people would point to us and ask why they are being exterminated by our war plans.

Thirdly, I LOVE the implication that fighting for a LEFTIST cause is horrific, while a RIGHTIST cause has Jesus’ approval.
Mr. Roman just got right down to the personal attacks, God love him ;-). My favorite was: “If you're seriously comparing our armed forces to those of Nazis, you will need to remove the tin-foil hat and start cracking those history books.”
Not only did he not stray from the personal attack, he called me stupid. Out of respect for Mr. Roman’s intelligence, I’m just going to offer a date, September 1, 1939. I’m sure he knows that an “attack” against Germany precipitated their aggression. Of course, that deflates his condescending “err… we were attacked for one” argument. But, hey, I still respect his intelligence, liberal that I am. I’ll just assume, he’s impassioned.

And, the last conservative on the personal attack posted an interesting addendum to his disgust with me. Here it is: Hitler lost the war and his country was occupied by its enemies. But if Hitler had won, everybody would support his troops. You would support them too. Or you would be dead. This should be obvious. Often, I think Beamish is right when says that leftists are incapable of rational thought.

Once again, not a lot of precise thought, but a lot of passion. I don’t really accept the argument that I should shut up because if Hitler had won, I’d be dead. What part of that addresses my original question? Actually, how does that even address the ongoing argument? In fact, the underlying theme is if I don’t keep my mouth shut, I’ll be dead.

To this conservative, I’ll ask this question: what was the reason Osama bin Laden used for his aggression? Here’s a hint: American troops on holy ground. He considered that “an invasion.” Based on at least one of your fellow conservative’s arguments, isn’t that an “attack.” Aren’t attacks cause for war?
Here’s my advice to conservatives: look at the cause and effect. Understand that your perspective is limited and rests in the midst of a universe of options, right, wrong and neutral.

Tina. My fellow liberal, my only point with the STT is that conservatives use it dishonestly to quiet dissent. I refuse to be party to that dishonesty, if they can’t understand the nuance – and considering their answer to my question, that remains to be seen—then it’s not my job to explain it to them.

At base, we should not be fighting in Iraq.

sonia said...

Jae,

I don’t really accept the argument that I should shut up because if Hitler had won, I’d be dead.

That's not my argument. I never told you to shut up. I would just hope that you might direct your anger at the right target.

What part of that addresses my original question? Actually, how does that even address the ongoing argument? In fact, the underlying theme is if I don’t keep my mouth shut, I’ll be dead.

No, that's not the underlying theme. The bottom iline is this: today, the Nazis are the people that the American soldiers are slaughtering in Iraq.

To this conservative, I’ll ask this question: what was the reason Osama bin Laden used for his aggression? Here’s a hint: American troops on holy ground. He considered that “an invasion.” Based on at least one of your fellow conservative’s arguments, isn’t that an “attack.” Aren’t attacks cause for war?

I don't care what Osama's motives are. I don't care what Bush's motives are. That's not what matters. What matters is this: are we better off living under American hegemony, or under Islamofascist hegemony. If you believe the latter, that's fine. Join the Talian and go fight in Afghaniostan. But I believe the former, and I will support those who are determined to exterminate Islamofascism from the face of the earth.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

You'll note that Jae doesn't think we should be fighting in Iraq, and Slave Revolt wants everyone who believes otherwise to join the "we" I suppose Jae was refering to.

Wind 'em up and watch them go...

Rudy said...

Roman,
the liberal press and Bush hate syndrome...

That's the oldest talking point or sounbite played over and over again by the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Do the righties listen to these liars then call real journalists "liberal press"? O\The hypocrisy makes me laugh out loud.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Jae,

Secondly, there’s an interesting re-write of history by Mr. Beamish. He said WWII was about the extermination of jews?

You could have just said that you're a leftist. The demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension skills wasn't necessary. The only thing I mentioned about the Holocaust was that the German military was carrying it out (a difference between them and American troops) and that the idea of exterminating Jews is essentially leftist.

Slave Revolt said...

"idea of exterminating Jews is essentially leftist."

Wow, what a bold statement Beamish. Please, do back up this assertion with something resembeling an arguemnt. Even though you are a victim of corporate propaganda, I am sure you can at least attempt to construct an argument by showing evidence that you deem compelling. Or is sloganeering all that you are capable of?

sonia said...

Slave Revolt,

"idea of exterminating Jews is essentially leftist". bold statement Beamish. Please, do back up this assertion with something resembeling an arguemnt.

There is nothing 'bold' about it. It is a simple truth. Even though you are a victim of totalitarian propaganda, I am sure you can at least acknowledge that the burden of proof is on YOU, because Hitler's party was called 'National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party'.

So it's up to YOU to prove that Hitler wasn't a left-wing socialist.

If Hitler called his party 'Conservative Right-Wing Party of the Rich Capitalist Exploiters', THEN it would be up to us to prove otherwise...

Jae said...

I forgot how fun this is! Anybody remember the old (good)SNL, when Chevy Chase would start off his comment to Jane Curtin with the words "Jane, you ignorant slut?" I think my conservative playmates must have taken that to heart for their playbook.

Anyhoo... I notice a couple of statements that I'll simply highlight because of how much I vehemently disagree with them:
Sonia: "The bottom iline is this: today, the Nazis are the people that the American soldiers are slaughtering in Iraq."

Secondly: "I don't care what Osama's motives are. I don't care what Bush's motives are."

Yikes. And, I'm called irrational?

Listen up; there are horrors being perpetrated in the name of America. And, the victims of that horror, innocent Iraqi people, will NOT view nation-building, WMD or whatever reason we're using on a particular day as a just cause for the killings of their mothers, dauthers, babies and brothers. Just as the Jewish victims did not care about the motives. Innocents did not want to die. Period.

When we beat down Iraq and in the shadow of Saudi Arabia we are not showing a love of democracy; we are showing a love of oil and money. Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian state AND, my conservative playmates, the so-called 9/11 terrorists predominantly came from there.

Aren't you even curious why we aren't tearing up THAT country?

Mr. Beamish -- what can I say? Your ironclad certainty that the extermination of Jews was a leftist plot doesn't seem to jibe with what I've learned. I'm painting with broad strokes here, but often Jews were in the vanguard of the leftist movement of that era in Germany. It strikes me as strange that the movement would want to eradicate some of its most accomplished members. And, communism, which Hitler hated, was equated with the left. So, if Hitler hated communism (don't take my word for it, check out his relationship with Stalin), a leftist political ideology, wouldn't that -- sort of by definition -- make him a right winger? This is just a little logic exercise, actually, because anyone who considers Nazi Germany to be a left wing nation is really taking liberties with history.

Looking forward to your vitriol on this one.
Peace

roman said...

Jae,

I’m sure he knows that an “attack” against Germany precipitated their aggression.

If you're reffering to a few Polish troops protecting themselves on the border and then having the Nazis claim that this was an "attack" or"invasion" and seriously believing it, you have a serious problem with logic. This "staged" event was planned and precipitated by the Nazis in a pathetic attempt at having an excuse to invade Poland.
No serious scholar of history ever accepted this obvious Nazi propaganda. Think man... Polish lancers on horseback against Blitzkrieg armored panzer tactics with a 20+ to one advantage in military might that eventually came close to defeating the rest of Europe, North Africa and Russia. How can one seriously believe that Poland was invading Germany?
See... this is why liberals have a severe problem with history.
The only thing that you've said that I agree with is the "tin foil" crack I made. That was more emotion than civilized discourse but appropriate in this case.

sonia said...

Jae,

if Hitler hated communism (don't take my word for it, check out his relationship with Stalin), a leftist political ideology, wouldn't that -- sort of by definition -- make him a right winger?

No. Leftists have always denounced, killed, imprisoned, and tortured fellow leftists. Stalin killed more Communists than Hitler ever did. Trotsky was killed by Stalin, not by Hitler. In 1933, German Communists attacked German Social Democrats far more than they attacked the Nazis. Today, leftists attack neo-cons (former leftists) far more often than they attack paleo-cons (right-wingers).

Cannibalism is a leftist disease. Hitler's hatred of fellow leftists doesn't make him a right-winger. It makes him a typical leftist cannibal.

And, btw, mentioning 'Hitler's relationship with Stalin' doesn't help your case at all...

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Slave Revolt,

Start with Marx's "World Without Jews" essay. Tell me in what way it contradicts the sentiments fomented by the leftist Adolf Hitler.

Jae said...

Ah Roman -
Now, I will get to my point. While you and I don't see the Polish "attack" as an attack, it still was the ostensible justification for the GERMAN response. (I highlighted that for the simple reason that you continually impute American motives onto German actions and I want to do something a bit later in this post). How is an American invastion of IRAQ justified when the 9/11 attack did not come from that country? Even "your president" has said as much. My tin-foiled point is that German leaders had their pretext for war despite the facts presented. They WANTED to go to war and a logical response wasn't what they sought.

As the Downing Street memo suggests, the same thing happened with our "leaders." They WANTED a war in Iraq, damn the facts. I doubt whether you care about the strong parallels between the two, you may even be offended, but facts are facts.

And, as I mentioned, I wanted to do something: here it is. I will just change a few words in my Polish example: "While you and I don't see the Iraqi "attack" as an attack, it still was the ostensible justification for the AMERICAN response."

Sonia - dismiss the fact that Hitler despised Stalin and his ideology all you want. Once again, saying it's not so, doesn't work with me. If the sky is blue, it's blue. Rick Santorum can't start calling himself a moderate all of a sudden. It doesn't work that way. Hitler was not a lefty. But, since you're effectively telling me you're not going to look at this with an unprejudiced eye, there's nothing left to say to you about it. To you I say: 'All Right Wingers pee milk and poop honey. Let the sky be chartreuse in your world -- good for you.'

Mr. Beamish :-). You are obviously angry about something. But, that's not my business. All I can say is that Marx' World Without Jews, as I understood it way back in High School, was NOT a call for extermination of Jews, so much as it was Marx' belief that Jews were not as interested in issues of the proletariat because of their adhesion to their racial/religious identity first. The pamphlet could just as easily been World Without Catholics or World Without Muslims. Marx disliked religion's propensity for creating a servile and master class.

But, I will throw my conservative playmates a bone. We liberals aren't perfect, there have been bad things done in our name. I just feel in my heart of hearts, right wingers have been guilty of far more attrocities. That is an inarguable statement, since it's my opinion.

Let the bloodletting commence anew ;-).

Slave Revolt said...

Jae, you hit the nail on the head, the essay that the lair Beamish points to as evidence toward the leftist desire to exterminate all Jews was about the problem of idenity/religion/politics in the context of emancipation from capitalist class oppression in Europe.

Really, the disingenuous leaps of logic are so engrained in the rabid, pro-imperialist rightwing that they cannot even make an argument. This is why they need to maintain hegemonic control over the media, to propagate 'newspeak' so that the masses suffering their rule cannot emancipate themselves.

First they come after your ability to understand the world--this is engaged as part of the bastardization of language through which meaning is evacuated. Bastards.

It is good enough to know that they are losing, and their imperialist endeavors are going down in flames--but the sad part is the bodies of innocent civilians and the ecological despolitation that they leave in their wake.

No, we must exterminate imperialism. It will happen.

Sonia, please, put on some clothes and put down the crack pipe. Stay away from windows and sharp objects.

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: Your view represents a new rewriting of history. Fascism is not the first choice of capitalist rule. They prefer the order of bourgeoise democracy, still it is in their arsenal, used in Germany, Italy and Spain. Fascism is based on total annihilation of the revolutionary and working class movement.

