EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW: LIVING WITH SNIPERS
Brand New Clip from Pat Dollard’s “Young Americans” featuring the always besieged Government Center of Ramadi. The clip is called “Living With Snipers” and is a better version than the one airing on Vanityfair.com
Attention
Due to the popularity of this video, the bandwidth keeps getting sucked dry. Until we recompress it, please watch this dialup version, or watch the edited version over at hotair.com.
Video Size 31.1 MB. High Speed Connection Required.
Featured Elsewhere
- Hot Air - Vent with Michelle Malkin
- Confederate Yankee
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Nice clip. Really looking forward to more from you Pat.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:45 amGreat clip. Can’t wait til the whole thing gets out. God bless you Pat and the boys that you are filming. Keep getting the real story out. and hey, let’s get that Economist article writer there again
February 25th, 2007 at 7:26 amso what was the journalist’s name that wrote the story for the economist?
February 25th, 2007 at 10:46 amVery informative. Opens your eyes. Great, loved it. More people need to see your videos. I love the perspective you give on it.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:09 pmI also want to know who the little bitch is who wrote the article for the economist. One consistency in all of this is the fact that these “journalists” who write such slander never seem to take any notes, yet they can quote specifically what this one or that oone says.
The marine in the video should personally sue the journalist when he gets back state side.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAmazing video man. Definitely a nice treat to see tonight since I will be going to BMT tomorrow. And although I chose USAF over the Marines I still envy what our soldiers and Marines do every day in Iraq.
It is an honor to be in the same military and the folks in your documentary.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:50 amgreat clip pat. Please publish the name of the journalist who slandered the marines so someone can kill him quick.*needed*I am a sponser of a soldier in Iraq even though I am an australian. It is an honour to be able to do a little something for at leaset one or your military personal.Keep up all the good work guys, and at least after this video, keep yer head down and get some high powered accuruate sniper gear to counteract.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:35 amI am a Viet Nam Marine and as the the media along with the Demo~RATS are left wing Communist/Socialist Anti-American. We do not question their patroitism, they have none and we know it for fact. God Bless our Marines.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 amDave
Great clip of very brave men. Keep up the good work and I look forward to more!
February 26th, 2007 at 9:16 amWe must get the Name of the Economist Journalist who wrote this slanderous piece. We in the states can put public pressure on them for their lies. We can probably even get Fox News to run and expose` on this looser. We can write letters to the editor or our local newspaers and direct complaint letters to the Economist. If you give me his name and when the article came out, I will not rest untill these lies see the light of day. There are plenty of patriotic people in America and we can help. I think at the minimum The Economist owes a written retaaction and apoplogy to every man in the unit. Give me his name and I will take it from there.
Abraham Lincoln once said,”A man is about as happy as he makes up his mind to be.” And do you know what? He was right! I will be happy to take on this little project.
Cheers
Mark Nasche
February 26th, 2007 at 9:53 amPat Dollard | Young Americans…
Pat Dollard | Young Americans
A MOST awesome site….
Just one clip. 02 “Welcome To The Triangle Of Death”
February 26th, 2007 at 10:02 amHighly recommend the site. Watch the clips, look for the movie.
……
Great work.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pmAwesome. I’m speechless.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pmGreat clip! It is quite apparent the great risk that Pat was taking in being there. Thank you, Mr. Dollard.
I would also be interested to read the article, any idea when this was? As an unpatriotic DemoRAT, I have a few laying around…
The gentlemen that you interviewed are so amazing-calm, eloquent- despite the hell surrounding them. Their grace and presence is awe-inspiring. Thanks for capturing that.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pmThanks, well done.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pmWay to go, boys. I am not saying that this journalist did a good job. But here you sit talking about exposing him (as if a journalist was anonymous), putting public pressure on him and killing(!) him because some soldier told Pat Dollard that he wrote a slanderous article, without giving you a name, without you having read the article or knowing what really went on.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pmmorlock,
I agree we shouldn’t kill the journalist but how about torture? I suggest, if he is found guilty, we have him do a report on the evils of Islam for al-jazeera. Only he must show his face and give his full name and address to the audience.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:00 pm1.) Find out the name of the journalist.
2.) Have a blogger do a nice little expose on the story, detailing every falsehood and fabrication.
3.) Post the so-called e-mail address of this so-called “journalist”.
I’ll bet you we can crash an e-mail server someplace, get some magazine subscriptions canceled, maybe a lawsuit or two. Lots of fun stuff.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:43 pmPat,
These men are amazing. You’re not too shabby yourself. (That is to say, I’m blown away.) I personally would love it if you were to do a bit of a “Roger and Me” type of query of the Economist journalist mentioned by the Marine in this chapter. Better yet, if you could somehow have that same man confront the journalist on screen back in the States.
Ditto for Christian Amanpour, CNN and the NY Times. Or even Moore himself. The media loves soldiers when they hate Bush. Otherwise shut up. I think William Arkin’s infamous opinions of soldiers is much more the norm for the Angry White Media. (That our trooops are “mercenaries”.) I mean can you imagine Cindy Sheehan out in the Hamptons in July if she weren’t Sean Penn’s puppet? A lot of Gold Star mothers out there in Sag Harbor?
Pat, watched that clip of the CNN reporter mulling over Iranian weapons killing our boys in Iraq and seeming to condone it in that courderoy forehead, white-bread, pseudo-intellectual way. Just wondering, is it ok to question their patriotism yet?
Thank God for you all. Watching most of our media makes one feel as if George Orwell or Alice in Wonderland is around the corner. Up is down. Terrorists are “insurgents”. Bush is Hitler even as real life Nazis try and kill our men and women and if they can’t they blow up women and children. But turn the channel and they’ll be telling us George Clooney is brave. Beam me up, Scotty.
Pat, I am spreading the word about you.
Tom
February 27th, 2007 at 1:21 amWell TJ, what you are describing in the last part of your post is close to what should happen if he did a terrible job. You can force the paper to address the mistakese maded and publish a correction. I’d say it is even the duty of someone who is so mad about a perceived slander (who of you have read the article in question?) to, if push comes to shove, take this to a court.
The identity of a reporter for the Economist is not a secret. find the article, read it, form your own opinion. Remember that you don’t know what happened in reality. Which is why resolving this matter does not lie in the hands of a few insane posters who want to literally jump on someone’s throat just because of the suggestion that he might have done a false reporting.
While I can’t say that I oppose torture by principle, I hope you were kidding about physical torture as a mean of punishment. You do not battle oppressive, torturing regimes by becoming one.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:27 amGreat documentory work.
Especially the second video. I can understand the sacrifices made by the men and women over there.
The Media must report the truth. Far to much bias distortion of facts and spin by both sides. Remember though the media is essential part of our democracy
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public.” - Teddy Roosevelt (FDR)
February 27th, 2007 at 4:38 amPat,
Excellent clip. Thanks for speaking out against apolegetics for sedition.
Okay, For example, I do not think that nationbuilding in Iraq is a good idea…In fact my politics are near-socialist.
However, I’m an American and as such I unconditionally support the missions of the American Armed forces.
Those who don’t support the mission aren’t just being critical, they aren’t just being assholes, they *are* embellishing pretexts to launch terrorist attacks against our community, they *are* directly aiding the enemy PR effort, they *are* damaging the morale of the troops and the nation, and yet they *aren’t* ashamed, which is their #1 problem in my opinion.
So , treason or not,
The sordid elements of the American left lack and attack a sense of duty to God and Country at every possible opportunity. I think the word ‘dispicable’ comes to mind.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:53 amGreat Work..never get to see such stuff on any of the networks. I salute these guys doing such a difficult mission everyday.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:31 amPat,
I saw your video clips in youtube today for the first time. I am impressed with your portrayal of the Marines you met while making your documentary. They’ve been put in a really difficult position and are doing the very best they can. While I feel there might be some editing involved (I only heard the Iraqis referred to as Hajis once…..something I am sure happens way more often than in your videos), I still think your clips are the most honest of any coverage that has come out of Iraq so far.
I’d be curious to see reactions in your comments from Iraq veterans. Also, how long ago was this filmed? It looks like it was 2005-2006? I really hope you or someone else will be able to go back again soon. Lots of things have changed since then, both in Iraq and in America.
Kick the hollywood types around all you want….they deserve it. But try not to be too hard on the average lefties. They want the same thing you do…..for our soldiers to do well and to come home safely.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pmI always love hearing soldiers talk about what’s going on more than hearing the media. Soldiers are just so frank and honest about what they see, hear and think. They know what the enemy is and isn’t and tend to be much more realistic about what they are facing. The soldiers don’t have to make judgments about the rightness or wrongness of the insurgents, they just have to stop them from killing innocent people and those who aid and defend them (other American Soldiers, Iraqi Army, IPS, INP and NGOs).
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pmMorlock, the soldier in question doesnt suggest the writer made a mistake. Mistakes are forgivable , slander deciept and out right lies are what got him upset. The fact that he does name the magazine, but cant recall the name is enough for me, besides even if do get to read the article(I’,ve tried to find it) I still have to believe the soldier is not lying about how they conduct raids. I’ve been a soldier, I have received the training, I know what they are trained to do and not to do. marines are no different. To suggest that they would verbally abuse Muslim women(in front of reporters no less)knowing full well that will incite the passions of them and their countrymen(and knowing the reporter will report what they have done) would be the highest form of stupidity. You being a liberal probably believe this(as does john kerry and the democrats) but I, having knowledge of how journalist’s generally lack integrity(remember connie chung and Jason blair of NY times)My brother and uncle are both journalists, and I know that journalists, while having a code of ethics, can and do regularly disregard them in order to get high ratings.
Not being able to deny these facts , I can safely assume the soldier is telling the truth. Perhaps, you can tell me how you know he is lying?
February 27th, 2007 at 6:57 pmby the way morlock, the torture i spoke of was the punishment itself. By giving his name address and picture, the anticipation of his coming disembowlment would be plenty torturous, dont you think?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pmPat, I just read the “Vanity Fair” article about you and watched you video preview “Young Americans”, which was terrific. The article, unfortunately painted a very bizarre portrait of you. It seemed to me that it was a desperate attempt to underscore your film by insinuating that you were a whacked out lunatic. I loved the film clip…you’ve become someone special to those americans who believe in what the men and women are trying to accomplish in their mission in Iraq …thank you very much…I’m looking forward to seeing the film when it get’s released and how the MSM respond to it.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:09 amI dearly hope this documentary, courageously, filmed by Pat will open the eyes of those amongst us who continually demonise the fabulous work being undertaken by the men and women of the Coalition.
Inspiring stuff Pat!
February 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pmgood to see the documentary is coming cant wate to see it in its Entirety.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pmTJ,
so are you talking about a lynch mob? Is that your understanding of justice?
Also, I didn’t say that the soldier was lying. I am only saying that the judgement is out, and with us not knowing more details, it’s not up to us. My gut feeling tells me that the soldier is not lying, but my gut feeling does not count when it comes to bringing someone to “justice” based on the little we saw.
Also, we know that American soldiers killed innocents and defenseless people. We know about the (systematic?) torture in the detention centers, and we know about planned rape and assassination of the innocent. There is no doubt in that, and if someone does, I can show you the sources which go beyond any bias the media can have.
Now these things happen during an occupation, they happened before, they will happen again, and the people of the occupied country don’t appreciate them. The question is whether it was necessary to bring this upon the Iraqi people. The war wasn’t self defense - there never was an Hussein - Al Qaida link and even if we believe that the administration did not mislead the people when it came to the threat of WMDs, we must at least see that their evaluation of the poor intelligence on Iraq was tainted by a strong bias towards the invasion.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was good. Giving the people some freedoms is great, though you can’t enjoy them when you are being blown up, or have to pay insane amounts of for fuel or electricity. Experts warned about destabilizing the region with the invasion, and they were damn right. And whether we talk about 30000 (Pentagon) or 655000 (”Lancet” study, 2006) “excel deaths”, this is a steep price. Btw, as far as I know the bipartisan Iraq study group suggests a figure close to 100000. I tend to go with that. Here by the way the link to the much debated Lancet study:
http://web.mit.edu/CIS/lancet-study-101106.pdf
Regarding the objectivity of the soldier that is being hailed here: While I agree that it is the soldier that gets much more “first-hand” experience than the western journalist, I have two reasons to doubt the objectivity. First, the army wants their soldiers to go out there and do a good job, and certainly are interested in them having a pro-war bias. Also, I think it is hard for a soldier to admit that he’s been to war and suffered because of terrible mistakes done by the administration. And no, I don’t think that Kerry would have done a significantly better job.
I don’t like getting labeled, but if you have too, ok, “liberal” is much closer than “conservative”. I don’t like the labeling because it draws away attention from the points made. People who hate liberals tend not to listen to you when you get labeled one, no matter what you have to say.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pmOf course I am talking about “excess deaths”, and not “excel deaths”. Microsoft Office hasn’t killed that many people - yet
February 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pmMorlock,
“Also, we know that American soldiers killed innocents and defenseless people. We know about the (systematic?) torture in the detention centers, and we know about planned rape and assassination of the innocent.”
I see that as an honest expression of your criticism.
As a young American (20) fixing to join the USMC, I suggest that those ideas are not useful outside of hurting the war effort, hurting our morale and hurting our will to fight.
I fear that the tone and content of your comments would convince people to view the soldiers as foolish villians as opposed to dutiful citizens.
That concerns me.
What do you think?
February 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pmMorlock,
The objectivity of the “soldier” in question is actually a Marine lieutenant. You don’t call a Marine a soldier.
Your first point about doubting the Marine’s objectivity is wrong. Yes, the military is geared towards mission acccomplishment, as any professional military should be. Yes, having good morale and a “pro-war bias” will help. However, Marines and soldiers are not stupid and can exercise judgement. I served in Iraq for seven months and certainly had a MISERABLE time there. I didn’t enjoy the (human) shit burning detail, sleeping in the dirt, dealing with the scorching heat, flies crawling on my ass while shitting, not being able to take a shower, and not having any pussy the entire time on deployment. Also, having to go out on patrol everyday and putting my life on the line is not exactly my idea of fun. Getting shot at is not a fun experience and something I wish I never have to deal with again for the rest of my life. Most servicemembers probably share my sentiments of deployment being miserable, and like me probably miss home a lot when in theatre. That being said, it would take a lot more than having the higher-ups order or wish for us to be “pro-war” for us to truly believe in what we fight for - especially with all the misery, hardship, and danger we go through. We see the difference and progress we make and how important our mission and presence there is. We see with our own eyes and not through television.
I have seen with my own eyes and can tell you that much of what I saw went unreported. You never hear about the families and children we feed, schools we help to rebuild, and order and progress we have made over there. When I was there, the majority or Iraqis I met wanted us there, and for the most part, we were greeted as liberators. They were happy to be freed from Saddam’s oppressive rule, but you never hear about that in the media. You mostly hear about killing of innocents, Abu Ghraib, and the media vilifying our servicemembers, even though these are exceptions to the majority of our proud professional military. Remember the LCpl that was put on trial for killing an Iraqi who was playing dead? The media had a field day and almost had him court martialed and convicted for killing an enemy combatant and saving the lives of his fellow Marines. Any Marine in his situation would have done the same. I have seen and heard the truth with my own eyes and ears, and I’m fully capable of figuring out what is right and wrong(just like all the others who have served).
Your second point is also wrong. There are certainly mistakes and grievances the Bush administration has committed during the course of the war. An example of this is Halliburton’s war profiteering. Contracts being awarded to Halliburton even after they mishandled hundreds of millions of dollars is wrong. I saw with my own eyes that they hardly did any of work they were supposed to. The Bush administration has also made other mistakes along the way, and we (the military) are not ignorant of that - nor do we find it difficult to point a finger at the source of most of our suffering and disgrace(MSM, not Bush).
I’m honored that I had the opportunity to participate in the liberation and rebuilding or Iraq, but I’m quite disgusted with the filth and lies propogated by the media.
-Joe
February 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pmBy the way, if so much of the media is so concerned about Iraqis’ human rights, then what about reporting the mass murders, chemical warfare, and systematic torture and rapes committed by Saddam and his two sons? If the media is so concerned about US troops misbehaving and about Iraqis’ rights, then they should go to Iraq and become a citizen or join the Iraqi armed forces so they can make a difference.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pmJoe,
Points taken. Marines and soldiers are not stupid, and I never said that. And they not only do have access to the media and their own experience to make their judgement, which is much more than the viewer/reader at home. Military command also can’t make sure that everyone supports the war, even if the higher-ups would prefer it. Just you criticizing the Halliburton business is not proof that my other point is wrong, though. I am talking about more significant mistakes, like, yes, invading Iraq. And I think there is a point that it is hard for many servicemen to admit such mistakes because they are so much involved. If you are putting your ass in line, you better believe that the whole effort makes sense. However, those two points I made might be relatively irrelevant.
I see that the media mostly reports on the violence and the negative sides of the occupation and there is little about the reconstruction effort etc. By the way, I don’t care that much about media consensus when forming my own opinion. If you ask me, 80% of the media is stupid. I try to pick the 20% that seems well-researched and either very unbiased or that clearly admits the bias, and take a look at the scientific side of the whole issue. Good media for example admits that journalism in Iraq has failed. Here’s a nice documentary about it:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13420.htm
Why you are calling for the media to report on Saddam’s crimes is beyond me, though. *Everyone* already knows that, and there is nothing newsworthy about this. They do report about mass graves found. What else do you want? Do you want a report on Saddam’s crimes after each negative news about Iraq? Now that would be very obvious propaganda.
Every study, partisan, bipartisan, non-partisan, that speaks with military personnel and Iraqi civilians shows that Iraq is worse off because of the invasion. Security and infrastructure were significantly better before the invasion, even with Saddam being a monster. Now the invasion is, theoretically, a good opportunity to turn the country into an even better place, but more people die in each year following it.
And the Iraqi people, so the polls, want the US to go. Again, it doesn’t matter which poll you look at. Even if you just take the polls by the US Department of Defense, you see that large majorities want Americans to leave as soon as possible, Sunni majorities support the insurgency against US troops. If this is about helping the Iraqis, why does their opinion not count?
Doug,
“As a young American (20) fixing to join the USMC, I suggest that those ideas are not useful outside of hurting the war effort, hurting our morale and hurting our will to fight.
I fear that the tone and content of your comments would convince people to view the soldiers as foolish villians as opposed to dutiful citizens. ”
Oh yes, this definitely is not good for morale. And this should hurt the will to fight. I am not talking about the servicemen, but about the whole war effort. This war is wrong on so many levels - the way the country was coerced to engage in it, the way it affects the country (Iraq), the way it leaves Afghanistan behind as an unfinished job, with the Taliban getting stronger again, and the way it is weakening America and basically all western nations. The sooner it stops, the better. I am sorry for the servicemen fighting in this war. I think that they can be proud of themselves, considering what many have to go through.
According to some people here, such thinking is also un-American. When I argue I try to show that it is, indeed, thinking about the issues, and not just making some propaganda claims (I wonder when Pat starts deleting my posts, I hope he doesn’t, because I find this discussion interesting). How such thinking can be un-American is beyond me. Is it not American not to support your government or a war, when so much speaks against both? Sounds fascist to me.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:14 am“the way it leaves Afghanistan behind as an unfinished job, with the Taliban getting stronger again”
Just throwing a couple things out there; buuuttt…
Nation building takes time. Especially in regions where there has been nothing but crime, oppression, and warfare for two generations.
The Taliban has been able to begin rebuilding itself because of the wonderful haven provided by Waziristan; with thanks to the Pakistani government’s inability or unwillingness to clean up the region and police their own country and borders. Something by the way, that we offered to do, and continue to offer to aid them in, but are continually turned down.
Could you elaborate on how the WOT (or just Iraq) is weakening the US and the Western World?
March 1st, 2007 at 8:32 amMorlock (Good versus Evil reference?)
“Every study, partisan, bipartisan, non-partisan, that speaks with military personnel and Iraqi civilians shows that Iraq is worse off because of the invasion.”
I seriously doubt this. Maybe every study you have read, which I kind of doubt. It just isn’t what most people do. But maybe you are more motivated than most people, huh?
I just wonder, Morlock, what positive effect has losing a war ever had on the loser? How could our country possibly be better off declaring defeat and retreating (or redeploying to Okinawa if you like)?
It seems to me that if somebody wanted to end the war more quickly it would be by helping to destabilize and demoralize our enemy and not ourselves. The only thing demoralizing our country does is to make us second-guess every time we are faced with a crisis. This will result in far more innocent deaths than fighting a war, as it emboldens our enemies to perpetrate far more deadly attacks against the US and our interests around the world. Loudly disagreeing with those who don’t seem to have any interests further than short-term political success (and who echo the same sentiments of our enemies) is not fascist, it is called the democratic process.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:04 amMorlock,
I don’t know what kind of polls you have read, but the reception that I PERSONALLY got (along with all the other Marines I served with) was MOSTLY POSITIVE. I’m sure the Iraqis don’t want us to stay any longer than necessary, or as you say “as soon as possible.” However, this does not equate to them wanting us to leave immediately. I saw many that wanted us to make sure there was peace and stability before leaving, without staying any longer than necessary.
As for reporting on Saddam’s crimes, the media and jihadists in the Middle East portray Bush and the US military to be public enemy number one, the “Great Satan.” They seem to forget that Saddam, the Butcher of Baghdad, and his sons were monsters. Michael Moore and his false portrayal/propaganda of Iraq being not so bad before we came is an example of this false propaganda. I’m just asking for a reality check and a fair perspective here.
Also, most of the north (Kurdish region), central, and southern Iraq is stable, and much progress has been made. I saw with my own eyes. The part of Iraq being worse off after the invasion, is limited to Baghdad, Ramadi, and the surrounding areas - which is a small area in comparison to the rest of the country. I highly doubt that those that conducted these “studies” went out on a daily basis to various regions in all of Iraq to collect information on the welfare of the local population.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pmMorlock,
I don’t know what kind of polls you have read, but the reception that I PERSONALLY got (along with all the other Marines I served with) was MOSTLY POSITIVE. I’m sure the Iraqis don’t want us to stay any longer than necessary, or as you say “as soon as possible.” However, this does not equate to them wanting us to leave immediately. I saw many that wanted us to make sure there was peace and stability before leaving, without staying any longer than necessary.
As for reporting on Saddam’s crimes, the media and jihadists in the Middle East portray Bush and the US military to be public enemy number one, the “Great Satan.” They seem to forget that Saddam, the Butcher of Baghdad, and his sons were monsters. Michael Moore and his false portrayal/propaganda of Iraq being not so bad before we came is an example of this false propaganda. I’m just asking for a reality check and a fair perspective here.