All the rhetoric or party titles, don't change that under fascism the means of production is owned and managed by the owners. In time of war, a state capitalist stage can happen as a temporary measure. Even in the US, in WWII, their was state capitalist measures used,

The issue isn't did Hitler call his party a worker's party, the question is whether it was.

In Minnesota the Democratic Party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, because in the 1940s, it merged with a local polulist party. Their first action was to expel communists. I don't think Democrats could keep up the charade, if they called themselves openly a bosses party.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."

Let's start with Hitlers own quotes.

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy."

According to Allan Bullock: "While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity;
internationalism versus nationalism."

What next Franco was leftist?

sonia said...

Ren,

Fascism is based on total annihilation of the revolutionary and working class movement.

So is Communism.

under fascism the means of production is owned and managed by the owners. In time of war, a state capitalist stage can happen as a temporary measure. Even in the US, in WWII, there were state capitalist measures used

This isn't the only similarity between Hitler and FDR. FDR was the most totalitarian president US has ever had.

The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke.

The idea that workers control the means of production in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela is a bitter joke as well.

The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."

In Chavez's Venezuela, the director of every state-owned enterprise has EXACTLY the same powers.

Hitlers own quotes.

Notice that in all those quotes, Hitler speaks about Marxism and Social Democracy, NEVER about socialism. In Hitler's view, Marxism and Social Democracy were perversions of true, national SOCIALISM, which he supported.

What next Franco was leftist?

Franco wasn't a leftist, though some of his supporters - the Falangists - were very close to national socialism. But unlike Hitler, Franco was pro-Catholic and he opposed the totalitarian ideology.

Renegade Eye said...

Venezuela is a capitalist country, still in the hands of the oligarchy.

I use socialism and Marxism interchangeably. Do you think he was talking about Bakunin?

What do you mean Franco, didn't believe in totalitarian ideology?

Slave Revolt said...

Ren, this is like aruing with a crack pipe. I mean, seriously. Sonia is clearly delusional.


Hitler was no socialist. Just like the US politicos use the word 'democracy' with wild abandon (when they serve oligarchy, pure and simple) because most of the demos instinctively identify with the concept--Hitler and his fascist allies used the word 'socialist' because of its cache among the volk.

Slave Revolt said...

And, jeez, she (or 'he') is just wanking you: "Franco didn't believe in a totalitarian ideology" LOL

Gotta be the crack, just gotta be.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Jae,

Mr. Beamish :-). You are obviously angry about something. But, that's not my business. All I can say is that Marx' World Without Jews, as I understood it way back in High School, was NOT a call for extermination of Jews, so much as it was Marx' belief that Jews were not as interested in issues of the proletariat because of their adhesion to their racial/religious identity first. The pamphlet could just as easily been World Without Catholics or World Without Muslims. Marx disliked religion's propensity for creating a servile and master class.

What a cop out. Are you saying that Marx would have dismissed his rival Lasalle on the merits of his arguments rather than labelling him a "Jew nigger" if only his hair hadn't been so nappy?

Not only were Marx's polemics against Judaism strangely prescient of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" garbage that would later come out of revolutionary Russia, they were reflective of the general anti-Semitic atmosphere of late 19th century Europe. He "could" have attacked Catholicism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Trancendental Astigmatism or whatever, but no - Marx primarily assailed Judaism. Maybe Marx himself was just a Jew from a rabinnical family doing his own bit of self-immolation to please his anti-Semitic contemporaries. But the fact remains that Marx himself made no distinctions between the caricature strawman Jew he wanted the world to be "without" and actual Jews. No matter how twisted and debased and contemptuous a view Marx had for religions (including Judaism), you can't escape that in application, Marx was calling for the eradication of a culture.

Renegade Eye said...

Beamish: I'll post more tomorrow, it's 3am now.

Jae handled the question of Marx's anti-Semitism charge quite well, considering he is not a Marxist.

Goodness knows I don't like Marx's not politically correct language. He was using the language of his time. That language some of it was picked up by reading Zionist tracts at the time, also from liberals and Hegelians.

Since you brought up The Protocols, show me behavior that was anti-Semitic on Marx's part: Did he belong to a racist group? Support pogroms etc?

Rudy said...

All you Righties for war,
Let's compare this statement by a real Nazi to the BS 9/11 crap and the absence of proof that Iraq had anything to do with those terrorist attacks:

Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” - Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials.

Now, who the hell most resembles the Nazi here?

Answer: Righties do. Put that in your "made in China" lead paimted pipes and smoke it.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Rudy,

I think my point that even Hitler's anti-Semitism was as grounded in leftist thought as his confiscation of their property is holding up well.

Let's stick with actual history here.

Iraq was not attacked because of any operational connections to the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was attacked for several reasons, one of which was Iraq's operational connections to the organization that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda is an alliance of several Islamic militant groups around the world, many of which had ties to Iraq's Mukhabarat. The Phillipines kicked out Iraqi diplomats in the 1990s, for example, after they were discovering communicating with the Abu Sayyaf Group.

The picture is bigger.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Ren,

Goodness knows I don't like Marx's not politically correct language. He was using the language of his time. That language some of it was picked up by reading Zionist tracts at the time, also from liberals and Hegelians.

It's all placed in context by first explaining what the "Jewish Question" was that everyone from Bauer to Marx to Herzl to Tsar Nicholas to Stalin to Hitler to Ahmadinejad seeks an answer.

sonia said...

Ren,

I use socialism and Marxism interchangeably.

Well, Hitler wasn't using it interchangeably. Socialism was a sacred word to him. Marxism was an expletive.

By defending national socialism, you're defending Hitler's legacy. By defending international socialism (aka Marxism), you're defending Lenin's and Stalin's legacies.

What do you mean Franco, didn't believe in totalitarian ideology?

Franco was a typical right-wing reactionary (like Pinochet), determined to preserve old ways and traditions.

Totalitarians are by definition progressive people, determined to destroy the old ways in order to build a new totalitarian order, be it internationalist (from Lenin to Chavez) or nationalist (from Hitler to Saddam)...

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: Well, Hitler wasn't using it interchangeably. Socialism was a sacred word to him. Marxism was an expletive.

What else matters but Marxism in the real world.

By defending national socialism, you're defending Hitler's legacy. By defending international socialism (aka Marxism), you're defending Lenin's and Stalin's legacies.

Obviously I defend Bolshevik-Leninism. That is different than the Stalinist term "Marxist-Leninist," a term invented to counter Trotskyism.

Franco was a typical right-wing reactionary (like Pinochet), determined to preserve old ways and traditions.

Pinochet didn't have the social basis for fascism, that Franco had. Pinochet was only a military dictator.

roman said...

Rudy,

Employing a quote by Hermann Goering is rich in irony but presents a somewhat anemic comparison to current events.

Jae employs the same straw man tactics by introducing Nazi Germany and attempting to make comparisons to the Bush administration. Just by making the introduction, the "spin" is in play. This is typical of the liberal mindset in the MSM, academia and their blogging converts who carry their water. No matter how many times it is told them that Iraq was not attacked for 9/11, they will insist that it was. Was-was'nt, was-was'nt....
Other liberals insist it was because of cooked-up intel on WMD's even though just about everyone was in agreement on that same intel. Was-was'nt, was-was'nt...
The 12 years of ignoring the UN's admonitions, the firing of SAM's at coalition planes, the kicking out of UN inspectors, the breaking of the signed peace treaty after the Kuwait invasion, the genocidal slaughter of Kurds and others, etc... these things are never brought up and discussed by libs. Why? It just does not help their "spin". As if the "spin" is more important than what is in fact true or false.

Powers McStinson said...

Roman,

I don't think any liberal in here is claiming that we attacked Iraq in response to 9/11. Liberals aren't that naive, at least they aren't that naive when it comes to taking the Bush administration at its word. There are plenty of other things that the archetypical liberal is naive about, but trusting neoconservative presidential administrations isn't one of them.

In fact, if you were inclined to poll the general populace, and some folks apparently actually are, you might be surprised to see that it is the more conservative minded folk who tend to believe that we went after Hussein because of his ties to 9/11. That's because these folks are much more inclined to trust the president, and Hussein's links to 9/11 were one of the justifications that the current admin played up in the rush to war.

It seems that when you speak of liberals, you're speaking about the ones that exist solely in your head; the real ones aren't nearly as one dimensional.

But, if liberals, or people in general, seem confused about the causes of the war they can hardly be blamed. We were given all manner of justification for our invasion: there were the WMD's, or, *ahem* weapons related program activities (you're wrong about everyone agreeing about the intel, the problem was that the people who were disagreeing were the ones gathering and analyzing it, not the ones disseminating it); we were going to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people, and they would welcome us with open arms and flowers; saddam has ties to bin laden and 9/11; we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here(an interesting way to honor our soldiers - using them as bait) and- this last one is the real kicker- eliminating Hussein and installing a democracy would be a catalyst for a new era of stability in the Middle East.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

US aircraft carriers do not have nuclear weapons on board. All they have are uranium / plutonium cores, tritium triggers, RDX explosive compounds, and bomb casings. Oh and screwdrivers.

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. All they had was thousands of tons of liquid pesticidal chemicals, oodles of empty binary chemical artillery shells, and military bases to store them together in.

sonia said...

Powers McStinson,

this last one is the real kicker- eliminating Hussein and installing a democracy would be a catalyst for a new era of stability in the Middle East.,

Don't worry. George W.Bush has learned his lesson. Like all his predecessors (including his father), he is going back to the old, safe US policy of supporting ruthless dictators who keep their people in line and preserve "stability".

Stability uber alles.

But one day you will all choke on your "stability"...

Powers McStinson said...

Sonia,

You're quite mistaken if you think that my position on some kind of intangible notion of stability has any bearing on this. I only brought the issue up as an example as to why we were deceived in the run up to war.

Bush isn't 'going back to the old, safe US policy of supporting ruthless dictators who keep their people in line and preserve "stability".'

He never stopped - see Georgia.

Beamish

That's great that you think that's justification for invading and occupying iraq(one would assume that since you're most likely not in Iraq right now you didn't think it was that good of a reason), but you don't know what you're talking about.

All you've shown is that Iraq was as capable of WMDs as the average rural WalMart. As much as I wouldn't mind if WalMart were invaded and occupied by a foreign power, I somehow doubt the willingness of folks such as yourself to champion the idea.

Jae said...

Roman - God love you! You make it easy for me to play: Bullshit! (think of the Penn & Teller show). When you said I introduced the Nazi Germany argument as a "straw man," you either misspoke OR succumbed to the current conservative malaise of, how shall we say?: lying! Actually, our conservative playmate Sonia introduced Nazi Germany before I entered this thread. I simply read what came before because I figured I wanted to be well-informed on the thread's content. I know this seems like a personal attack; but it's really more of a general attack on underhanded conservative tactics. I think conservatives were very impressed with themselves with the whole Swift Boat incident, in which it was demonstrated that lies could overwhelm the truth. Now, millions of you are calling the night, day and saying New Coke is better than Classic Coke. Don't misunderstand, liberals know there is evil in the world, we just tend to counter it wherever we see it -- abroad and at home. I wasn't offended by Sonia saying leftists go after each other. I disagree with her implication that we are always on the side of evil. My motto is 'Tell mother you love her, then cut the cards.' The arguments many of you posit strike me as rigid and unyielding and, most importantly, not life-affirming (just deal with the touchy-feely). With your attitude, we embark on a slippery slope in the argument for human rights versus the rights of the state (nation). Taken to an extreme, I see your viewpoint has the potential to create another Nazi Germany or Uganda under Amin or Cambodia under Pol Pot. You SEEM to have sided with the state at all times over the individual. Go down that path and it difficult, if not impossible, to have the state EVER cede its power over the individuals. IMO, liberals want accountability in government first and tolerance for individual differences second. Why that order? Because governments have a tendency to want to control its populace as opposed to govern. For the most part, individuals want to pursue their happiness and should be left to that unless and until they subvert someone else's pursuit. Every time Cheney says 'Fuck Yourself' on the Senate floor; or Rove cages African American votes; or Bush lies and says 'Mission Accomplished' the discourse has roughened and the HABIT of how the U.S. governs takes, what I feel to be, a wrong turn. Governors (writ lower case) want to preserve their power -- continue those habits. They want to preserve the government as constituted So, when I see Sonia, Roman and Mr. Beamish advocate for pro-government positions, I know their words will be used as touchpoints for those governors to say "The people are with us." Pol Pot did it; Hitler did it; Amin did it; Bush does it. I don't care for that world because I foresee another Kristallnacht a short way down that path. The progression of enforcing that HABIT of government doesn't always allow time for ill-informed adherents to see their error of their ways. How quickly can those in power declare martial law? Much more quickly than you think. And, if you believe that that is an impossible scenario, you haven't been paying attention to either history or Rudy Giulani. Giulani wanted to void an election season and stay in office after 9/11.

The world you point to makes me shudder.

sonia said...

Jae,

Taken to an extreme, I see your viewpoint has the potential to create another Nazi Germany or Uganda under Amin or Cambodia under Pol Pot. You SEEM to have sided with the state at all times over the individual. Go down that path and it difficult, if not impossible, to have the state EVER cede its power over the individuals.

I agree 100%. But it's not the conservatives who support the state over the individual. This is the LEFTIST position. If you support the individual, and if you criticize the state, YOU ARE NOT A LEFTIST.

Your comment is a complete semantic mess. We have to agree over the definitions of words before we can argue about all this.

Answer this: when Bush overthrew Saddam, did you approve or not ? That's the ultimate test.

Either you support Third World dictators (a conservative position) or you support their removal (a revolutionary position).

Everything else is bullshit.

Jae said...

No. No. A thousand times no I do not support and did not support a military invasion of Iraq (Saddam, who by the by had been propped up by a conservative U.S. government). Does that make me conservative? No. Your either/or is false. And, I sincerely am curious where you think my arguments/semantics are messy. Unless I'm misreading, aren't you supporting this government's military intervention, while I've been arguing about the collateral damage on individuals (among other things)?
Thanks!

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

That's great that you think that's justification for invading and occupying iraq(one would assume that since you're most likely not in Iraq right now you didn't think it was that good of a reason), but you don't know what you're talking about

I assume then that your heart's not really in to removing America's presence from Iraq, since after all you're not in Anbar Province alongside Al Qaeda kidnapping and killing the children of Sunni tribal leaders and serving their corpses for dinner to their parents to intimidate them into fighting the Americans. Even after Zawahiri plead for you to get there.

All you've shown is that Iraq was as capable of WMDs as the average rural WalMart.

Actually, I've shown, quite unintentionally, how out of depth you are when discussing military capabilities.

Seriously, you weren't really trying to sell everyone the idea that you're mentally retarded, were you? Do you even know what a binary chemical artillery shell is? Do you know sarin gas is made from mixing pesticidal chemicals?

As much as I wouldn't mind if WalMart were invaded and occupied by a foreign power, I somehow doubt the willingness of folks such as yourself to champion the idea.

Yeah, the Kurds were massacred by Wal-Mart bug spray. Imbecile.

roman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
roman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
roman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
roman said...

ren,

I really was'nt trying to get you comments up to 114. I was having the roughest time with italics.
Sorry!!!

roman said...

Jae,

Roman - God love you!

Jae – Thank you for that heartfelt salutation. I’m feeling better already.

Actually, our conservative playmate Sonia introduced Nazi Germany before I entered this thread.

Actually it was Beamish ( in ’08) that introduced it by way of an example of anti-war groups’ tactics , who you will readily admit are 99% LIBERAL, of equating (via the well-worn mantra) of HITLER = BUSH. I guess you did’nt go back up the comments far enough.

I think conservatives were very impressed with themselves with the whole Swift Boat incident

As well they should be. What part of the Swift Boat renunciation of Kerry’s “hero” status was false? None of their claims have been disproven but don’t dare tell the libs that conservative Vietnam veterans may possibly be telling the truth… only liberal/leftist/ Democrat Vietnam vets are to be trusted to tell the truth.

You SEEM to have sided with the state at all times over the individual

Since 9/11, like many others who recognize the danger from radical Islam, I have opted to back the administration who was voted in to protect the nation from future attacks. I know they made mistakes but so did every previous wartime president. Calling the president Hitler, a fascist or a monkey is just plain counter-productive and self-destructive for this nation. Libs’ stance on this score is immature and severely illogical and serves only to propel liberal left-wing pandering Democrats into office who offer nothing but a continuation of the status quo.

because I foresee another Kristallnacht a short way down that path

Here our paths diverge. I do not share your vision of potential world-wide fascism via the Bush or Giuliani doctrines. Instead, I see a creeping encroachment from radical Islam to eventually establish a new world Kalifate under Sharia law. The war on radical Islamic terror MUST be fought with appropriate sacrifices (even some freedoms we enjoyed before 9/11) to combat this very real threat to our existing way of life. This war is not just boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq but of financially starving and exposing their brutal nihilistic goal of world domination by their use of corrupted self-serving religious interpretation. Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapons capability even if it means bombing their installations. Its going to get worse, much worse if we follow the liberal path of appeasement. Letting down our guard will bring about a new and dark vision of Chrystallnacht with not only yellow stars and crosses but also whatever new symbols they dream up to represent Hindus,atheists, Marxists and Trotskyists. Maybe just a big “K” for Kafirs (non-Muslims).

Powers McStinson said...

Willy Beamish
I assume then that your heart's not really in to removing America's presence from Iraq, since after all you're not in Anbar Province alongside Al Qaeda kidnapping and killing the children of Sunni tribal leaders and serving their corpses for dinner to their parents to intimidate them into fighting the Americans. Even after Zawahiri plead for you to get there.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but i must say that i find your iraqi cannibalism fantasies intriguing. Is this from some iraq civilian experience fanfiction site? The stories have changed considerably, last i heard the most popular fiction surrounding iraq civilians involved them welcoming our presence with open arms.

Oh, wait, i get it. You're trying to say that the fact that i'm not actively supporting the insurgents in iraq is to me wanting the troops to come home is the same as you being unwilling to join the military is to wanting the troops to win. That's dumb.

First of all, i don't think what we're doing there is worthwhile, and i don't think not losing is the same as winning. I don't need to be actively supporting the insurgents to be ideologically consistent with wanting the troops to come home. That you think otherwise makes you delusional.

Really, are you honestly trying to say that the fact that i want the troops to come home means that i support the people who are trying to kill them? Sorry buddy, but you need to stop living in whatever fantasy world you live in, because right now, real people are dying.

Speaking of real people, you seem to believe that it is necessary for other people to die because you have some sort of commitment to whatever the hell the justification du jour is for our presence in iraq. Whether we're there because of wmd's of to install democracy, or whatever, you think it is necessary for other people to risk their lives, while you yourself are unwilling to do so. We're lucky there are people who know that blogging is a pretty empty way to support the troops.

The most tangible way to support the troops is to become one. Or, you know, stop trying to perpetuate the massive mistake that is currently putting them in harm's way.

Actually, I've shown, quite unintentionally, how out of depth you are when discussing military capabilities.

Seriously, you weren't really trying to sell everyone the idea that you're mentally retarded, were you? Do you even know what a binary chemical artillery shell is? Do you know sarin gas is made from mixing pesticidal chemicals?


Right, because you're an expert on military capabilities and sarin nerve gas. Let me guess, you're a chemical engineer. That's why you can so casually throw around phrases like "binary chemical". I'm impressed. Really. I. Am.
Are these,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html, binary chemical artillery shells the ones to which you are referring? Because these are a little past the expiration date. But you, being the overly qualified military capability and chemical weapons analyst that you are already knew this, because it's obvious to anyone with access to google(like me) that sarin nerve gas has a shelf life of five years, maximum and these were most likely leftovers from a long time ago.

From the article, "The experts, including David Kay, the Pentagon's former top weapons hunter in Iraq, said the discovery did not conclusively prove the existence of stockpiles of concealed chemical and biological weapons."

Oh Snap.

Now, before you say something senseless like, "See, this proves that iraq had wmds," you might want to stop and ask yourself, "Is it possible that Hussein didn't know about these? Is it possible that he didn't care to mention them because he knew that they were, to paraphrase the article, 'completely fucking worthless' as chemical weapons?"

I guess your chemical engineering status has been revoked.

And as a side note just between you and me and the internet, if you're going to try and come off as intellectually superior to someone with whom you are conversing, you should try not to say things that make you look dumb.

Yeah, the Kurds were massacred by Wal-Mart bug spray. Imbecile.

Well, they certainly weren't massacred by twenty year old artillery shells.

I know hussein gassed his own people, and i'm not saying he wasn't a douche. But you are full of shit if you think that the leftovers of what he used to gas his own people were much of any threat to anyone. Unfortunately for you, wmds are what you've ostensibly made this about.

What this whole iraq thing is really about is anyone's guess. The architects of it certainly haven't been all that honest about their motives. I think it's about oil, and securing rebuilding contracts for large multinational engineering firms. You, no doubt, think it's about whatever the reason du jour is. Just please stop mistaking the details of your sophistry for reality- real people are dying.

Renegade Eye said...

Powers: Thank you for coming to my blog.

When are you going to open your own blog?

Slave Revolt said...

McStinson rocks! Kicked their asses and sent them home crying for mommy. LOL

You're correct, McStinson, the delusion runs deep in the bowels of consumerist-imperialism. Sick shit.

For instance: Sonia's claim that 'the left' is against the individual vrs. the state. That's crack-pipe rhetoric, and a type of generalization that sane people don't engage.

The age of O'Reilly and Limbaugh, no doubt.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,


"I assume then that your heart's not really in to removing America's presence from Iraq, since after all you're not in Anbar Province alongside Al Qaeda kidnapping and killing the children of Sunni tribal leaders and serving their corpses for dinner to their parents to intimidate them into fighting the Americans. Even after Zawahiri plead for you to get there."

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but i must say that i find your iraqi cannibalism fantasies intriguing. Is this from some iraq civilian experience fanfiction site? The stories have changed considerably, last i heard the most popular fiction surrounding iraq civilians involved them welcoming our presence with open arms.

Oh, wait, i get it. You're trying to say that the fact that i'm not actively supporting the insurgents in iraq is to me wanting the troops to come home is the same as you being unwilling to join the military is to wanting the troops to win. That's dumb.

First of all, i don't think what we're doing there is worthwhile, and i don't think not losing is the same as winning. I don't need to be actively supporting the insurgents to be ideologically consistent with wanting the troops to come home. That you think otherwise makes you delusional.

Really, are you honestly trying to say that the fact that i want the troops to come home means that i support the people who are trying to kill them? Sorry buddy, but you need to stop living in whatever fantasy world you live in, because right now, real people are dying.