Also, most of the north (Kurdish region), central, and southern Iraq is stable, and much progress has been made. I saw with my own eyes. The part of Iraq being worse off after the invasion, is limited to Baghdad, Ramadi, and the surrounding areas - which is a small area in comparison to the rest of the country. I highly doubt that those that conducted these “studies” went out on a daily basis over an extended period of time to various regions in all of Iraq to collect information on the welfare of the local population.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pmTo Dennis - Sorry your comment was accidently deleted with spam. Here is a recovery.
Dennis Said,
I think I may have found the article the marine in the film was referring to. Although, very easy to find, there is no author’s name tied to it, that I could find. I’ve pasted the link below… Maybe someone can find this author’s name.
Keep up the good work!
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html
March 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pmTo jsc0311:
First off, thank you for your service to our country. I know that service in the military is not usually considered a church picnic, and I appreciate everything you and your brothers (and sisters) have done for this country and others.
The portrayal of Saddam as a butcher, and Morlock’s dismissal of this fact, shows the true reason why this is not talked about. It gives true contrast between our troops and our enemies. While any innocent killed is a tragedy, there is a very obvious difference. Intent. Our side doesn’t intentionally kill civilians, and in fact, we risk the lives of our own in order to decrease civilian casualities. Saddam INTENTIONALLY killed innocent men, women and children because of his hate of their tribe, ethnicity or religion. Anyone who has seen the video of the horrible situation in the northern Kurdish area knows about what I am describing. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a closed society, and like most dictatorships, he was able to keep a lid on all his atrocities. Those who even SPOKE against him were at least punished by having their tongues cut out, and at worst, were forced to watch their wives and children raped, only to be killed afterwards. The death of the pure-evil Saddam and his sadistic sons is merciful compared to the horrors that their victims received.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmPat
I Think your work is truly insightful. I have been over here for over 4 years now, both as a soldier and civilian contractor. I applaud you for your courage in creating the most honest portrayal of America’s servicemen that I have ever seen. I can’t wait for the documentary to be released in full. Your the heat man.
Doug
March 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pmI beleive you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the current position held by the democratic Left. there is an undeniable movement underway to destroy this countries will fufill our commitment to the people of Iraq that borders on sedition. Good luck with the corp and keep yourself safe. Check out this link if ever you are in doubt.
http://howardwasright.com/index.php/site/more/530/
Morlok
Dude… You are a complete and total TOOL (of the far left). The whole “Bush Lied”, “this is an Illeagal War”, “Torture”, and “Killing of innocents” meme has been waaaayyyy over done. As David said it demoralizes our country and our military. It emboldens our enemy. I have been working with the Iraqis for over 4 years and I can tell you that the thought of us leaving scares them to death.Your assertation that they were better off before the war is completely false and falls straight in line with the talking points of the Left. There have been major improvements in this country that would have never been possible without our intervention. The greatest problem we face is the security issue. This will never be solved as long as our politicians and our far Left continue with thier drum beat of “Bring the troops home”. You guys are providing “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy. The argument for this war was started by the Democrats in 98 during the clinton administration.
http://blogs.wizbangblog.com/2006/06/14/of-wmd-lies-and-democrats.php
I beleive that the bush administration could have done a much better job. I don’t agree with many of the decisions they have made regarding this whole endeavor. However, I am not the Commander and Chief. We are at WAR, The congress agreed to this War, The country agreed to this war. There can be no alternative other than the successful completion of this War. One wonders how we lost sight of that goal. The stakes are to great. What happens to the Iraqis if we pull up stakes and leave? Vietnam…. Cambodia…. Millions slaughtered…. This time however, the stakes are higher. The communist were not focused on attacking America directly. The guys we are dealing with now are not so generous. To use this war as an opportunity for political gain, as many of our politicians are, is beyond the pale. I beleive history will hold a harsh judgement of these politicians, and those that supported them, if we allow ourselves to loose again.
Anyway…. Off my soap box…. Keep up the great work Pat
Morlock,
The only thing weakening America and western nations are all of the defeatists that give aid and comfort to our enemies. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. It is that simple.
In my opinion, the only reason most defeatists are so bold and loud in their rants against the USA is because they can. We are a nation that is good and civil, and they know that they will be safe no matter how vitriolic they become. They wouldn’t dare speak out against the terrorists we are fighting. In fact, if they lived in any of those “religion of peace” countries, they wouldn’t even have the oportunity to speak their minds. Yet, somehow surrendercrats equate us and them, like we are equals.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pmThere are so many replies that I don’t have the time to address all of them thoroughly. Sorry.
First, the WOT weakening the US:
It’s weakening the US from within, because it is undermining democracy. With habeas corpus violated, the kidnapping of foreign citizens without evidence that they are guilty, and torture of prisoners, the US has made a big step towards China. Also, this things has costed almost half a trillion dollars so far, and this is according to congressional appropriations.
With the war in Iraq, the US has politically isolated itself from the largest parts of the world. Anti-Americanism is on a high, which strengthens every politician that promises to defy the US. With the intelligence failure that led to the invasion, the country has embarassed itself, and, together with hailing those governments as the new pioneers of democracy (”New Europe” for example) that in fact disregards what the majority of the people say, the US has lost reputation and support.
As far as I understand, the US has lost military options with the troops tied to Iraq, but I am no military expert.
The Afghanistan democracy effectively ends when you leave the city of Kabul. And while nation building takes time, the situation is not getting better, but worse.
As for the polls, you can find a collection of results here:
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55
As for the studies, have a look at the Iraq study group results published last year. This was a study group with as many Republicans as Democrats leading it. Have a look at the Lancet paper I linked to, which doesn’t rely on anectdotal evidence (remember that there are sevicemen who made different experiences than you guys - they just don’t hang around here), but on looks at 1850 households throughout the country. David, I don’t know what you mean by saying that reading studies is not what most people do. It probably is not. But the good thing is that the information is out there. You don’t have to rely on the evening news, on Michael Moore or on Pat Dollard. There are enough scientific publications out there that are very clear about the methods they use to evaluate the situation. Have a look at them and make up your own mind.
Joe: As for the peaceful regions - so far, the invasion has been very good for the northern, Kurdish population. They don’t have their Kurdistan, but they enjoy autonomy, which is what they wanted. And yes, there are other peaceful regions. Also Basra is relatively peaceful, though the British forces are still losing men there due to attacks. But don’t forget that more than a fifth of the population live in the areas you describe. Imagine if the US got into such a situation and someone would say: “Listen, except for the states California, Texas and Illinois the country is in relative peace.”
David, in a previous post I described Saddam as a monster. How this is supposed to be dismissing the fact that he was a butcher I don’t understand. Anyway, Saddam intentionally killed people (in his worst days with support of western states including France, Germany and the US if I might add). But the US invasion led to a very significant rise of the death rate in Iraq, and at least ten times as many deaths as Kurds were gassed by Hussein, though yes, most of these deaths surely were not intended. Now you can say that these deaths were driven by different intentions, and if this is really relevant to you, sure, then it is better to have all these deaths under the US occupation.
About what good it would bring should the US retreat, here is how I see it: I think that if you look at how the past 4 years went, with each year demanding more victims, one can conclude that the US presence will not bring peace to the region. The US will leave eventually, and it is well possible that the country will stay chaotic after that, for quite some time. Who knows what will come out of it. But since this process seems inevitable, it is better for the US to get out soon. It’s a sad situation, and I do hope that I am wrong.
And you should disagree if you have a different opinion. I just get tired of seeing critics of the war called “un-American”.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pmMorlock,
“It’s weakening the US from within, because it is undermining democracy. With habeas corpus violated, the kidnapping of foreign citizens without evidence that they are guilty, and torture of prisoners, the US has made a big step towards China. Also, this things has costed almost half a trillion dollars so far, and this is according to congressional appropriations.”
It is not undermining Democracy. You must mean the Justice system as American citizens enjoy it. The capture of enemy combatants and financiers from areas falling within the ground war aspect of the WOT is not the kidnapping of foreign citizens. Although if you prefer, I have a few friends that wouldn’t have minded just killing them on the spot three years ago, although that would be against American ideals about the value of life and liberty as well as counterproductive. Nor do “we”, “torture” detainees as you claim. They do worse to us in SERE and Air Force Survival School. Finally, I had no idea that warfare and all the logistical support, as well as nation-building efforts included in the WOT (there is far more than Iraqi and Enduring Freedom going on bud) could be found cheaply; might you name an alternative please?
“With the war in Iraq, the US has politically isolated itself from the largest parts of the world. Anti-Americanism is on a high, which strengthens every politician that promises to defy the US”
This year, I spent the holidays in Colombia and Belize, with a stopover in Mexico. Also, I spent three weeks in Italy and Hungary last year working with COESPU and hosted by the Carabineri. I got the distinct feeling that Americans are appreciated, they (the citizens of these and other countries) love everything about us. Especially in Hungary (and other former Soviet-bloc nations I’ve visited) where people fly American flags outside their homes. Merely being an American (we’re easy to pick out due to our distinctive accents) makes you friends in these countries. I simply cannot relate theses people’s feelings towards America, our people and our ideals, in such a small space.
“But the US invasion led to a very significant rise of the death rate in Iraq, and at least ten times as many deaths as Kurds were gassed by Hussein, though yes, most of these deaths surely were not intended. Now you can say that these deaths were driven by different intentions, and if this is really relevant to you, sure, then it is better to have all these deaths under the US occupation.”
Wars tend to do that, and in case you didn’t know; since the “insurgents”, who are really just criminals and terrorists, don’t wear uniforms, they are counted as civilian dead. Use your imagination. Ever wonder why there is a “Coalition” and a “Civilian” count but not count for enemy combatants? And by the way, after reading the information provided by your link (Iraqanalysis.org, who by the way has inflated their numbers by claiming them “estimates”. An estimate could be off by six billion and still called an “estimate”) I can see that the closest they come to discerning between innocent and combatant deaths is in “Table:4 Violent deaths by Cause and Time” of the .pdf file, “Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: a cross sectional cluster sample survey” where the Table’s author creates the classes of “Unknown”, “Coalition” and “Other”. Unknown, we can assume, is the label applied to non-Coalition combatants. The “Unknown” “Cause of death” is higher than the “Coalition” in every case but Pre-invasion, in which they are equal.
Besides which, I defy you to prove that the American-led Coalition is responsible for more innocent deaths than the Hussein regime. *Defy*.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pmWOW! There are a lot of sites promoting a leftist agenda or a right agenda but these videos are just real! No politics, no sugar coating….just reality! Keep it up brother! Gob bless.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pmAmericans are, in general, liked in all European countries. I made that experience myself. Did you speak with these people about American politics?
Stark,
You show that you don’t know how such studies work. They always work with estimates. You ask a certain number of people until you get a statistical significance of your data, meaning that the sample very likely representes the population. Which basically means that with a chance of 95%, between 393000 and 943000 people were killed. The number with the highest chance of being true is 655000. It’s the way statistics works everywhere, not just here. You may want to read more about how they reached their conclusions. Every number would be an estimate, but there are better and worse estimates, and according to their data, the further you get away from the 655000, the worse your estimate gets. So saying that 655000 and six billion are both estimates is like saying that evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories. Of course thast’s the truth, but one is much better and credible than the other if you look at the data. In the article itself you can read why they chose this method and not what are called “passive surveillance measures”. Let me quote:
“Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods.”
I don’t know how many people were killed in total by Hussein, and I didn’t say that Americans killed more than Hussein did. I don’t know how many people Hussein killed. Read my post more carefully. So sorry, there goes your defiance. The first Gulf War (Iran-Iraq) killed about a million people, the war in ‘91 claimed about 150000 lives. So if you give Hussein the sole responsibility for that, the death toll under his regime is already much higher. Add the thousands of people he killed in his country. However, even more conservative guesses suggest that the number of people killed during the invasion and the occupation is higher than the number of deaths per year during the last years of the Saddam regime.