All I did was simply reverse the "logic" of your comment implying that since I do support the troops in Iraq and their mission there I must be actively present and participating there.

Kudos to you for recognizing the idiocy of your initial thrust at me when the formulation is reversed.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to show up Sunday in the offensive line of your favorite NFL team either.

Or run out and stop muggers, no matter how much you claim to support law enforcement.

You realize the very construction of your line of attack (the tiresome "chickenhawk" argument) is imbecilic when it's tossed back at you. You're welcome to replace it with substance at any time.

Speaking of real people, you seem to believe that it is necessary for other people to die because you have some sort of commitment to whatever the hell the justification du jour is for our presence in iraq. Whether we're there because of wmd's of to install democracy, or whatever, you think it is necessary for other people to risk their lives, while you yourself are unwilling to do so. We're lucky there are people who know that blogging is a pretty empty way to support the troops.

The most tangible way to support the troops is to become one. Or, you know, stop trying to perpetuate the massive mistake that is currently putting them in harm's way.


What is the most tangible way to oppose the troops again?

Right, because you're an expert on military capabilities and sarin nerve gas. Let me guess, you're a chemical engineer. That's why you can so casually throw around phrases like "binary chemical". I'm impressed. Really. I. Am.
Are these,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html, binary chemical artillery shells the ones to which you are referring? Because these are a little past the expiration date. But you, being the overly qualified military capability and chemical weapons analyst that you are already knew this, because it's obvious to anyone with access to google(like me) that sarin nerve gas has a shelf life of five years, maximum and these were most likely leftovers from a long time ago.

From the article, "The experts, including David Kay, the Pentagon's former top weapons hunter in Iraq, said the discovery did not conclusively prove the existence of stockpiles of concealed chemical and biological weapons."

Oh Snap.


Just get it over with and say you don't know what a binary chemical artillery shell is.

Sure, sarin gas has a shelf life of 5 years. When it is mixed. When it is in its component state (such as the chemical stockpiles in drums buried at ammo dumps throughout Iraq store with EMPTY binary chemical shells) it isn't sarin gas. The chemicals to make sarin gas are mixed together in flight when the chemical components are loaded into a binary shell and fired.

Or drums of chemicals are strapped up with explosives to produce a poison gas bomb, such as the one intercepted in Amman, Jordan in 2002 when Zarqawi was still directing Al Qaeda cells in Iraq from a Baath Party safehouse in Baghdad.

Oh snap, indeed.

Now, before you say something senseless like, "See, this proves that iraq had wmds," you might want to stop and ask yourself, "Is it possible that Hussein didn't know about these? Is it possible that he didn't care to mention them because he knew that they were, to paraphrase the article, 'completely fucking worthless' as chemical weapons?"

It's more likely that Saddam Hussein failed to disclose the extent of his chemical weapons capabilities because he had already gotten away with concealing his Al Samoud missile production program under the noses of sporadic UN inspections for nearly 13 years.

I guess your chemical engineering status has been revoked.

By who? You? I'm no chemical engineer. I'm just not willfully ignorant. I also have the benefit of having an acquaintance in the Army assigned to chemical disposal duties that trucked tons of chemical precursors out of Iraq's ammunition depots. In his words, "No, they're not WMDs, but I dare you to lick a barrel."

And as a side note just between you and me and the internet, if you're going to try and come off as intellectually superior to someone with whom you are conversing, you should try not to say things that make you look dumb.

Well, I welcome any and all attempts to disprove my hypothesis that leftists are inherently incapable of rational thought. Good luck with that.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Slave Revolt,

As Powers McStinson would have it, Iran was kept at bay in Iraqi affairs for over a decade with chemical weapons so degraded that Saddam Hussein forgot about them.

Surely you've been to a more rockin' concert than Yanni.

Slave Revolt said...

Beamish, you little imperial boot-licker. The charge of 'chickenhawk' is applicable in your case because you don't put your ass on the line for the imperial violence that you support. You just masterbate in your armchair thinking about 'missiles' and the like.

Whatever, you are exposed as a craven coward.

Iraq was not a threat to the US--and none of its neighbors considered Iraq an immenant threat.

This is an imperial occupation that has everything to do with fanatical imperialism--everything to do with controlling geopolitical outcomes in the Middle East and oil reserves.

Allah will give the people the strength to resist this illegal occupation. And the fact that so many of Sammies supporters in this imperialism are fat, couch-potatos doesn't bode well for the glorious 'success' that they have been striving for for well over five years now.

Jae said...

Wow. Powers, I'm quite impressed with your argument. Lucid, powerful -- and kind of condescending even. You are a GOD among posters. And, Rudy, I never saw that Hermann Goering quote before -- magnificent. A person in power speaking his innermost truth. It teaches us so much about the powerful's mindset. But, I fear it falls on tin ears for our conservative playmates.

Roman, you didn't give me much this time, man. Your argument that you trust the Bushies to defend us against encroaching Sharia isn't so much an argument as a personal opinion. You do. I don't. There it is.

Swift Boat was the worst kind of lie because it was dealing in the gray area of degree: "How much of a hero was John Kerry?" Not much of one say the Conservs; a true American hero say the Libs. The argument is absurd because the FACT of the matter is that Kerry was there in a war zone. Bush wasn't. Rove wasn't and certainly Cheney and his five deferments weren't there. This is the kind of underhanded attack conservatives have become known for. And yet Support the Troops is your mantra. That's not just having it both ways, that's having it ALL ways. Why did the conversation never get down to the fact -- Kerry served in 'Nam; Bush didn't.

You can fudge and say, 'Oh, those wonderful conservative soldiers weren't lying; they were giving their opinion.' Nahh. I'm going to call them liars because an argument where your side has black and white AND shades of gray and all I'm left to is shades of gray isn't really an argument -- it's a set-up. My mother didn't raise any suckers.

As to your other point:
"Actually it was Beamish that introduced [Hitler's Germany] by way of an example of anti-war groups’ tactics , who you will readily admit are 99% LIBERAL, of equating (via the well-worn mantra) of HITLER = BUSH. I guess you did’nt go back up the comments far enough."

OK. I'm reading. I GET that you're suggesting I didn't do my homework. Fine. Fine. But, wasn't the underlying theme still the same? Didn't a conservative -- Mr. Beamish -- introduce the argument? I know it wasn't me. Say what you will about how we bandy HITLER-BUSH (has a nice ring, don't you think?) about, but if truth has any value, woudn't you have to admit that IN THIS THREAD, a conservative introduced it? I'd love to see your reply to that.
Thanks!

Jae said...

BTW, thank you Ren. Your blog is wonderful.

A quick jab at Mr. Beamish -

I think Powers rational argument was much more compelling than yours. But, that's not my point.

You said this: "I welcome any and all attempts to disprove my hypothesis that leftists are inherently incapable of rational thought. Good luck with that."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is at the heart of the divisiveness in our country, this statement right here. Mr. Beamish has labelled his opinion an "hypothesis" -- falsely coloring it with some sort of scientific gravitas. Ever hear of Sisyphus? That's where conservatives want us to be - rolling that damn rock up a neverending hill. And, here's the capper -- the only way to appear rational to those like Mr. Beamish is to AGREE WITH HIM. How rational is that?

Obviously liberal thought processes work: we've governed nations, won wars, invented the atomic bomb, Trivial Pursuit and Google. Doesn't seem to me like we walk around with tinfoil hats stumbling into posts that can't seem to get out of our way.

Fellow liberals, here's a hint. When you hear things like: "Disprove my hypothesis that leftists are inherently incapable of rational thought." The real translation -- in the voice of a petulant child -- is: "I double-dog dare you to prove that I don't like chocolate ice cream better than strawberry."

Powers McStinson said...

All I did was simply reverse the "logic" of your comment implying that since I do support the troops in Iraq and their mission there I must be actively present and participating there.

No, you don't know what logic is. If you reversed the logic you would have been using the converse, or maybe the contrapositive of my statement, i.e. You not being a soldier implies that you lack the courage to risk your life for things you believe in would become either A)you lacking the courage to risk your life for the things you believe in implies that you aren't willing to become soldier, or B)you having the courage to risk your life for the things you believe in implies that you are willing to become a soldier.

Either way, logic has nothing to do with it.

Kudos to you for recognizing the idiocy of your initial thrust at me when the formulation is reversed.

Idiocy? I would have thought idiocy would be trying to draw the comparison you did between my example and yours. You're equating your cowardice with my unwillingness to kill american soldiers. Sorry, buddy, but you fail here.

How does your colon smell, by the way?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to show up Sunday in the offensive line of your favorite NFL team either.

Or run out and stop muggers, no matter how much you claim to support law enforcement.


Well, if i had the opportunity to support my favorite nfl team on the offensive line, or stop a mugger, you better believe i would. That's the difference between you and me. I'm not o-line material, and nobody's being mugged in my vicinity. I'm fairly certain, though i don't know you, that if you wanted to, if you cared enough, you would find a way to materially contribute to our efforts in iraq.

You realize the very construction of your line of attack (the tiresome "chickenhawk" argument) is imbecilic when it's tossed back at you. You're welcome to replace it with substance at any time.

I hereby revoke your qualifications for using the word imbecile. That's twice now where you've used it to emphasize some mistaken notion of intellectual superiority.

Really, if you can't at least be more sophisticated with your insults you should stop using them.


What is the most tangible way to oppose the troops again?


I don't know, does sitting on your computer chair, shrilly screaming for their extended deployment to a place where random death occurs much more frequently than most other places count? Because it seems to work for you.

Here's the thing. You think that wanting the troops to come home is the same thing as opposing them. This is ridiculous, it's beyond logic, and it's a very telling example of the extent to which the political discourse of our country is more about fanatical commitment to vague notions of ideology than actual, thoughtful exchange of ideas.

There's no talking sense to people who think like you, because it is clear that in the household that is your worldview, one day sense went out for a smoke and never came back. Now, having been abandoned by sense, you cling to emotion, blindly and vengefully striking out at anything that reminds you of sense.

You don't have any allegiance to the troops. Your allegiance is to some sort of nebulous notion of what it means to be whatever the hell it is you think you are, ideologically.

That's why you say things that don't make sense, because they are what you think a good conservative blogger would say.

You rely on fallacious, emotional arguments because you can't be bothered to come up with logical ones.

Just get it over with and say you don't know what a binary chemical artillery shell is.

It doesn't matter. I'm not even going to tell you whether or not i know that a binary explosive is, because it's such a fucking irrelevant point in the context of what we are talking about.

Sure, sarin gas has a shelf life of 5 years. When it is mixed. When it is in its component state (such as the chemical stockpiles in drums buried at ammo dumps throughout Iraq store with EMPTY binary chemical shells) it isn't sarin gas. The chemicals to make sarin gas are mixed together in flight when the chemical components are loaded into a binary shell and fired.

So what's the shelf life of the chemical precursors?

If these things are really so dangerous, how come you're the only person who thinks that they're a big deal at all?

Think about it, by even pointing to these as an example of wmd's you are essentially implying that you know more about the wmd threat posed by a pre-invasion iraq than the fucking pentagon. Come on.

Or drums of chemicals are strapped up with explosives to produce a poison gas bomb, such as the one intercepted in Amman, Jordan in 2002 when Zarqawi was still directing Al Qaeda cells in Iraq from a Baath Party safehouse in Baghdad.

Did cheney tell you that, because let me tell you about cheney. That guy has a lot of credibility, would never lie, and has no financial stake in the destruction and consequent rebuilding of iraq. Yep. That's our dick.

Oh snap, indeed.

Emeril would have BAM-ed.

By who? You? I'm no chemical engineer. I'm just not willfully ignorant. I also have the benefit of having an acquaintance in the Army assigned to chemical disposal duties that trucked tons of chemical precursors out of Iraq's ammunition depots. In his words, "No, they're not WMDs, but I dare you to lick a barrel."

Let correct you. Everybody is willfully ignorant. The fact that you think you're an exception proves the rule.

Anyways, since you KNOW somebody in the army, i guess that means that the conclusions you come to based on the things your acquaintance has said to you are infinitely more credible than anything i might have to say. But, it seems to me like all your friend of a friend said was that,while there were poisonous chemicals that could possibly be used in some sort of hypothetical sense to make chemical weapons in iraq, there weren't actually chemical weapons in iraq, which isn't necessarily inconsistent with what i've been saying this whole fucking time.

Well, I welcome any and all attempts to disprove my hypothesis that leftists are inherently incapable of rational thought. Good luck with that.

First, you would need to demonstrate both that you are aware of what rational thought actually is, and then you would have to demonstrate that you are capable of it. So far, it isn't looking good. You should start by abandoning terms like "lefty", because the breadth and scope of human perspective is much more broad than the fallacious bifurcation that spawned the term "lefty" would imply.

Powers McStinson said...

Oh yeah, and thanks for the kind words ren, and slave.

Jae, thanks, buddy.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Jae,

You said this: "I welcome any and all attempts to disprove my hypothesis that leftists are inherently incapable of rational thought. Good luck with that."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is at the heart of the divisiveness in our country, this statement right here. Mr. Beamish has labelled his opinion an "hypothesis" -- falsely coloring it with some sort of scientific gravitas. Ever hear of Sisyphus? That's where conservatives want us to be - rolling that damn rock up a neverending hill. And, here's the capper -- the only way to appear rational to those like Mr. Beamish is to AGREE WITH HIM. How rational is that?


Not true. The only way to appear rational to me is to actually appear rational, which includes among other things, not forgetting that you asked for "differences" between American support for troops and Nazi German support for troops followed by a meandering and less than honest meta-narrative about who brought up the Nazis in the first place.

It's okay Jae. You're not the first leftist that was hellbent to convince me that leftists are incapable of rational thought.

Powers,

Enjoy your leftist circle jerk. Let me know we're you're prepared to address my argument.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

---when you're prepared---

(typo corrected)

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

What's your argument?

Or is what you said just another way of saying, "I'm leaving and taking my ball with me."

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers,

Just to poke your "argument" some more with a stick...

No, you don't know what logic is. If you reversed the logic you would have been using the converse, or maybe the contrapositive of my statement, i.e. You not being a soldier implies that you lack the courage to risk your life for things you believe in would become either A)you lacking the courage to risk your life for the things you believe in implies that you aren't willing to become soldier, or B)you having the courage to risk your life for the things you believe in implies that you are willing to become a soldier.

Your "argument" is that I don't really "support the troops" because I'm not there in a combat zone with them. Apparently its impossible for me to support the troops without actually being one. I suppose working in a bomb factory doesn't count. Maybe the troops will carve their rifles from bars of soap without my support.

Powers: a hint. There's no way to reverse the "logic" or your argument because it actually contains no logic at all. It was mean as ad hominem, hence the new variables of "cowardice" and "bravery." Nice try, puddin'.

I don't know, does sitting on your computer chair, shrilly screaming for their extended deployment to a place where random death occurs much more frequently than most other places count? Because it seems to work for you.

Here's the thing. You think that wanting the troops to come home is the same thing as opposing them. This is ridiculous, it's beyond logic, and it's a very telling example of the extent to which the political discourse of our country is more about fanatical commitment to vague notions of ideology than actual, thoughtful exchange of ideas.


Not true. Not true at all. I'd love to see you in an exchange with someone who felt that way, but for now, you're going to have to address my arguments instead.

I want the troops home too. I don't want them home prematurely. I don't want them deployed indefinitely.

There's no talking sense to people who think like you, because it is clear that in the household that is your worldview, one day sense went out for a smoke and never came back. Now, having been abandoned by sense, you cling to emotion, blindly and vengefully striking out at anything that reminds you of sense.

That's pretty good for someone unfamiliar with "the household that is my worldview," (which I've barely presented here) in reaction to my poking his with a stick.

roman said...

Jae,

You can fudge and say, 'Oh, those wonderful conservative soldiers weren't lying; they were giving their opinion.' Nahh. I'm going to call them liars because an argument where your side has black and white AND shades of gray and all I'm left to is shades of gray isn't really an argument -- it's a set-up. My mother didn't raise any suckers.

Not only are you mistating my comment by twisting it to fit your spin but you are totally ignoring a valid query that I presented by offering an excuse of being grasped by some paranoid delusion of being entrapped. I’m not trying to insinuate that your mother raised a sucker. If you can’t defend an argument and give an answer, just say so. I never said that the conservative soldiers were “wonderful” or were “not lying” or even that they presented “opinions”. Your words not mine. Please do not project your lack of inability to grasp concepts by editing my comments. I made it quite clear that libs took it on faith that the “evidence” presented by the Swift Boat vets was ASSUMED to be false by the Kerry sycophants because of their zombie-like repetition of the Dems’ platform soundbites.
I’m still waiting for an answer to a simple question. What part of the Swift Boat renunciation of Kerry’s “hero” status was false?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Roman,

What part of the Swift Boat renunciation of Kerry’s “hero” status was false?

The part about it having a greater sway in Jesusland to vote for Bush than Kerry's plan to give the Iranians highly enriched uranium to "test their intent."

Renegade Eye said...

After the nomination process is done, everyday will be a Swift Boat, from both parties.

Giuliani or Clinton go negative? Never!

roman said...

Beamish,

Thanks for that astute and accurate description of the "nuanced" liberal mindset. Their moral relativism and complete lack of understanding the concept of disciplined civil discourse is proudly displayed in the above commentary. When asked to address a point of contention, they rely on sophomoric excuses and ad hominem attacks in order to look less foolish than they already are.

roman said...

ren,

Giuliani or Clinton go negative? Never!

Political junkies will be on a continuous high for months.

Jae said...

Oh Roman -
I love how you point fingers at liberals for ad hominem attacks and then go after us ... with ad hominem attacks. Sorry, you've got a different kind of liberal here. You don't get to shape a stilted argument and call it "civil discourse" with me. I call you on it. Since you're using the "old absence of evidence" ruse that conservatives use (Beamish actually uses it quite a bit), I'm going to assume you THINK there were no loopholes in Swift Boat. As an aside, I've got to chastise you for ignoring the main fact - that Kerry was in a war zone and your guys were not. I'll assume you concede that point. Still, if you insist on facts, how about a recanting of one of your star Swift Boat witnesses. Lt Commander George Elliot said he recanted his affidavit after being pressured into it. Sounds to me like at least that part of "the Swift Boat renunciation of Kerry's hero status" was false. My understanding is that Elliot (who've I heard is not alone in this) said that Kerry and fellow soldiers were, indeed, under enemy fire. By all the definitions I know of "false" and "evidence to the contrary" that means they're saying the guys they stood shoulder to shoulder with to denounce Mr. Kerry are lying. At least somebody's lying. I wonder who you think it is? Response?

Ad hominem argument ensues -

And, Mr. Beamish, you are an angry man. That's OK, anger doesn't bother me. And, your arguments are the easiest because they're simple attacks. Your last attack? -- about my meandering discourse on Hitler Bush (I just love the sound of that!); that was in response to a conservative playmate's statement that I and liberals like me always bring up Nazi Germany comparisons for the Bushies. I said Sonia brought it up; Roman said you did. Am I still allowed to respond to these kinds of statements or is that irrational?

And, of course in a thread where we started with Viet Nam and wandered into Iraq, you are nonplussed that I asked about the difference in support between Germans for German troops and Americans for American troops. The correct answer is that it is not unusual for citizens of a nation to support the troops of that nation NO MATTER HOW THEIR MISSION LOOKS TO OUTSIDERS. Millions saw the German army as evil and guess what? Millions see the American army as evil. But, in-country, they are seen as heroes.

Had the discussion actually been a discussion, I would have loved to have taken on how the anti-war movement can provide a broader perspective of a war's impact for the citizens of a nation. Hitler essentially killed his anti-war opposition. We have you and the Bushies to silence us.

Both you and Roman took the bait and went crazy talking about the motives of Nazis etc, absolutely ignoring the central point.

Anyhoo, I digress. Mr. Beamish you have coined "leftist circle jerk" and determined an absolute value for "rationality." I'm laughing because this is where seven years of Bush has left us. You guys feel ENTITLED to obfuscating civil discourse. Myself, Powers, Tina, Slave Revolt and the other libs could conceivably agree to disagree, but with you all it seems to be about deceit first. There is no common ground for saying, 'I could agree with you on that,' because it's not civil discourse with you guys. It's about crushing the opposition. The problem with that tack is anyone who's reasonably self-confident is immune to it. I commented to Powers off-line that there was a point in this thread where you conservs were making some nuanced arguments and I was curious where that was going. Well, it kind of stopped and the name calling re-started. I think your side has been so emboldened by years of political success -- which came at great moral cost to you, I might add -- that you think you can say anything to anyone and we have to believe it. So, in that vein, I wasn't trying to convince you, Mr. Beamish of anything when it comes to liberals, you obviously are too cool for school. You were what's known as an object lesson -- a pointer on the irrational lengths conservatives go to win -- for my fellow liberals.
End of ad hominem attack.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Jae,

Remember this:

"The real question is and always will be: why are we fighting THIS war. Don't go off point. In my mind, these people who play the STT card dont' give a rat's ass about the soldiers. For me, there is the faintly germanic hint of those Nazi soldiers who insisted they "were only doing our duty." Guess what. Citizens supported them, too. I ask any conservative blogging to explain to me the difference between our support of our troops and the German people's support of theirs.
"


That's you, 27 September, 2007 16:02.

You brought up the Nazis. Why did you wonder about who brought Nazis into the discussion?

Never mind. You said why:

I wasn't trying to convince you, Mr. Beamish of anything when it comes to liberals, you obviously are too cool for school. You were what's known as an object lesson -- a pointer on the irrational lengths conservatives go to win -- for my fellow liberals.
End of ad hominem attack.


So much for the leftist call to save electricity.

Jae, all you've done in this thread is make ad hominem attacks.

roman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
roman said...

jae,

See.. that was'nt so painful now was it? You actually gave an answer to my question. It doesn’t make any sense but at least it's an answer and not some lame excuse about gray areas and entrapment.

Lt Commander George Elliot said he recanted his affidavit after being pressured into it.

WRONG!!!! There was no recanting.. only clarification. I believe you are referring to George M. Elliott, Capt. USNR who faulted himself for signing the form that initially awarded Kerry a silver star. He admitted that he signed too quickly and without a full investigation.
There were, in fact, two affidavits. In the first, a reporter for the Boston Globe substantially misquoted his affidavit to such an extent that it prompted Capt. Elliott to issue a second clarification affidavit stating very clearly that had he known that Kerry shot and killed a wounded fleeing enemy combatant he would have never signed his medal award certificate.
Jae… was this just an error of comprehension on your part or was it purposeful cherry picking and revisionist history?
Again, when it comes right down to facts, liberals still need to crack those history books and not rely solely on sound bites from moveon.moron.