Btw, since Hussein had support from a number of western countries right through his worst attrocities, which makes it hard to say who “caused” many of the deaths.
As for the torture: Cheney himself admitted that waterboarding was “useful” to acquire information. You might call this harmless, I call it torture, especially if you don’t sign up for it.
As a personal note, I don’t care which party says what. When you look at history, the difference between the foreign politics of the Democrats and the Republicans are very minor and superficial, though yes, on this narrow scale the Democrat party is more appealing to me.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 amcan i weigh in here after a couple of days since my last post.I didnt mean the journalist should be killed just professionally killed. ive read his article. I still agree with the Marines.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 amNowMorlock you are obviously a 10 finger typist or you couldnt post so much bulls**t in such a short time. In your last post you posted
“As a personal note, I don’t care which party says what. When you look at history, the difference between the foreign politics of the Democrats and the Republicans are very minor and superficial, though yes, on this narrow scale the Democrat party is more appealing to me.”
As a non American (an Australian) I find that this is a complete cop out. Wasnt it the Democrats that pursued the Japanese to Unconditional Surrender after telling them that they would be destroyed if they kept fighting and dropped two nuclear pops on them? Wasnt it the Democrats that changed the entire Japanese culture from a fascist, deity, supremist culture to a democratic peaceful nation, intent on the pursuit of a good life for themselves and their children instead of mouthing the kamikazi stuff about emperor,country and shinto.
Where did those Democrats go. Possibly died of shame to see the way the party has disintegrated.
As an interested outsider I find that the two party system in the US to be typical of two party systems anywhere, Those in power get arrogent, and more so the longer they are in power, the so caled “loyal opposition” seeks desperatly to find allies and alignes itself with all sorts of freaks who help them to feel they are a “force”.
Unfortunatly the greast unwashed voter public gets sucked in to the retoric from the left leaning media and forget that the so called “right” as overstayed its time and a change is needed, and thats here in the constitutional monachy of Australia where EVERYBODY over 18 MUST vote, not there where less than 50% of the voting population even bothers.But thats Democracy…do as you want, not feel that your vote is important.When at least half of the population refuses to exercise its democratic options you will always get the politicians you deserve, ass lickers and populists feathering their own nests and not beholden to the voters.
Apathy will cause the islamists to win , they are not apathetic they have an agenda, long term but determined.
Do not EVER lose sight of the long term objective of the islamists. You invited them into your country, they are intent in destroying it.They wait patiently
I am neither a ten finger typist nor American. I didn’t want to mention that last bit at first because it keeps people from thinking about the content of the posts. Anyway, this whole discussion, intersting as it is, takes away a lot of time, and I have to scale back eventually.
As I said, when it comes to the argument, I don’t care which party says what. I don’t know if I would give my vote to the Democrats in an American election. And btw, I agree with you that more people should take part in the democratic process. In other countries (like Brazil, for example) you have to vote, and this is not a bad rule. You can still cast an empty ballot if you want, but at least you have to cast one.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 amMorelock
the whole idea of freedom is having the right to do something or not do something as long as you dont infringe on the rights of others. requiring people to vote is not freedom.
Anyways if as you say 80% of the media are idiots then i suggest you read and article called “A litany of Leftist Lies” By jacob Laksin Frontpagemagazine.com August 13,2004
he goes over in great detail the alleged lie by bush about saddam buying uranium from niger,the idea that Bush called iraq an imminent threat,the alqaeda saddam connection, the idea that iraq has increased the terrorist threat in the us, wmd’s etc.
you will find that you have been unduly influenced by our leftist media, and since you have no experience in the field, you obviously have been duped by the idiots.
read the article if you dare to have your mind changed. Or are you too open minded for that?
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 amterry
you are very right about the long tem objectives of islam. the leader of CAIR in america said at a speech one time that they are not here to be a part of the population but to dominate and make shariah the law of the land. they of course have denied saying such things and the media portrays them as a muslim aclu. Yeah the aclu with guns and bombs.
“lo, fight them until all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.” (Quran 8:39)
“Men , do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man? Yes. In swearing allegiance to Muhammad, we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.” (Ishaq:204)
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:42 amHi TJ,
will read it. Give me some time for my reply because I won’t be on this site this weeekend.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 amMorlock,
American politics? No, not specifically. It’s poor dinner conversation.
On the statistics of your “study”.
” Every number would be an estimate, but there are better and worse estimates, and according to their data, the further you get away from the 655000, the worse your estimate gets. So saying that 655000 and six billion are both estimates is like saying that evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories. Of course thast’s the truth, but one is much better and credible than the other if you look at the data.”
Oh, and the numbers “393,000 and 943,000″ leave a huge space to play in. 393k is an inflated number, and if the basis of your study is on an inflated number and an estimate that is about twice that, there are problems with your collection methods. The standard deviation of the three numbers (minX, med, and maxX) is 224′620 by the way.
Besides which, my comment wasn’t targeted *at* the numbers, I drew a small point in saying that a statistic is a statistic, no matter how inaccurate. My point was that the study made no differentiation between enemy combatant and innocent deaths. Nor did it even list “insurgents” as a cause of risk factor. They were assumed to be grouped with “unknown”.
And they are both estimates, just as well as intelligent design (ID) and evolution are both theories. But whereas the only surefire way to figure out the ID/evolution question is to die, people can go to Iraq and count the bodies. Not the he said she said; the bodies. Or, they can accept the mortuary affairs officers who give the most accurate numbers out there. But if anyone would like to pop in and run a private, civilian, mortuary affairs type operation; good luck.
“the US invasion led to a very significant rise of the death rate in Iraq, and *at least ten times as many deaths as Kurds were gassed by Hussein*”
“and I didn’t say that Americans killed more than Hussein did. *I don’t know how many people Hussein killed.*”
Since I didn’t read your post very carefully, please point out the part I missed. And according to you (655′000), Hussein killed about 65′500 people. His own people. This isn’t a small number; in fact, it’s more than twice the number of Coalition dead. If you don’t know exactly how many, why state the former comment as fact? You didn’t say “I think” you said “at least ten times…”. Sorry I wasn’t specific enough.
Saddam enjoyed Communist support for the greatest portion of his regime. We (the US) gave him support when fighting Iran, under the hope that the Iranians would realize the seriousness of their situation (being surrounded by Soviets and Soviet allies, i.e. Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq etc.) and reopen negotiations on release of the embassy hostages. By the way, we were also trading aircraft parts with them at the same time with the same goal in programs devised by the cabinet of, and endorsed by, President Carter. Later, President Reagan would offer token aid, but choose to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan rather than the Islamists in Iran by proxy. Saddam played us and the Soviets for aid and got what he wanted. A modern arsenal and a lot of free foreign cash.
And any guess is a guess. According to the only link you’ve posted, 393′000 is a conservative one.
Water boarding is useful. And it is only administered by trained professionals. It is also non-lethal, and while incredibly frightening, you can walk away wet and panting. Or shuffle rather. The discomfort stops when the water stops and the towel is removed.
If the narrow scale you refer to is the historical tendencies of politician’s party affiliations and their foreign policy beliefs, then I think we have a little oopsie. Who was president in 1950? 1959? How about the Bay of Pigs in 1961? Who gave the go that led to the Desert One Accident?
Who was President when Operation Restore Hope shifted from a humanitarian mission and the US deployed Task Force Ranger UNILATERALLY and against world opinion and the advice of our allies? (Granting that WWII was absolutely just and necessary and WWI is too far in the past to be relevant)
And for the hell of it, who pulled us out of Vietnam?
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 amTj,
just had a quick look.
Point 1: Perhaps you can do me the favor and show me where the 9/11 Commission report shows that Wilson is a liar, as sated in the article you linked to:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Because I can’t find anything. As for the Butler Report also mentioned, British intelligence criticises the way it presented its uranium argument. The evidence in it is very weak. It only consists of an Iraqi diplomat traveling to Niger in 1999. The uranium mines in Niger are not controled by Nigeria, but by France.
Point 2: Here is a collection of quotes. Make up your own mind:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html
Point 3: The 9/11 Commission report stresses the very difficult relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They might have cooperated agaisnt the Kurds through Ansar al Islam, but generally, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were opponents. Bin Laden even supported groups fighting against Saddam’s secular regime. Later Bin Laden tried to get help from Hussein. The report concludes that there is no evidence that the Iraqi regime ever helped Al Qaida.
Point 4: This is really hard to judge. Definitely more Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks after the invasion than on 9/11. But we are talking about a war in Iraq. I would even argue that, indeed, the Iraq war could have drawn Al Qaida’s attention a bit away from the US, since they have a new focus now. Did the Iraq war reduce the threat of a terrorist attack in general? Wih the attacks in other places, like Madrid and London, this doesn’t seem to be the case. However, I think that it is very difficult to judge on that. The author might be right here.
Point 5: The Bush administration itself admist that there were no WMD’s. Even Fox News doesn’t make that claim anymore.
Point 6: I am sorry for all the other countries in the coalition, but de facto the operation is an US operation with a British sidekick. The resources other countries used in that war have, in comparison to US and England’s efforts, so little relevance that I am tempted to say that their support is symbolic only. But taken as face value, saying that the US went alone is not true, and Kerry was stupid for saying that.
First time I am actually reading parts of the 9/11 Commission results. They look interesting.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 amThis is all I need to know about media…
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 amhttp://www.military.com/features/0,15240,127051,00.html
[…] forget to get over and visit Pat Dollard’s site, you can watch a clip from his documentary “Young Americans”. Also visit Bill’s […]
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmGreat work Pat, Keep it up.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:01 ammay God protect you and all our kids over there.
Thanks Pat for keeping our Marines in the picture. The clip has made us all want the long version.
Please tell everyone there that everyone here [my entire family] loves them and are so grateful that they choose to serve our country. They are all brave men indeed.
Semper Fi
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmMorlock,
20% of the population being screwed up does not equate to most of the country being a disaster area. Hell, 20% is not even close to half. Is that all you can offer as a rebuttal? What about my point of Iraqis not wanting us to leave as soon as possible - which does not mean immediately but stay no longer than necessary? That is what I heard from most of the Iraqis I talked to. I do not understand why you find it much easier to believe what you read and see in the media - most of which has been outside of the Green Zone - than what you are hearing from veterans who have personally eyewitnessed Iraq, not just from the Green Zone.
Again, I - like many of my fellow servicemembers - are intelligent adults who are capable of discerning what is right and wrong. If I thought that this war was wrong, then why would I want to go to a desert sh–hole, and go through the misery and bitterness of war - not to mention constantly fearing and struggling for survival? Is it that hard to believe someone who has been there and done that (and is willing to put my ass on the line again)? I’ll believe what my eyes saw before I believe what I see on TV and in print.
Since you support the Democrats, how can you justify a non-binding resolution? I certainly do not agree with everything the Bush administration has done in this war, but this NON-binding resolution shows the lack of integrity on those who voted for it. If you feel strongly about something and truly have conviction, then you take action - action that counts. You also stand up and take accountability for you actions. The Democrats, along with a few Republicans, felt so strongly against the war that they decided to voice it and put it on paper. This is cowardice at its finest. Those who voted for the nonbinding resolution want to be say they are opposed to the Iraq war without having to take responsibility if things go downhill. If you have any integrity and intestinal fortitude, then vote on a binding resolution and be accountable. The blood of the 3000+ servicemembers deserve AT LEAST that. This cowardice is a great contrast to the courage of those who were and are still out there putting their lives on the line. They feel strongly enough about it to take action and risk their lives rather than vote on a NON-BINDING farce.
If there were some way possible, I wish you and all the other anti-war people could walk a mile in our shoes and go to Iraq and see the truth.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmBTW, I bet that if they voted on a binding resolution, not so many would have voted for it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmHas The Economist ever commented about the article the Marine referred to ? Has there been a response to the criticisms ?
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:20 pmcool vid.
gotta laugh about your post disclaimer “no leftists comments”. so if I say kill all Muslims, god bless America, and save Israel I will be cool?
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:50 pmtom - if you care to re-read it, you’ll notice it doesn’t say “no leftist comments”. Read around here for a bit, and you’ll see that there are leftist comments.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 pmThe link’s not working for me.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pmAnyone else having problems?
Never mind, it’s working now. Momentary glitch.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pmMORLOCK,
I TOTALLY disagree with much that you said, but I thank you for your tone, which showed respectful disagreement. It’s intellectually and morally honest of you.
However, I’d love to debate, point by point, with you on your assertions. You seem to have bought into a mode of speech that is most identified with the loony left (”torture of prisoners” for one. Not torture. Humiliation, degradation, yes. But…), but you think and present your points. Thanks.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm“living with snipers” is just the most excellent stuff!
Damned shame we are living with seditious journalism from the MSM…
I’m glad the footage included the comments from the one guy regarding the asshat from the Economist magazine…
Very, very educational Pat… Thanks…
March 4th, 2007 at 2:55 amFuckin A man, good video
March 4th, 2007 at 7:35 amKick Ass work that Pat is doing……
Support the troops, to hell with Jiihad Jane Fonda…
March 4th, 2007 at 11:07 amtj, frontpagemag is one of the biggest pieces of shit there is on the net. find a better source for your info.
March 4th, 2007 at 3:55 pmWow, Great Reporting Pat. You and Bill Roggio are about the only two that I read when it comes to ground truth.
Reporting from a hotel and taking third-hand information is the lazy method of the lazy (cowardly) US media.
Morlock, your arguments smack of moral relativism. Are you implying that it would be better if Saddam would have stayed in power to continue his genocide of the Kurds (with the help of Turkey), or the rape of wives and sisters by Udai, etc, etc.?
If the Iraqi people had stood up against the Baathists and the Al-Qaeda insurgents, life would be much better in Iraq today. They didn’t at first, though many tribal leaders are finally coming around. Go to my blog and read the collation of information I placed there from Bill Roggio, et al.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pmBTW Morlock,
Joe Wilson was called a liar by the Senate Intelligence Committee report pages 39 through 47.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pmPat Dollard is NOT full of shit….
…
March 4th, 2007 at 6:21 pmHey, I suggest everbody at least skim through this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
I commented on the Lancet earlier, but didn’t offer much in the way of supportive information. Well, better late than never.
“The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis – one in 40 of the population – had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The vast majority of these “excess” deaths (deaths over and above what would have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car bombs and gunfire.
Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark – hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war – but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency. “
March 4th, 2007 at 7:13 pmTom, correction. CNN is one of the biggest pieces of shit. Yet, such commentary is really useless since it provides no evidence. If yo read the article in question, the facts he pushes forward can be readily checked since he sites many publically available documents. Even though CNN sucks because they give support to our enemies, outside of their opinions i can usually check on the facts, to see that they are shit. perhaps you should do the same.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:52 pmMorlock,
I hadnt looked at the 9/11 commission report for a while but found that the final report indeed doesnt mention Joe wilson at all or the niger uranium connection. this is suspicious because he was interviewed by these senators about this deal and the alleged forged documents, which the butler report never considered because they relied on other intelligence that led them to the quoted conclusion(page 121, paragraph 499 butler report, yet, no mention of him. The republicans did write an addendum to the report about Joe wilson but it is not a part of the “official” report.
To me if Bush had lied about this connection, and wilson said just that I would think the interview would be pertinent information, however, politians, looking for damage controll had those statements edited out, along with George tenets statements that he had told condi rice about terrorists using planes to crash into buildings. The wilson lie would embarass the democrats and the condi lie would damage republicans.
From the financial times article along with the butler report we can safely assume that Bush’s statemnt was accurate. Remmeber his statement said they “sought” uranium, it didnt say they actually purchased it. france being in charge of the Uranium doesnt comfort me, since they had many legal and illegal business dealings with iraq, including the oil for food scam, and it only lends credence that a possible uranium deal could have been actually worked out with frances help(this is my speculation)The fact that Iraq’s explanation of the visit in question to niger was to “discuss a future visit by niger to iraq” was lie, since their is no record of such a visit to iraq taking place in 1999, lends more creedance to the idea that iraq sought uranium from a country with 3/4’s of its exports being uranium.
I think you proved the potential of an alqaida link by suggesting the collaboration against the kurds. To collaborated as nations or entities , one needent be ideologically, religiously or even politically aligned. Only your goals need to be similar. Alqaeda and Iraq were arch enemies of the US, their collaboration was very sensible because their end goals are what united them. A great example is the US collaboration with saddam against iran, or the us collaboration with the mujahedeen in afghanistan(many alqaeda figures including osama)against the soviets.
these alliances obviously have their consequences as saddam and the us have found out.
Also the report along with the butler report did talk about how many Iraqi citizens participated in the WTC bombing in 1983, including the one mastermind who was hiding out in iraq until2002. as wellas the mastermind of the achille laura being captured and killed in iraq after the invasion. keep in mind saddams own payments to families of suicide bombers in palestine. Hamas is aligned with alqaeda in religiousity and politics. saddam himself is also a sunni who was keeping a shiite majority at bay while being an intimidating force against iran, another enemy of alqaeda. this would explain to me , why is alqaeda hated saddam so much , why couldnt they penetrate the borders with such force as they are today, why is it the sunni insurgency, loyal to saddam, is in cahoots with alqaeda today? a common enemy. anenemy before the war and now during.
As the report states trace elements of wmd’s have been found in various ways including the warheads that were marked for use with sarin gas, the roadside bomb that was used with sarin nerve gas. though the elements were trace in nature, the evidence that he still had many weapons that the UN resolution after the gulf war had rendered illegal is evidence that sadddam was engaged in anactive attempt to hide his intentions, 12 years of obfuscations and non compliance gave him plenty of time to hide weapons and ship more harmful weapons outside the country. One of his own generals wrote a book about this and the shipments to syria in particular.
The fact that the countries who supported this war were not politically important to the countries like france, germany, russia and china, doesnt mean their support is meaningless, afterall the UN did back the war in afghanistan, yet what is the percentage of amercan troops to other troops? likely the same as they are in Iraq. Many countries didnt want to endanger the lives of their troops and have been intimidated(understandable) by the threat of terrorrism. 2 countries I think of are south korea and japan.
Also president clinton also defied the UN in bosnia. defying the un doesnt mean you are defying the international community, because the UN is becoming known as an organization that upholds dictatorships and stands by as genocides take place(Rwanda, Bosnia and now sudan)
March 5th, 2007 at 1:34 amFirst, let me tell you again that I am neither a Democrat, nor do I support them. As I said before, I think that the diferences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy are superficial. I don’t care about any arguments involving a comparison with the Democrats, especially if they say that they acted in a similar way in the past. Despite them being dominated by two parties, the United States do not have a two-party system, and I wish more people would appreciate that.
Stark,
even based on the passages you quoted one can understand what I said. I was comparing the deaths during the US invasion with the deaths that happened during what is considered Hussein’s greatest crime, the gassing of about 5000 Kurds in the 80’s. I said ten times because I wated to cut you some slack and used the more conservative estimates of the total deaths in Iraq due to the invasion and occupation.
Calculation the standard deviation of a confidence interval makes no sense. Why did you do that? The statistics used in the study are perfectly sound. If you don’t trust the statistical methods used here, never trust any research that uses statistics again no matter whether theyare about public opinion, medication, economy, etc.. Actually the fact that the study is published in the Lancet already give it enough credibility to start with, and I as a researcher have seen no mistakes myself. If you don’t know much about the methods (your criticism suggests that), you either have to put some trust in them or get a statistics book and start reading. Fortunately, the statistics weren’t your main point.
Your second point is interesting. The highest number I can find regarding how many insurgents there are is 17000 (source: Iraq’s interior ministry), but this is from 2005. It may be more now. If you have any numbers, please tell me, but not only do i not believe that the number would be high enough to justify the civilian deaths, you also have to consider that many insurgents are’t Iraqis.
Jsc,
I think 20% of a population are a significant bunch of people. If you disagree, okay. i don’t think that a discussion would make much sense here.
Matty,
Thanks for you appreciation. I just think that it is important to respect an opinion before you discuss it. The point about torture can be reduced to semantics, of course. Every prison humiliates and certainly causes psychological damage. I think the US treatment of prisoners goes way beyond what a normal prison does, and think that the way this is managed is wrong. We can have a discussion about if torture is right - it may surprise you that I don’t think that it is always wrong, but in this situation, it goes too far.
Waterboarding and the beating up of prisoners is torture to me, and given the fact that these people have not been through a fair trial before they experience this makes it much worse.
I will address some more points made here later.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:41 amMorlock,
I threw the stan. dev. in because I wanted to show the HUGE range between Lancet’s high and low values (min and max X). If the point is lost, fine. Not terribly important.
And I never said the statistics weren’t sound; I said the numbers were fudged. You asked for numbers, well, here, read.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
While I think your wrong; like “Matty” I appreciate your not being one of the usual “unhinged” nuts. You’ve yet to fill a comment box with fifty “bushhitlers” which is a great relief.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:11 amMeant to mention this, but couldn’t find the article.
The above isn’t the first time the Lancet has been questioned by scientists, doctors, etc.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
They have generally the same concerns. But although I can’t find it, the Lancet “poll-takers” came up with an effective enough defense that the issue was dropped for the time being.
Again, as per your request for numbers, the UNDP (United Nations Development Program) came up with fewer than 22′000 in 2004. And they made more interviews. I seriously doubt that 600′000 people have died in the last two years. The country would be empty in a decade at that rate.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:23 amTJ, Morlock,
Joe Wilson was called a liar in the Senate Intelligence Committee report regarding 9-11. Pages 37-49.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:10 amTJ,
is that all that remains from the alleged evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaida and was readsy to provide them with WMDs? The knowledge that some terrorists are Iraqis (others were Egypts, a lot were Saudis etc. - according to Wikipedia, the planner of the 93 bombing came from Kuwait and entered the Sates using a fake Iraqi passport, anbd he was captured in Pakistan - have to read more about this) and some inference based on “the enemy of my enemy”? And again, there is no evidence that Saddam helped Al Qaida (Al Qaida itself did not operate in Iraq against the Kurds, there is just one rganisation that might have been supported by both. Al Qaida was, over a long time, opposed to the Iraq. Bin Laden called Hussein a bad moslem. To assume that Hussein would give WMDs to Al Qaida, without evidence, just based on your thoughts, is not convincing.
As for WMDs, I didn’t bother that much with any traces found in Iraq. I assume that if there was anything that could have been used to justify the invasion, the Bush administration would have jumped on it - and they didn’t.
Stark, if you want to show the huge range, you can just substract the minimal value from the higher one, already getting an impressive number. The standard deviation is technically not suited to express the range between values, though one might come to that conclusion when just using two or three values. But this is really a technical issue and, as you said, not that important.