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

Just to poke your "argument" some more with a stick...

Poke away. Though i was expecting you to state what your argument was, because that's what you said you were going to do. I guess if you're going to take the "say one thing but do another" route, at this point i'm not entirely shocked.

I thought your arguments concerned really old wmds and unsubstantiated reports of baked children and how you have completely determined the "liberal" mindset. I guess i was mistaken, because all you're talking about now is how my statements are illogical, and that you support the troops in some secret way and that i don't understand you. It's not really what i was expecting.


Your "argument" is that I don't really "support the troops" because I'm not there in a combat zone with them. Apparently its impossible for me to support the troops without actually being one. I suppose working in a bomb factory doesn't count. Maybe the troops will carve their rifles from bars of soap without my support.


I'm pretty sure that you think that whatever it is that you do is a way of supporting the troops, and who knows, maybe you actually do do something to support them, like sending them body armor, or armor for their humvees. That would make you the exception. Most folks who support the troops don't actually do anything to support the troops.

Let me be clear. If the only thing you do to support the troops is go around and tell everybody that you support the troop then you aren't actually supporting the troops, you are pretending that empty statements are an equal exchange for someone else's courage.

Do you work in the bomb factory? You get paid to support them?

Be honest, tell us all how you support the troops, be straightforward about it, no need to equivocate- you're not a liberal.

Powers: a hint. There's no way to reverse the "logic" or your argument because it actually contains no logic at all. It was mean as ad hominem, hence the new variables of "cowardice" and "bravery." Nice try, puddin'.

You should look up the word logic, it actually has a specific meaning. All logic is is a framework on which one hangs ideas. Every grammatically correct sentence has, at the very least, one logical statement.

What you can't do with logic, is take two statements and replace them with two completely different statements and claim that you "reversed the logic". That's not how one goes about reversing logic.

And holy shit! Are you really complaining about ad homs? You called me an imbecile twice and implied that i was retarded.

Stop whining- you're not a victim here, quit acting like you're being oppressed by the big bad liberals on the internet.

It's like you act like a complete douche, and then when someone responds in kind you scream foul. What are you, 8?

Really, i know you think that you're cunning, and that these stupid little games you're playing are fun, but all you're really doing is showing everybody who isn't drinking your kool-aid what a child you are.

Not true. Not true at all. I'd love to see you in an exchange with someone who felt that way, but for now, you're going to have to address my arguments instead.

Let me know when you're ready to share your arguments. All you're doing here is trying to address mine.

I want the troops home too. I don't want them home prematurely. I don't want them deployed indefinitely.

That's easy to say, but i imagine that if someone were to come up with, say, a date, you know, so that they weren't deployed indefinitely you might be of the mindset to scream "CUT AND RUN." Maybe not, i don't know you.

But, if one takes an analytical eye towards your statement it looks kind of odd. You can express a sentiment that you want them home, but then you qualify that sentiment with, "i don't want them home prematurely." Which is just another way of saying that you want them there until you don't want them there, which, because there hasn't yet been a date set for peace in iraq, is another way of saying that you want them there indefinitely. It's like you start the sentence saying the sky is blue, and then through some sort of mental acrobatics you end it saying that the sky is red- and you're completely unaware of the inconsistency of the statement.

That's pretty good for someone unfamiliar with "the household that is my worldview," (which I've barely presented here) in reaction to my poking his with a stick.

You didn't poke anything.

Now, let me have it, show me your arguments, and by arguments i don't mean your responses to the things i have said.

Roman
Thanks for that astute and accurate description of the "nuanced" liberal mindset. Their moral relativism and complete lack of understanding the concept of disciplined civil discourse is proudly displayed in the above commentary. When asked to address a point of contention, they rely on sophomoric excuses and ad hominem attacks in order to look less foolish than they already are.

Yeah, at some point, instead of actually directly addressing their complaints to the people they reference in their complaints, they'll make some sort of sideways comment about how uncivilized the other side is. That would be a great example of civilized discourse. I'm glad you guys don't ever do shit like that.

Wait.

If you think that it's only the people who disagree with you here who have been uncivilized you're a fool. In fact, the very person to whom you complained about the savageness of liberals has engaged in his own ad homs. What does the fact that you complained to him about ad homs say about you?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

US aircraft carriers do not have nuclear weapons on board. All they have are uranium / plutonium cores, tritium triggers, RDX explosive compounds, and bomb casings. Oh and screwdrivers.

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. All they had was thousands of tons of liquid pesticidal chemicals, oodles of empty binary chemical artillery shells, and military bases to store them together in.

roman said...

Powers,

What does the fact that you complained to him about ad homs say about you?

It says that I have accepted the fact that anyone (me included), liberal or conservative, when frustrated enough by stonewalling opponents who refuse to engage honestly and directly, will eventually resort to a kind of gradual devolution of civil discourse ultimately leading to ad hominem attacks. Even you, Powers McStinson, have exhibited this very common human frailty by the above statement where the insinuation is that my judgment is impaired. I don't really mind though. It’s been fun, actually.
I'm moving on to tackle a more current post as this one has pretty much run its course.....

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish
US aircraft carriers do not have nuclear weapons on board. All they have are uranium / plutonium cores, tritium triggers, RDX explosive compounds, and bomb casings. Oh and screwdrivers.

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. All they had was thousands of tons of liquid pesticidal chemicals, oodles of empty binary chemical artillery shells, and military bases to store them together in.


Well, if you sent an weapons inspector into an aircraft carrier, they'd most likely tell that there were nuclear weapons aboard. Send a few inspectors into iraq, post or prewar, and they'd tell you that they didn't find anything.

You can't play the wmd angle anymore. Even the people who stressed it the most going into the war have admitted that there wasn't really anything substantial going on in iraq in terms of wmds.


Now how exactly do you support the troops?

Roman I guess i got involved late, beamish called me a retard after my first or second post.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

You can't play the wmd angle anymore. Even the people who stressed it the most going into the war have admitted that there wasn't really anything substantial going on in iraq in terms of wmds.

I suppose the UN rejected Iraq's 2002 "full and final declaration" of its WMD programs because it failed to list the amount of table salt in Saddam Hussein's kitchen, as demanded by UNSCR 1441's language about "any and all stockpiles of chemicals."

Personally, I think the idea that there were no WMDs in Iraq lacks the nuance that would reflewct the nature of what was found. Whether or not we trucked WMDs out of Iraq ready-to-fire or still in their component stages ready to piece together is largely irrelevant to a discussion of the war 4 years later.

I think we'd still be facing this same post-Saddam insurgency, Al Qaeda Islamic fanaticism, and Iranian opportunism in Iraq today even if we found the guy who sent Tom Daschle some anthrax in the mail in Saddam's palace licking stamps.

That would be another reason the the "antiwar movement" argues from the dayglo feather boa wearing margins, besides the initial financing of the major "antiwar" groups from Saddam hussein himself.

At the end of the day, at the end of our discussion, we both agree the "antiwar movement" is a joke.

I'm just not shy about telling you why.

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

I'll respond to your last post immediately following the one where you explain the ways in which you provide support for the troops.

If you can't be bothered to even acknowledge this simple question, despite the fact that i've asked you twice, then how can you expect me to spend my time trying to respond to anything you've said?

Show us some of that patented conservative spine, and answer the question.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

You wanted me to state my argument, and not restate my responses to what you've said. Do make up your mind.

I support the troops. I believe what they are doing is both strategically sound and tactically necessary in the global war on Islamic terrorism.

I can't imagine a plausible post 9/11 global war on Islamic terrorism scenario that at the bare minimum would have left Saddam Hussein or his sons in power. We're going to maintain no fly zones over Iraq and containment forces in Saudi Arabia while we're focusing our strength against Islamic extremists elsewhere?

We're going to drop the sanctions on Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power with al-Samoud missile factories ready to rock, a starter kit chemical weapons program, more money and weapons flowing in and subsequently more support to Islamic terrorists around the world.

Essentially a debate about the correctness of completing the Persian Gulf war (on standby since the Safwan Agreement Saddam's Iraq violated daily for over a decade) is whether America should be magnamious or callous to the people of Iraq who must live in the wake of the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his defeated government.

I vote magnamious. America needs allies in the war against Islamic terrorism. Why can't Iraq be one?

Powers McStinson said...

That's the most meaingless possible way in which one could "support" the troops.

You don't actually support the troops, you support their efforts to carry out your foreign policy goals. These are two different things. Supporting someone means having their back, maybe even looking out for their best interest.

I'm pretty sure it does not mean wanting them to stay indefinitely as a neutral party in a country undergoing a civil war.

For you, "Support the troops" actually is just another way of saying, "I support the foreign policy of bush." which, if you've paid any attention to the abilities of bush to conduct wars, is just another way of saying, "I support our troops being unnecessarily put in harms way by people who are completely incompetent when it comes to planning most anything involving the military."

Calling it "support" is funny.

And i think you're confused about the antiwar movement. Whatever it was, it has essentially become the antiraqwar zeitgeist, with the majority of folks realizing that this whole thing, or at least as it has been carried out by the bush admin, has been a disaster. The fact that you think antiwar sentiment is still a fringe thing just further exemplifies the fact that you and folks like you aren't really in touch with any kind of reality that doesn't support the things you want it to support.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

I really don't care to get into a metaphysical discussion on the many ways you can bifurcate the meaning of the word "support." I'm not the one trying to undermine the morale of the troops or taking a defeatist position towards their task.

How do you "support" the antiwar movement?

"Well, I called Bush a lying chimp online today."

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

The "antiwar zeitgeist..."

Bwahhahhahaha my ass off.

Powers McStinson said...

I really don't care to get into a metaphysical discussion on the many ways you can bifurcate the meaning of the word "support."

Right, you just want it to mean nothing all together. That's cool, i "support" the troops too, in that i don't want them to die so that the neoconservative movement can save face. I guess we both "support" the troops, which, given the fact that we both have completely divergent ideas about what needs to happen as far as the troops go, means that the self-serving ideological weight you want to attach to the concept of "supporting" the troops is for naught. We effectively support the troops to the same degree, i.e. neither of use is lifting a finger to make their lives any easier.


I'm not the one trying to undermine the morale of the troops or taking a defeatist position towards their task.

You're position is "hey, you soldiers, i want you guys to die in senseless random ways until there is peace in iraq, i have no idea how it will happen, or even whether it is possible, but i am willing to risk your life on my hunch. I want you to know that i'm really pulling for you from the comfort of my computer chair. Oh yeah, and sorry about putting you in this position in the first place." That last part i added because people like you should be a little more contrite about how horrible a mess the people you voted for have made of this thing.

Right, well, since neither of us
How do you "support" the antiwar movement?


Who says i support the antiwar movement? I just think that what we're doing over there is a waste, and if you were paying attention you'd have noticed that an ever increasing number of people, both military and civilian agree with me. This is the quasi-"zeitgeist" that made you laugh.

With every day that passes, and every new dead american soldier, and every day where it is clear little progress is being made in the way of securing peace in iraq, more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

"I really don't care to get into a metaphysical discussion on the many ways you can bifurcate the meaning of the word "support.""

Right, you just want it to mean nothing all together. That's cool, i "support" the troops too, in that i don't want them to die so that the neoconservative movement can save face. I guess we both "support" the troops, which, given the fact that we both have completely divergent ideas about what needs to happen as far as the troops go, means that the self-serving ideological weight you want to attach to the concept of "supporting" the troops is for naught. We effectively support the troops to the same degree, i.e. neither of use is lifting a finger to make their lives any easier.