The points raised in your articles are pretty valid. A study that used more cluster points and addresses the bias mentioned is definitely the better one. As you can see in several posts I made here, I tend to use more conservative figures because the Lancet study came up with such a high number. The whole discussion is interesting, really. I found one analysis of three studies dealing with the martality rate in Iraq, having read it yet:
http://iraqmortality.org/iraq-mortality
Their basic idea makes me a bit skeptical, but that’s when things become interesting to look at.
I also wanted to note that unhinged nuts exist on both sides of the spectrum
March 6th, 2007 at 11:26 amjsc0311
“I’m sure the Iraqis don’t want us to stay any longer than necessary, or as you say “as soon as possible.” However, this does not equate to them wanting us to leave immediately. I saw many that wanted us to make sure there was peace and stability before leaving, without staying any longer than necessary”
Funny that - that’s exactly what the average Bengali in the street seemed to think when I was in Bangladesh in 1991 with JTF Sea Angel.
Of course the situation might not otherwise be comparable - we didn’t have to fight insurgents, just deliver food and clean water, drill new wells and otherwise play the good guy. Heck we didn’t even go ashore with weapons, which was novel.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:28 amOkay, well let’s drop the numbers for now, because to be perfectly honest I dislike math and this stuff bores the hell out of me.
Ansar Al-Islam (the former Al-Qaeda in Iraq) was wiped out by US SF and Peshmerga before President Bush stated “Mission Accomplished” (I think this is correct for our then short term goals of getting there and abolishing Hussein’s regime, but incorrect in describing our broader mission). The new “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” is the “Islamic State of Iraq” or ISI, which we have recently dealt several seriously debilitating blows; possible completely decapitating the organization (the Coalition hasn’t released a definative statement regarding an “Al-Basri”w was/is the ISIs leader).
Regardless, Al-Qaeda was not friend of the Baathist party. However, like any smart despot who has held on to power for any length of time, Hussein knew that friends were hard to come by, and in the interest of causing damageto the US, was more than willing to aid, with limits so as not to upset the Baathists, Islamic terror organizations. The fact that Al-Qaeda had such a large facility in the North (which everyone from the Kurds to the Iranians knew was there but couldn’t touch) and he never had it destroyed is testament to his willingness to allow extremists to operate in his nation.
I’m going toquit for now because I have work to do (:().But I’ll close agreeing with you; there are nuts everywhere. I didn’t specify above but I do think there are more “left wing” nuts present on the campus and web.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pmThe more I read about Ansar Al-Islam, the less likely I find that there was any cooperation between them and Iraq. For example, many sources say that they were backed up by Iran, which includind (supposedly) Iranian artillery support for the villages they held in northern Iraq, very close to the Iranian border. While members of Ansar al Islam confirmed that they were aided by Iran, they denied any claims that they were cooperation with Hussein, immediately attacking Hussein after that claim had been made.
I can understand that Hussein was not interested in wiping out the group when it fought against PUK. But I find it extrmely unlikely that Hussein would provide WMDs to an organisation that admittedly disliked his regime.
And well, the evidence is simply not there. If you want deductions such as the ones you are making to be enough to accuse someone of helping Al Qaida, you get into a state of mind which allows to to justify any attack on countries that are standing in the way. I don’t think that we should desire this.
Anyway, I am staying true to the promise I made to myself to write less with each post. I think what is to be said has pretty much been said, and I also have some work to do. Btw, statistics is part of my job, and I can understand that it can be boring when you get to the core of it. I wish I had some kind of magic wand that would do this part of the my work for me.
Oh, and just me posting less doesn’t mean that I will be gone, sorry. I am interested in seeing Dollard’s work.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pmOh, and one last thing regarding mandatory elections:
TJ said this:
“the whole idea of freedom is having the right to do something or not do something as long as you dont infringe on the rights of others. requiring people to vote is not freedom.”
I think that what is freedom and what is not in many cases is very arbitrary. I am not free not to pay taxes, as I don’t have the freedom to throw my old car in the lake. You can of course make the case that both would infringe on the rights of others, but you can do the same with voting. A democratic system needs people to participate as the economic system requites people to pay their taxes. And compared to taxes, casting your ballot is a minor sacrifice really. As I said, you don’t even need to support someone. You just have to participate in the procedure.
However, I don’t have the feeling that having everyone vote is of major importance. If it was, they would have gotten rid of you requiring to register. In many democratic countries you are being automatically registered, and just need to show your ID when you want to cast your ballot.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pmI would very much like to know where you learned of the Shiite Iran aiding the Sunni Ansar Al-Islam. What have you been reading? Dailykos?
And Ansar never had the oppurtunity to “attack Saddam” we destroyed them utterly back in 03 (the few survivorsfled to Syria and Iran), hence the need to replace them with the ISI. Besides which, one of the groups which formed Ansar was “Junda Al-Islam” was the original Al-Qaeda in Iraq and was started with funds straight from certian Saudis, including Bin Laden’s, pockets. Ansar appeared in 2001, sometime around December. Just about the time Al-Qaeda was looking for a new base of ops. Hmmm…
I’ll follow your lead and cut this short, ending with a nice little story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2149499.stm
“A captured Iraqi intelligence officer of 20 years’ standing, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who is held by the PUK, said Abu Wa’il is actively manipulating the Ansar on behalf of Iraqi intelligence”
Scroll to the bottom for the Hussein connection bit.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pmBy attacking Saddam I am speaking of the Al-Ansar leader attacking him verbally and saying that he is the enemy.
The article you linked to, for example, speaks of the ties to Iran based on Kurdish sources. Read the whole article instead of “scrolling to the Hussein bit”. There are a lot of other articles making that assumption.
And how do you call Powell admitting that the intelligence suggesting a Iraq-Al Qaida link was wrong? Is he a traitor?
March 6th, 2007 at 7:03 pmI did read the whole article, but the part that interested me and I felt was relevant to my point was at the bottom.
What did I say about Powell? Anyway, I would not call him a traitor. That is a strong word for one, and for another thing it doesn’t apply to him. Regardless, the word “admit” infers that he did something wrong. He along with the administration he served in, followed the best intel availible. I don’t recall him ever “admitting” that the Al-Qaeda link was non-existant. I remember his saying that the WMDs weren’t there, in which case old and recent seizure of bio/chemical weapons (such as Sarin) would speak otherwise.
Whatever would make you think I would label this man a taritor? He, like every other American citizen (not to mention the rest of the world) has every right to his own beliefs and opinions. My disagreeing, and hard facts disagreeing, with him don’t make him a traitor. In Iran, North Korea or China maybe; but not in the US.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:22 pmMorlock
The problem with all this is that to follow the rule of law one has to find evidence for this and that. Saddam spent 12 years obfuscating and keeping inspectors out, and generals and civilians alike in iraq said he spent those years transfering weapons out of the country. There is no documentation.
On paper saddam and alqaida are different yet very similar in their hatered for the west and israel, they are both muslims, they both hate the bushes and wish americans death. Osama could ally himself with the US to fight the soviets, why is it inconceivable that he might ally himself with saddam in the short term to achieve the same designs? Do we need documentation for everything? Cant we use common sense? Colin powell was looking at things from a legal perspective and based on his years of sacrifice I would be hard pressed to call him a traitor, but i have no problem calling sean penn and the like traitors, when they have no inside information and base everything on media reports.
Bottom line: if Bush lied? the opposition cant prove it legally, just as our government cant legally prove all the reasons for going to war.
If democrats had any real proof against bush then he should be tried and imprisoned, Instead democrats make movies and write books giving their perceptions of the facts just as the media does.
I dont think anyone knows the truth and we are all expressing whatever bias we have. I didnt trust saddam and neither did most of the world. most people knew he was a risk and that he was dangerous, many were willing to wait to see what he might be capable of others prefferred getting rid of him. What we did was justified and the world knows this, and they havent the courage to try us for war crimes or this or that or anything else because they need our money for this and that pet project.
Everyone says war is a last resort but there is no blueprint for war. there is no time limit before war can be declared and there are no timelines for war, because the people, places and politics are constantly changing.
People want to call this an illegal war; try and prove it! Illegal or not, it was mmore than necessary, and despite what has happened thus far, Iraqis know they are close to something great for the first time in generations.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:28 pmthe traitor bit went too far, I guess. I think I wrote it because so many people here jumped on other people’s throats for weakening the war effort by providing arguments about it. I was not saying that anyone called him a traitor. However, it would not have surprised me.
Powell also spoke about how intelligence was faulty when it came to the Iraq - Al-Qaida link.
Stark, it’s just that the article clearly suggests an Iran-Ansar Al-Islam link, so I was wondering.
TJ,
Even though Hussein was a Musilim, his regime was very secular in nature. It had none of the typical rules you typically associate with theocracies. For example, women had much more freedoms and could work even in higher positions. I agree that it is conceivable that Saddam would have worked with Al Qaida, but if that’s enough to justify an invasion, we are in a bad shape. As long as you think that others should judge based on the same logic as the United States, it would be hard to condemn most kinds of war. A lot of States, inclusing South and Middle American states had the right to attack the US, and wiping out Israel would be perfectly fine.
And given that there is no evidence I would not claim that Bush lied just based on our discussions here, but given how the administration spoke about the war before it started, “misleading” sounds right to me.
As for Hussein being dangerous, when you look around, in most countries, including most of Iraq’s neighbors, only minorities believed that Hussein was an international threat. The US (and to a lesser extent, British) perspective is pretty unique. Most of the world, even most people in “new Europe”, were against the war.
The war is illegal according to the UN, but it has so little power in that case that it is irrelevant.
I wish the Iraqi people the best. As I said, in theory the chances are there, but it looks like there is more suffering ahead, and I think that the US staying will only make the period of suffering longer.
TJ, I think you wrote a very honest post, snd yes, it’s hard to deny a bias, and none of us know the truth. But I think it is worth getting close to it. Btw, I supported the war once, though with a bad feeling. I did not think it was technically ok to go in, but as many people say, saddam was a monster. The more I learn about this war though, the more I am against it. I don’t even think that being against the war is a leftist position, but if you call it that, you can say that I became a lefitst after reading more about the war, always listening to both sides. In the end, I ended up taking a position in some ways more extreme than the one I expressed here. I don’t want to argue this now, but I find the Chomskyan position plausible that says that if the US was interested in democracy in the Middle East, it is only interested in democracy as a side effect of control. I am not going to open a new discussion on this, but you can check out the stuff Chomsky wrote and do some research on it. He bases his arguments mostly on government strategy papers and reports. Btw, I didn’t even know about Dailykos until you mentioned it.
That sounds pretty much like my final statement for this discussion. Unless there isn’t anything really interesting, I think I will refrain from posting more. The last posts already hinted a bit at the discussion going a full circle. Thanks to everyone who did not just refrain to personal attacks.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:01 am“Stark, it’s just that the article clearly suggests an Iran-Ansar Al-Islam link, so I was wondering.”
Well, it’s BBC. The journalist means to explore the possibility. However, such an alliance wouldn’t stand to reason. Iran may very well let them hang out in their desert to recoop, but there is no mistaking that they wouldn’t like each other.
The UN said the war was illegal? Did I miss something? Some UN members may have said such a thing, but if the UN was convinced we were wrong and are fighting an “illegal war”, they would have at least voted on a resolution.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:59 amTo be more specific, Kofi Annan said that it violates UN Charter.
A resolution would have had no chance of success.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:29 amExactly. It’s one thing to denounce away, condemn and criticize; but when you get down to it; like with the “non-binding resolution” it’s all talk and politics.
Point is, the people doing all the talking and blathering lack the stones to actually do anything. People like Kofi Annan and Harry Reid. But there are exceptions. I HATE Teddy Kennedy. But I respect him because he’s never backed off his stance on the WOT and Iraq, and unlike oh-so-many other naysayers, he has actually tried to put forward alternative plans for executing the WOT, and plans for US withdrawl from Iraq.
And by the way, each time he has tried to make said proposals, he has been shut down. And not just by Republicans, the Democrats ganged up on him too.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pmBy virtue of hussein’s disdain for israel and his support of palestinian families and his harboring of terrrorists such as the mastermind of the achille lauro who killed an israeli incidentally,plus the fact that saddam gassed thousands of kurds, invaded iran and kuwait i think it plausible that saddam was a threat to at the very least the countries around him including israel, a staunch US ally. Some european dismissed his threat because they were busy lining their pockets doing business with saddam.
I dont listen to chomsky by virtue of the fact that he is a linguist by profession, and an opportunist. Linguists like lawyers have great abilities to manipulate statistics and information in order for them to benefit. The way chomsky writes , one would think he might want to leave this great country and habitate as a guest in one of those victimized countries he so often talks about. I write him off because he is chummy with the mainstream media and the hollywood left and basically any liberal democrat. He hates america by profession, but loves the opportunities it presents to himself and he is living the high life feeding of the anger and discontent at america’s “imperialist hegemony”.
He is, in other words, an educated , intelligent Michael Moore.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:55 pmThe interesting thing is that the US (among others) supported Saddam right through his greatest crimes. Take 1982, the year in which Hussein acted against the residents of Dujail, killing more than a hundred people, torturing about 400. 1982 is also the year in which the US took Iraq of the list of terrorist countries to be able to support the country against Iran. The support went on with the next years, in which Hussein commited even greater atrocities.
So when did the US stop supporting Hussein? When he started to misbehave, marching into Kuwait territory. That’s when he became an enemy.
It is a common theme that goes through the history of western foreign policy, and especially US foreign policy. The US record for supporting democracy is a bad one, across both parties. There is no reason to assume that democracy is what this invasion is about. A truly independent and peacefully democratic Iraq would be led by a Shia majority, which would continue a process that started during the last years of Saddam Hussein - the integration of Iraq into the Middle East community, especially working towards better relations with Iran. It would very likely favor Iraqi companies over foreign companies, letting them reconstruct the country. It would very likely abandon the law by which foreign investors can buy up to 100% of Iraqi companies and try to regain access to its own oil resources similar to what Venezuela. The result would be a strong, independent Iraq with strong ties to Iran. Now you can judge whether the US would be interested in that.
Not reading Chomsky because of his job? First, if you are afraid of manipulation, the first people you should stop listening to are politicians. Second, Chomsky’s branch of linguistics is not about how to phrase nice and manipulative stuff. It’s much more abstract (dealing with the description of the core mechanisms of syntax) and has so far provided little to no practical applications. Third, it’s the argument that counts, not who says it, when you want to find out what is right. Also, it’s nice to face new viewpoints from time to time and seriously reflect them.
Now let me link you to one of Chomsky’s speeches:
March 8th, 2007 at 12:09 amhttp://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf
And btw, Chomsky gets very little coverage in the American press because his position is far away from mainstream. This might change in the future, but not because Chomsky is approaching the mainstream, but the other way round. Also, to say that Chomsky is friends with the Democrats is simply a bad joke. And from what I know, I’d be surprised if Chomsky doesn’t care about Hollywood
March 8th, 2007 at 12:25 amBrian, thanks for the link.
Morlock,
You wrote (sry for the delay): “Oh yes, this definitely is not good for morale. And this should hurt the will to fight. I am not talking about the servicemen, but about the whole war effort. This war is wrong on so many levels - the way the country was coerced to engage in it, the way it affects the country (Iraq), the way it leaves Afghanistan behind as an unfinished job, with the Taliban getting stronger again, and the way it is weakening America and basically all western nations. The sooner it stops, the better. I am sorry for the servicemen fighting in this war. I think that they can be proud of themselves, considering what many have to go through…According to some people here, such thinking is also un-American. When I argue I try to show that it is, indeed, thinking about the issues, and not just making some propaganda claims (I wonder when Pat starts deleting my posts, I hope he doesn’t, because I find this discussion interesting). How such thinking can be un-American is beyond me. Is it not American not to support your government or a war, when so much speaks against both? Sounds fascist to me.”
Scintillating analysis
I guess I’ll dust off the old smoking jacket and retire to the study.
Okay:
Words have a purpose, morlock.
We don’t mix up ‘soccer ball’ and ‘beach-ball’ because that would defeat the purpose of language; its ability to communicate ideas, right?
In that vein, Nationalism isn’t the same thing as Fascism and ‘unAmerican’ isn’t the same thing as ‘sedition’
See how some people misuse words in an attempt to embellish things?
Like for example,
Did you actually mean ‘fascist’ as in the definition of the word ‘fascist’?,
Or….(sneers with narrowing eyes) did you mean ‘fascist’ as in..eh..I’ll use that word because nationalist just isn’t revolting enough.for these proles….not to mention fascist has no readily agreed upon definition outside of expansionist racial essentialist exceptionalist authoritarianism…yep… ‘fascist’ scares em’ as repulisve and evil so I’ll just do that, they are too dumb to call me on it anyways…..?
also: “Oh yes, this definitely is not good for morale. And this should hurt the will to fight. I am not talking about the servicemen, but about the whole war effort.”
That is not unAmerican coming from an American. Un-american is one of those tricky loaded words we should avoid because it is inherently dishonest.
but although not un-American, such a position is aiding the enemy and making it easier for them to win, which I find…er….it disappoints me…. for by your own admission you know the effects of your speech.
That shows one thing - you don’t love the America that hits a fly with a sledgehammer-, which is your right., but right now that is Your America., the America.
.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:47 amDear Doug,
no I am not speaking of the philosophy that sees the nation-state as the form of social life we should strive for. I am talking about a forced national union based on the narrow views of some political leaders. The un-American claim is often used against those against the war, and it is not because they are not nationalists, but because they are against a policy. Calling them un-American is the misuse of words, and, as you can see throughout history, a favored tactic of fascist thinkers.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:55 amDoug,
You hit the nail right on the head, when explaining “unAmerican”. Morlock constantly says he’s not a democrat and doesn’t support the democrats… Reason being? His own admission…..
Morlock…
March 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm“I am neither a ten finger typist nor American. I didn’t want to mention that last bit at first because it keeps people from thinking about the content of the posts…”
Cheers Dennis,
Surly hes no Democrat..um…my guess: Marx-flavored populist idealist/enemy symphathizer.
Darling Morlock,
I really loathe talking about politics, but your lying apologetics for the enemy really interest me as a person opposed to the propagation of such lies. Um, you know I’m not pleased by Chomskyite lies, so lets cut to the chase:
Okay,
You are abusing the word fascist. You use it as a platitude; a thought-terminating cliché.
There is NOTHING ‘fascist’ about America, even if you go eel slippery and call it ‘The American Empire’. [or just simply make shit up and claim that GW isn’t democratically elected, 9/11 was a flase-flag..an operation suzannah redux, the war on terror is an illusion over the commercial competition with the PRC, Russia and India over privledged access to energy resources/]
By all measures, The US today is NOT “a forced national union based on the narrow views of some political leaders” Unless , morlock, one is arrogant/blind enough to assume that agreement w/ the government is a sign of effective top-down propaganda instead of effective representative government.
—–Your chomskyite distortions are hurting America and you know it——.
So to conclude, You (morlock) are a bright and articulate free thinker sporting a dagger s/he hides away, for s/he must; the dagger is dripping with the blood of Americas future.
It pokes out of your erudite cloak in the form of lying apologetics for the enemy, Dear.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:04 amTo be honest, if I were American, I don’t know if I would vote Democrat…if this was about nothing but principles, I certainly would not, The pragmatic side of me, however, would have a hard time. In this narrow spectrum, I consider the Republicans to be the worse choice. Not necessarily because of foreign politics, but because of other issues. So I would not want them in power, and the best way to avoid that is to vote Democrat. However, I don’t think that a vote that goes to a thrid party is lost. If enough people do it, it may cause a shift in the two major parties.
Doug,
I don’t think it is worth discussing with you based on your posts. It’s easy to call someone a liar and say that his words hurts America. It would be just as easy to say the same to you, but where lies the value in that?
And before you tell others and they are knowingly (and probably willingly) hurting America, please tell me why they should do that.
I gave the reasons for why I use the word fascist. There is nothing thought-terminating about that. I like it how you claim that I use clichés (even though I give reasons for it) while you just can go and spout your insults and accusations.
“Marx-flavored populist idealist/enemy symphathizer”. I loved that bit. I may have an idealistic touch, but since you don’t like platitudes please show me where I am being marxist, populist, or an “enemy sympathizer”.
March 10th, 2007 at 8:38 amMorlock,
Tisk,tisk,
Buddy(for lack of a better term),you and I know you’re in the wrong place to push that drivel and your coming off as a troll but here,I’ll take your bait.
Chomskyites like to think of their guru as an archetype of “dissent”, as voicing something repressed from the “mainstream” media. Yet look in any bookstore, pick up any broadsheet, you will find it remarkably easy to access Chomsky’s views. Chomsky, like Michael Moore, is a hot commodity, and the ease with which capital commodifies and recuperates them for the market makes me suspicious. But that is not a fair criticism, as it is not a criticism of Chomsky, but rather of what is done with Chomsky – it is a problem not of Chomsky but of the culture of celebrity and branding and bullshit in which Chomsky seems to sit so easily.
Chomsky’s views on Islamic motives are both fantasy and wishful thinking as are his arguments about Reagan’s terrorist actions against Nicaragua,I know first hand,I was down there in the 80’s,I read your link and have heard of Chomsky,when I got to his part about Nicaragua he fell apart
in front of my eyes as one of the best well read moonbats I’ve come across.
“Chomsky himself is no more inclined to accept criticism than his supporters. As one critic put it, “His attitude to who those who disagree with him, is, by and large, one of contempt. The only reason they can’t see the simple truth of what he’s saying is that they are, in one way or another, morally deficient.”
So if your outlook is dictated by the book of Noam you’re pissing in the wind here.
“This might change in the future, but not because Chomsky is approaching the mainstream, but the other way round.”
Then the mainstream will be up to their ears in bullshit.
I never saw Noam anywhere near Costa Rica or Honduras,I can’t even start to describe what I saw down there so I’ll just copy and paste below to give you a history lession.
“The Sandinista army committed myriad atrocities against the Indian population, killing and imprisoning approximately 15,000 innocent people. The crimes included not only mass murders of innocent natives themselves, but a calculated liquidation of their entire leadership – as the Soviet army had perpetrated against the Poles in Katyn in 1943.
According to the Nicaraguan Commission of Jurists, the Sandinistas carried out over 8,000 political executions within three years of the revolution. The number of “anti-revolutionary” Nicaraguans who had “disappeared” in Sanadinista hands or had died “trying to escape” were numbered in the thousands. By 1983, the number of political prisoners in the Sandinistas’ ruthless tyranny were estimated at 20,000. Torture was institutionalized.
Numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Commission, have documented the atrocious record of Sandinista human rights abuses, which stood as the worst in Latin America.
Political prisoners in Sandinista prisons, such as in Las Tejas, were consistently beaten, deprived of sleep and tortured with electric shocks. They were routinely denied food and water and kept in dark cubicles that had a surface of less than one square meter, known as chiquitas (little ones). These cubicles were too small to sit up in, were completely dark and had no sanitation and almost no ventilation.