Considering over 1.5 million American forces have served at least one tour of duty in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and only (at this writing) 4264 of them have died [around 0.29%] and 28,093 have been wounded [around 0.19%], compared to other conflicts the American military has historically engaged in, this war has been remarkably conscious of protecting the lives of our troops that are placed in harms way. A 99.62% success rate at keeping our men alive and healthy at war isn't perfect, but I hardly think it is the blatant disregard of our troops' lives your side of the divide makes it out to be. Frankly, I don't see the need for anyone to "save face." It's a fucking war, not a popularity contest.

I am not versed enough in your personal position on where the "antiwar zeitgeist" ::snicker:: is taking foreign policy particularly in the next Presidency, but let me tell you what I see:

A new coach and new war playbook. The Democrat war playbook is "bomb the fuck out of stuff."

Gee, thanks "antiwar zeitgeist."

Powers McStinson said...

Considering over 1.5 million American forces have served at least one tour of duty in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and only (at this writing) 4264 of them have died [around 0.29%] and 28,093 have been wounded [around 0.19%], compared to other conflicts the American military has historically engaged in, this war has been remarkably conscious of protecting the lives of our troops that are placed in harms way. A 99.62% success rate at keeping our men alive and healthy at war isn't perfect, but I hardly think it is the blatant disregard of our troops' lives your side of the divide makes it out to be. Frankly, I don't see the need for anyone to "save face." It's a fucking war, not a popularity contest.

Is that what they tell the families of dead soldiers? "Sir, we must regretfully inform you that your son has made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. We know that this must be a very difficult time for you, but you can be reassured that 99.62%of our troops haven't died, so, you know, everything is great and everyday we're making infinitesimally small gains." Yeah, that sounds about right.

You don't understand, or you're trying not to understand. Suffice it to say that there are many who believe that what we're trying to do there is impossible, and that for anyone else to die so that people like you don't have to come to grips with this fact is tragic. It is saving face, because you and folks like you can't even begin to acknowledge how bad you've fucked things up- how negligent you were in planning the war, how negligent you were in planning for afterwards, and how negligent you are now in not even being able to show the intellectual honesty to admit that there's no way we can stop the civil war that is going to ensue when we leave unless we never leave. Maybe that's what you've been hoping for all along. It sure is convenient though that you think that "supporting" the troops in the most useless way possible is a valid exchange for all this. I commend you on your courage, sir.

I am not versed enough in your personal position on where the "antiwar zeitgeist" ::snicker:: is taking foreign policy particularly in the next Presidency, but let me tell you what I see:

A new coach and new war playbook. The Democrat war playbook is "bomb the fuck out of stuff."

Gee, thanks "antiwar zeitgeist."


Right. Because obviously the democrats represent the people really well. Look, this isn't a republican vs democrat thing. Both parties are just different flavors of worthless. Right now, i'd vote for anyone, republican, democrat, independent, who wasn't beholden to shortsighted people like you.

You know how the democrats took congress with promises to end the war and didn't? That's what i'm talking about. They're complicit in all this shit too. And if they aren't careful they'll do what the republicans did, and make their shortcomings so obvious they'll get booted.

Remember? The neocons fucked this, and many other things, up so bad that they, at least temporarily, brought the rest of the republican party down with it.

And you know what, if we invade iran it will become a zeitgeist, because it will become obvious that anyone who can look at how iraq has turned out and say to themselves, "Yes, let's do this again, right now." is going to make it exceedingly obvious that that people who are willing to go to war over such things are dangerous and stupid.

So go ahead and chuckle. The real joke is on the people fighting in iraq. It's obvious that you, and folks of your ilk, could functionally not care less about their well being.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

Who are you arguing with? You're lashing out maniacally, for sure, but you've not yet convinced me you have psychic powers. I read none of my thoughts in your mischaracterizations of my argument.

Argue with me, not your imagination.

Reread my post above and respond accordingly.

Powers McStinson said...

If you can't see the connections between what you wrote and what i wrote perhaps you need to try harder, but i have a sneaking suspicion that you only see what you want to see in regards to the iraq war- i.e. we don't need to save face because our casualties are low-ish - that doesn't even make sense. Why would casualties have anything to do with making up for the fact that this thing was a mistake?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

It isn't my fault that the number of dead and wounded American forces within the number the who have served in the Iraqi theater of the war on terrorism makes your
"argument" so much caterwauling bullshit.

It isn't my fault that your side is exceedingly unconvincing in its "supporting the troops" by telling them that their Commander-In-Cheif has sent them to die for a mistake, they're all uneducated redneck genocidal maniacs, their mission is impossible, etc.

Stop asking me to answer for your shortcomings.

Put down the bullhorn, take off the feather boa, climb down from the soapbox and explain to me your reasoning for claiming the war in Iraq is a mistake and impossible.

Take us back to Sept. 12th, 2001.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a declared policy to conduct war on terrorists and those that harbor and sponsor them, why doesn't Iraq (a nation with ties to at least 2 of the 18 attacks or attempted attacks on Americans during the Clinton administration and one that has offered asylum to Osama Bin Laden as recently as 1999) make your list?

Let's talk about reality for a while, shall we?

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

It isn't my fault that the number of dead and wounded American forces within the number the who have served in the Iraqi theater of the war on terrorism makes your
"argument" so much caterwauling bullshit.


Caterwauling bullshit is this paragraph. Rewrite it so it makes sense, please.

It isn't my fault that your side is exceedingly unconvincing in its "supporting the troops" by telling them that their Commander-In-Cheif has sent them to die for a mistake, they're all uneducated redneck genocidal maniacs, their mission is impossible, etc.

Who here said anything about uneducated redneck or genocidal maniacs? Are you high? You don't know what you're talking about, and the more you say the clearer that becomes.

It is your own damn fault that you are unconvinced, i imagine because you've got so much hubris invested in this whole endeavor that there is nothing that could convince you of anything other than your own righteousness. There are an increasing number of people who aren't you who are becoming convinced, and many of them are the troops whom you're pretending to support. Reality is not on your side here, but then again it never really was.

Take us back to Sept. 12th, 2001.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a declared policy to conduct war on terrorists and those that harbor and sponsor them, why doesn't Iraq (a nation with ties to at least 2 of the 18 attacks or attempted attacks on Americans during the Clinton administration and one that has offered asylum to Osama Bin Laden as recently as 1999) make your list?


Oh, i don't know, maybe because bin laden is in pakistan(not iraq), most of the 9/11 hijackers came from saudi arabia(not iraq), and hussein and bin laden hated each other. Reality indeed.

The iraqi war is a mistake because, while hussein was a horrible leader, he provided more stability in the region than the current leadership (which is only still in power because we haven't left yet). There is no way that anyone can claim that it is in the power of the u.s. military to get different groups of people with multigenerational grudges to get along with each other, especially when both groups know that as soon as we leave they will be free to do whatever they want.

The only reason that we're still deployed as we are is that people like you can't admit that we're both overextended and asking the military to do something that is wasn't designed to do, i.e. keep an entire country from descending into outright civil war.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

You seem to believe that our military presence IS keeping the entire country from "descending into outright civil war" - that leaving sparks the civil war.

To me, this is par for the course leftist cognitive dissonance - right up there with "fighting wars in Islamic countries creates terrorists among those we shouldn't profile at the airport" and "we should tax corporations into downsizing to pay for unemployment programs."

Particularly hostile to the notion that you've put any thought into your position is the tiresome "19 hijackers were Saudi nationals" rubric. Never mind that Iraq and Al Qaeda have "coincidentally" converging goals in getting American forces off of Saudi soil and toppling the Saudi royal family. Never mind that Iraq was harboring some of the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists responsible for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Never mind that Iraq as known sponsor of terrorism had direct ties to key organizations in the alliance of Islamist groups united under the banner of Al Qaeda. Never mind that several false front "charities" / fundraisers for Al Qaeda appear on the lists of those recieving money from Iraq via the UN oil-for-food program. Never mind that Saddam Hussein personally offered political asylum to Osama Bin Laden in February 1999. Never mind that Baath Party run newspapers in Iraq were praising the Iraqi ambassador to Pakistan for his coordination of activities with Osama Bin Laden as late as October 2001.

Nah, let's just blast the fuck out of Saudi Arabia, because 19 hijackers were born there.

Then what, burn a cross in their yards?

Pathetic.

Powers McStinson said...

Yes, and iraq also had the ability to strike american soil on a mere 45 minutes notice. Your claims are very credible.

You seem to believe that our military presence IS keeping the entire country from "descending into outright civil war" - that leaving sparks the civil war.

No, i don't really believe that, i was just throwing you a fucking bone.

To me, this is par for the course leftist cognitive dissonance - right up there with "fighting wars in Islamic countries creates terrorists among those we shouldn't profile at the airport" and "we should tax corporations into downsizing to pay for unemployment programs."

Yes, because no terrorists have been created due to our work in iraq. No terrorists have been created as a direct result of our meddling in the middle east.

Nevermind that the saudi royal family has openly contributed money to some of the most virulent islamic extremist groups in exchange for those groups not doing their damnedest to remove the saudi royal family from power.

Whatever, you throw out all these claims, completely out of context, as if after all the outright lies thrown about in support of this war anyone is supposed to accept them as true. Did dick cheney tell you those things?

I heard that iraq has a reincarnated army of cloned hitlers.

And i like how you try to compare my mentioning of the fact that 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were saudis with burning crosses. As if advocating the invasion of saudi arabia(which isn't something that i actually did, try reading what i wrote) is similar to intimidating black people.

Clearly, you've lost it. You're just lashing out now. It's kind of funny, except for the fact that people like you actually exist.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers,

Yep, people like me exist. We're the overwhelming majority. There's nothing all of your screeches of "Dick Cheney is a liar" (instead of addressing the historical points about Iraq's role in international terrorism in the `1990s- most of which pre-date the current Bush administration) can do about it.

At the end of the day, at the end of the discussion, the "antiwar movement" ::snicker:: is a joke. We both know this.

Your opposition to the war on terrorism is what it is. A joke.

The better course of action to you would have been to do nothing in the war on terrorism without Osama Bin Laden's permission.

Who's your man, Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul?

Powers McStinson said...

Wait. The overwhelming majority? I think that you don't know what you're talking about.

*ahem*
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

These last two are kinda old, but, you know, i don't think that it's gotten much better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

Here are some highlights:
"Do you think Democrats in Congress have gone too far or not far enough in opposing the war in Iraq?"

55% say not far enough.

"The Bush Administration has requested nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars and related U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year. This is about 40 billion dollars more than first estimated. Do you think Congress should approve all of this funding request, or reduce it?"

67% say reduce it.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

70% say disapprove.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq?"

57% say disapprove.

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

54% say stay out.

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

49% say less than a year.
23% say one to two years.

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

39% say decrease.
29% say remove all.


-------------------------------------
Clearly, the overwhelming majority about which you speak doesn't actually exist. Maybe if you look hard enough you'll find some majority related program activities, but probably not much more.

Antiwar: +1
Beamish: 0

The better course of action to you would have been to do nothing in the war on terrorism without Osama Bin Laden's permission.

Nope, you're wrong. It seems to be a recurring theme here. My course of action would have been not diverting soldiers and money from afghanistan, where terrorists were actually harbored in some sort of meaningful way. I am in the majority. You are not at all.