Like the communist regimes that came before them, the Sandinistas also made sure to create their own privileged class - which in the Soviet communist paradise was known as the nomenklatura. The Sandinistas had to make sure, after all, that, as George Orwell’s socialist animal utopia in Animal Farm had it, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Thus, while the Sandinistas talked about equality, it was nowhere to be found. The Sandinista nomenklatura lived like millionaires, while the average Nicaraguans suffered in utter poverty.”
Thanks Noam. I’ve lived enough through that topic to keep me awake at night and call you out for what you are,one of the best spinners of our time.
Just a few spoon fulls of Noam doing what we called in the military as “stepping on your d*ck”.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
March 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pmhttp://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
http://brockley.blogspot.com/2005/11/whats-wrong-with-chomsky.html
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
Morlock,
The fact of the matter is, America is at War. Whether it be against “terrorists”, “insurgents” or Islam. The fact is terrorism is not new, it’s existed in some form or another for as long as human have been on this earth. The difference is the fact that these people hate “the west” and our way of life (even though I find it very ironic they want many of the same things we do), and they will do what it takes to try and destroy it. I say kudos to America for actually recognizing this, and as “unpopular” as it may be for some, I feel it’s definitely a necessary first step to deter these extremists groups.
Now I’m not going to spout off a bunch of websites or reports that back up how I feel, because I’m sure you can find one to counter it. Therefore, common sense and logic will be the only things I will take into account. To say Saddam had NO connection with Al Qaeda is in my view simply ludicrous. Besides, America not only stated we would go after Al Qaeda, but any other terrorist organization that may be thinking about doing harm to the US. Can you honestly say these “insurgents” we now face in Iraq aren’t terrorists? I’ve read arguments that say if we leave these things will stop. Give me a break… If it were just because of our presence they wouldn’t be shooting, torturing or blowing each other up, they would put forth their efforts into only trying to force us to leave. Granted, if it weren’t for our invasion, they probably wouldn’t be doing it, however the Iraqi people would be living under other attrocities, and we owe it to them to try and help them regain control of their country by any means necessary.
I not only think we owe it to the Iraqi people to help stop these terrorists, but we owe it to the world to try and stop terrorist activities throughout the world. Terrorism is crime against all humanity no matter where it may be taking place, and ALL nations should come together to eliminate this threat.
To say Saddam had no WMD’s is also ludicrous. He repeatedly denied access to UN inspectors, and basically thumbed his nose at the world community. Why? Because obviously he had something to hide, something he didn’t want the world to know about. If you truly believe he got rid of them, then I would say you’re, along with the rest of those that agree with you, naive. Any human that would use such “weapons” against his own country, not to mention knowing the effects of them, is quite frankly a lunatic. Do you think he had a change of heart? Quite unlikely. They are somewhere, hidden away in some underground bunker, or in the mountains, or in another country, they are somewhere, and one day they will be found…..
Ok, although it seems to me like I just rambled here, I do have a couple of more things to say. I take offense to your use of the word “occupation”, be definition NATO forces, are nowhere near occupying the country. One word in each of the definitions that stick out is “control”. By your own arguments and any other “anti-war” rhetoric I have heard, we have no “control” of that country, and we don’t plan to control it after we leave.
Second, throughout your posts here, with the exception of the one I pasted, you constantly argue like you are an American, when, if true, you are not. That in itself takes away your credibility. I understand why you weren’t forthcoming about it, however, to try and argue the point of “anti-war” americans, when you are not an american yourself is misleading. As for the word fascists… based on your use and your argument for using it…. could you not be considered fascist yourself?
Just a summary of a few thoughts…….
March 11th, 2007 at 10:38 pmI think me not being American has nothing to do with it. I have no reason to wish Americans any harm. I once worked in America (though only for a brief time) and always enjoyed the country and its people. I didn’t say that I wasn’t American at first, but never argued “as if I was an American”. I argue against the occupation, which is basically an American thing, sure. But I don’t see anything misleading about me not being an American. The threat of terrorism, as you can see by the Madrid or London bombings, is an issue of the whole west if not the whole world. Why should my opinion on how we fight it not be of any relevance just because I am not American?
As for the reasons for going into Iraq, all that is left of the argumentation from you people are some vague inferences. Don’t forget that Hussein gassing his own population was far from the primary reasons for this war. The west showed that it didn’t care about this when it supported Saddam while he did these things. As for WMDs and Al Qaida, we are not even speaking about evidence anymore. Surely you can define Saddam as a terrorist, and is certainly some connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. Despite Al Qaida once operating against Hussein, it is somehow imaginable that Hussein wanted to help Al Qaida or even would be ready to provide it with WMDs, even though I am convinced that Saddam had no motivation to do the latter. You can also imagine a super-hidden lab in which Saddam developed WMDs which he could have given to terrorists “any day”, as Bush said (or was it even “minute”, I don’t remember). But if imagination is a reason to enter the country, and based on the evidence the coalition because of arguments based on imagination, there is a severe problem.
And yes, this is an occupation in my book. Foreign forces invaded the country, got rid of the old leadership and established one that is extremely dependent and obedient to the nations that invaded. One of the things that work best in Iraq are the newly established financial relations, that is companies from coalition countries, minly US countries, getting contracts to rebuild Iraq and secure the natural resources. Also, this is not a NATO operation even though NATO nations are involved. Just because there is no full control I wouldn’t say that this is not an occupation, or otherwise German wouldn’t have really occupied Europe, and the Soviets would not have really occupied Afghanistan.
I agree that the violence won’t stop when the Americans leave. But 4 years show that it doesn’t stop as long as Americans are in the country. You can’t destroy terrorism, especially the general kind of terrorism you describe. And you can’t fight it with foreign armies clearing out city blocks. Since you are refering to history - please give me just one example where this worked. Even with good intentions an army cannot win this. As Rumsfeld said, “stuff happens” in such an operation. US soldiers kill civilians. There is a torture scandal. These things traumatise people, which definitely favors terrorism. People her elike to argue how terrorists use footage from an CNN report for recruitment. Now please try to imagine how effective US-caused civilian casualties are, and how Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib can be used. The presence of the troops prolongs the suffering, as have many occupations in the history of the world.
It will be interesting to hear you explain how I am arguing like a fascist.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:40 pm1. “Doug,I don’t think it is worth discussing with you based on your posts.”
Okay, thats be fine with me.
But. you. continued. the. discussion. anyway, morlock.
I’m baffled… Why continue discussing with me after saying its not worth discussing with me?: (that just doesn’t make any sense)
Okay, assuming taht your discussion deserves a response, you are painfully incorrect in your assertion that fascism plays a role here.
“It’s easy to call someone a liar and say that his words hurts America. It would be just as easy to say the same to you, but where lies the value in that?”
It wouldn’t be just as easy to say the same thing to me.
I’m not intentionally harming the PR of US forces, you are, case closed.
“And before you tell others and they are knowingly (and probably willingly) hurting America, please tell me why they should do that.”
I can’t unparse that last bit (and I shouldn’t) so I’ll refer to your previous points, specifically the part about how you know you are hurting the war effort.
“I gave the reasons for why I use the word fascist. There is nothing thought-terminating about that. I like it how you claim that I use clichés (even though I give reasons for it) while you just can go and spout your insults and accusations.”
Now I have proof that you are lying/shamefully wrong.
That is found in your incorrect/loaded definition of the word ‘fascist’, as seen here:
“I am talking about a forced national union based on the narrow views of some political leaders.”
[Why your definition is incorrect: That isn’t fascism. monarchy, kleptocracy,plutocracy, authoritarianism, autocracy and every other form of top-down unrepresentative/oppressive government ever, from caveman camp to PRC state capitalism possesses that crystallization of power. The word for it is ‘elitism’ or ‘caste’….NOT ‘fascism’]
Also, morlock, There is nothing inherently fascist about authoritarianism and there is nothing inherently fascist about the current American Regime.
‘jingoism’ is the word honest people use to describe a violent support of nationalist ideals.
Mlock: “no I am not speaking of the philosophy that sees the nation-state as the form of social life we should strive for. I am talking about a forced national union based on the narrow views of some political leaders. The un-American claim is often used against those against the war, and it is not because they are not nationalists, but because they are against a policy. Calling them un-American is the misuse of words, and, as you can see throughout history, a favored tactic of fascist thinkers.”
There are 2 fascist regimes in history; the NAZI party and the government Mussolini (his fascist ideology ghostwritten by Giovanni Gentile).
Neither of them ever employed the term ‘anti-american’.
Oh, sidebar:
“Marx-flavored populist idealist/enemy symphathizer”. I loved that bit. I may have an idealistic touch, but since you don’t like platitudes please show me where I am being marxist, populist, or an “enemy sympathizer”.
Well I guess my guess didn’t hit the mark.
I said that b/c in my view your criticisms of US policy mirror those of 3rd generation Anti-colonial radical feminists.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pmMorlock,
“Why should my opinion on how we fight it not be of any relevance just because I am not American?”
What exactly is your opinion on how we should fight this war? How is it that you ,personally, are fighting this war which you admit that the world is confronted with?
the problem with your arguments is that they give no definitive answers to these fundamental questions, and they are inline with arguments(nonarguments) posed by democrats in the US.
I suppose you would say diplomacy is the answer. Well tell that to the kurds! tell it to the shiites!
“As for the reasons for going into Iraq, all that is left of the argumentation from you people are some vague inferences.”
The reasons stated to the UN were not all the reasons for attacking Iraq. Experience tells the US that the only thing that they(UN) would accept for an invasion of iraq is evidence of WMD’s and intent to use them. Citing the gassing of the kurds would not move the UN since it seems their only concern is the welfare and autonomy of nations , not groups of citizens within nations. In other words you can kill your own people all you want(rwanda, sudan etc)just dont invade another country. The kurds suffered because GB senior went against his plan to aid the kurds and shiites to overthrow saddam following the gulf war, not to mention he was being urged by the UN as well to stop at the liberation of kuwait.
The UN is responsible for the numerous genocides that take place in our world because it cares not a wit for human rights violations by world leaders against their own countrymen.
You remind of these intellectual types who make up the UN elitists, who have a lot soundly thought out reasons to sit on their hands while dictators abuse their people and or plot to help others carry out terrorism in other countries.
“One of the things that work best in Iraq are the newly established financial relations, that is companies from coalition countries, minly US countries, getting contracts to rebuild Iraq and secure the natural resources”
What is it with you lefty’s constant references to this war being about economics alone yet when it comes to the question of who will benefit from Iraqs reconstruction you want to award contracts to undeserving nations? Our country takes a huge financial hit because of war, it is natural and just to award rebuilding contracts to american and coalition companies and not to countries whose governments have sought to undermine our country’s efforts. Does it make sense to you to offer contracts to french and german companies when their governments were previously stuffing their pockets through the Oil for food scam?
afterall these very countries were supposed to be taking the high moral grounds by abstaining from the invasion of Iraq, why on earth could such moral people be concerned about reaping any financial rewards from a war they judged to be immoral and unjust?
March 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pmOkay, so let’s think of a truly pro-Iraq position: If you think that a free market benefits the consumer, the open market benefits Iraq. Those who do the job should be the ones who offer the highest quality for the price. By narrowing the list of contractors down from the beginning you are not creating a free market.
This is especially true when it comes to Iraqi businesses who were either excluded from the list of potential contractors or can be completely bought up by foreign investors. Some members of Congress suggested that involving more Iraqi contractors could save a lot of money. Of course, it also would strength Iraqi-owned companies, which is truly pro-Iraq.
I agree that the UN as an organisation is not effective in stopping human right violations almost from any side. For example, the UN passed a number