You can go ahead and change the subject, or call me an imbecile or something, since i can tell so far that you have a difficult time acknowledging your own mistakes.

Cla said...

Powers McStinson,

Beamish is a fool!
He never provides evidence. He only gives you his fucked up, way of the mark, opinions.
Judging from your last paragraph, you already know his other tricks.

Loved your description of how Beamish 'supports' the troops.
Fantastic!

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

The only thing you can definitively say happened in droves in 2006 is that conservative and right-wing voters stayed home from the elections.

Look now as Republican candidates for President seek to be the "conservative candidate" (admittedly none are) and Democrat candidates (at least those with a realistic chance of winning the primaries and the nomination) both voted for the war in Iraq and readily dismiss the "pull out now" crowd.

Even now as positive results are returning from the troop surge (i.e. Al Qaeda facilitators are being captured and killed, the local population is turning against Al Qaeda, inter-ethnic violence between Sunnis and Shias is diminishing) I see Democrats moving away from the Dominique DeVillepin "war is a failure" script and trying to tie the progress being reported to the increase in the number of Democrats in office in Congress. This will be less subtle a year from now.

To me, whoever sits in the Oval Office in late January 2009 is not going to be either an "antiwar" President or and "anti-Iraqwar zeitgeist" President.

The "antiwar movement" is a joke.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Cla,

None of my claims are dismissable by name-calling.

For example, Osama Bin Laden's federal grand jury indictment, issued by the Clinton administration in 1998 really does say "... Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

My opinions are the difference between an informed opinion and yours.

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

Nice dodge on my exposure of the fact that your perspective is very much not part of the "overwhelming majority". You aren't really doing a lot to disprove the idea that you're nothing more than a coward with a big mouth. C'mon, admit you were wrong, show some cojones.

On Iraq and Al Qaeda, the 9/11 commission had something interesting to say. I know it's a thick book, so I'll let msnbc summarize the important part:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Details
The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said.

No ‘collaborative relationship’ seen
It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

Fred Fielding, a Republican member of the commission, prodded witnesses about their conclusion, citing a 1998 indictment of bin Laden that alleged links with the then-Iraqi leader.


But U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Illinois said that while such claims were contained in the original indictment, they were dropped when later charges were filed.

That last part is bolded, because in all the "informed" glory that is your opinion, you forgot to mention that the links referrenced in the clinton indictment were dropped when the actual charges were filed.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about, and not only that, but if you had read the 9/11 commission report- which i don't know how you couldn't have since you seem to think that you're so informed- you'd have known that the bullshit you're trying to sell here is exactly that. Or maybe you did know it was bullshit and you offered it anyway. I don't know.

Either way, i am continually impressed by your inability to get anything right on this particular subject.

What I do know, is that in your response, if you can get over the fact that most of the things you've said here- the things on which you base your convoluted and ignorant worldview- have been shown to be false, you won't mention anything about my succesful repudiation of your assertions, because, apparently, there is some sort of short circuit in that head of yours, and seemingly the heads of the people in the current administration with whom you agree that doesn't allow you to admit that you're wrong.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

Admit I'm wrong about what? That the "antiwar movement" is a joke?

Or that leftists are incapable of rational thought?

My claim is the Clinton administration claim that Iraq was working cooperatively with al-Qaeda specifically on weapons development projects (remember the Al-Shifa "aspirin factory" / Iraqi-Al Qaeda sarin gas lab defense of the Clinton airstrikes in the Sudan?).

"Iraq working cooperatively with Al Qaeda specifically on weapons development" vs. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States" is not mutually contradictory in anything but a comically broad sense.

As far as updated indictments, the indictment I quoted is the one that pops up in the most up-to-date online search queries.

Do you have any credible reasons why I should subscribe to either the views of Patrick Fitzgerald or MSNBC.com?

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

Admit I'm wrong about what? That the "antiwar movement" is a joke?

Let's see...

According to people much more credible than you, you are wrong about:

1)WMDs in iraq
2)Your perspective being in the majority
3)The existence of meaningful cooperation between hussein and bin laden
4)You support the troops in any sort of meaningful way

More on #3 in a minute...

Or that leftists are incapable of rational thought?

Just because you can repeat something doesn't make it somehow more true. Anyone willing to read this whole thing will plainly be able to see that it isn't the "lefty" here who has consistently eschewed rational thought.

My claim is the Clinton administration claim that Iraq was working cooperatively with al-Qaeda specifically on weapons development projects (remember the Al-Shifa "aspirin factory" / Iraqi-Al Qaeda sarin gas lab defense of the Clinton airstrikes in the Sudan?).

That's great. Your claim is that what the clinton administration almost officially thought almost a decade ago was correct, despite the fact that in the end the clinton administration didn't think it a big enough deal to mention it, and consequent investigations have proven it false.

"Iraq working cooperatively with Al Qaeda specifically on weapons development" vs. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States" is not mutually contradictory in anything but a comically broad sense.

Yes, well, there you go again, embracing the credibility of information that was current in the late nineties over the credibility of information that was current as of the 9/11 commission.

As far as updated indictments, the indictment I quoted is the one that pops up in the most up-to-date online search queries.

Do you have any credible reasons why I should subscribe to either the views of Patrick Fitzgerald or MSNBC.com?


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen-1a.pdf

How about you read the actual indictment. It's right there. It's a long read, but since i know you have such a strong commitment to the truth i'm sure you'll be a dear and tell me which section mentions collusion between iraq and al qaeda. You have to read the actual indictment, though, because the text transcriptions aren't accurate.

I skimmed it, and i didn't see any reference to collusion between saddam hussein and osama bin laden.

It is kind of odd, though i guess not completely unexpected, that the more widely referenced copy is the one that mentions cooperation between iraq and al qeada. The version that seems to be the most available on the internet isn't the same as the one on findlaw.

They're essentially the same for the first two sections, but starting at the third they are completely different. The pdf i would tend to find more credible, since findlaw is the source and not some random website with the word "security" in the url.

What's even more interesting is that some sites, like this one:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

have the version mentioning iraq and hussein's budding love in the plain text "copy" of the indictment on the site, but then link to the pdf, which doesn't mention the link at all. The indictment that they "quote" is not the same one that they link to.

Iiiiiiiiiiinteresting... But the indictment they "quote" serves some sort of ideological goal, hmmmmmm.

Let me know when you find the section that mentions the link between iraq and al qaeda.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

The globalsecurity.org page does have the pdf with the Iraq info on it I quoted:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf

I'd be interested in seeing the release date of the indictment you found at findlaw. I'm guessing we're looking at two different indictments, not a revision of a prior indictment.

I'd be willing to drop the "Clinton administration claimed Iraq was working cooperatively with Al Qaeda specifically on weapons development" part of my argument if you can tell me the "real" reason why the Clinton administration destroyed the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan.

Maybe Iraq stopped working with Al Qaeda when Bush was elected....

Cla said...

Mr Beamish,

Well, you've done it again. No surprise really.

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

The above is absolute bullshit!
Is that evidence to you? Seriously? That's just more opinions. Substantiate your claims with some EVIDENCE! Clinton camp said so, is NOT evidence. Look at the recent, so called intelligence, from Britain and America. Did we find WMD's in Iraq? You probably think we did, idiot.
Even Bush has conceded that Bin Laden had nothing to do with Saddam. And that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam hated terrorists and killed them on a regular basis. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists, without Saddam. You are so wrong, as usual!

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

I don't care if you're willing to drop the clinton indictment. It's kind of questionable as evidence of anything anyways- especially since there are two different versions with divergent information. Even if there are actually two different indictments, oddly filed on the same day, referenced and linked to as the same one - on the same web page- it still doesn't explain why only one of them includes mention of the iraq connection. Why would that be?

Even if there was just one, or they both mentioned the link, further investigation by the 9/11 commission concluded that there was no link. The fact that you're willing to resort to an indictment that's almost a decade old, and that may or may not be the actual indictment in question (i'm pretty sure the court would want money in exchange for a copy of the actual indictment and this is too dumb for me to spend money on it) to support your position despite the fact that the 9/11 commission has found the information in that particular section of the indictment to be unfounded says something unflattering about your perspective here.

Furthermore, even if there was just one indictment and it claimed in iraq-al qaeda link, that doesn't necessarily make the claim credible.

And as Cla has mentioned, even the president has disavowed a link between iraq and al qaeda.

What you're effectively saying, is that you trust a 9 year old indictment from the clinton administration that may or may not exist in the form that you think it does more than you trust something straight out of president bush's mouth. You find the "lefty" clinton more credible than bush - i bet you didn't see that coming, didja?


---------------------------------

I think clinton probably destroyed the pharmaceutical plant so that you could use a reference to it as a way to derail a dicussion on the internet- that's what i think.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

I think clinton probably destroyed the pharmaceutical plant so that you could use a reference to it as a way to derail a dicussion on the internet- that's what i think.

I know. But, how exactly does this assail my claim that leftists are incapable of rational thought?

Powers McStinson said...

Beamish

I know. But, how exactly does this assail my claim that leftists are incapable of rational thought?

Is this really all you have left?

You abandon your convictions faster than a homophobic congressman in an airport bathroom.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

You need to decide whether or not you wish me to take you seriously.

Powers McStinson said...

I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

Cute. I guess you can run along and not support the antiwar movement some more.

Powers McStinson said...

Cute is you being completely unable to acknowledge when you're wrong. You're just an intellectual bully who can't handle being bullied himself other than to respond with smug non sequiturs. It's as if you think that as long as you don't admit defeat here, you haven't actually lost anything- because this is about winning for you. It would be nice if that were how the world worked, but unfortunately for you and the soldiers serving in iraq, it isn't.

You can have the last word here- i don't think that there's much more that i could say.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Powers McStinson,

Save your meager scraps of credibility for our next fight. Keep declaring victory in this one, and who knows, one day, if you're lucky, you might even convince yourself.

Cla said...

Powers McStinson,

Debating with Beamish is just not worth it. Beating him is too easy. He never admits being wrong. Even when you PROVE it, as you've noticed I see.

Check out the Israel threads here. See how Terry and I have beaten him with loads of independent evidence. He, in reply, offers nothing but what he thinks, every time. Not once, in any thread, has he substantiated a claim with some evidence. Check for yourself. I can't find one case.

Anonymous said...

好秘书 呼吸网 肿瘤网 工作总结 个人工作总结 半年工作总结 年终工作总结 单位工作总结 教师工作总结 教学工作总结 学校工作总结 德育工作总结 财务工作总结 医务工作总结 安全工作总结 乡镇工作总结 党员工作总结 团委工作总结 公司工作总结 实习工作总结 班主任工作总结 党支部工作总结 办公室工作总结 学生会工作总结 总结报告 工作报告 政府报告 述职报告 述廉报告 考察报告 自查报告 情况报告 调研报告 调查报告 申请报告 辞职报告 实习报告 验收报告 评估报告 汇报体会 工作汇报 思想汇报 汇报材料 情况通报 情况汇报 心得体会 学习心得 工作心得 培训心得 读后感 发言致辞 发言稿 开业开幕 领导讲话 动员讲话 庆典致辞 节日致词 新春致词 晚会致辞 追悼悼词 节目游戏 毕业致辞 思想宣传 组织人事 晚会主持词 会议主持词 婚礼主持词 哮喘 支气管炎 气管炎 鼻炎 肺癌 呼吸机 氧气机

Anonymous said...

滿.............................................

dinoibo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat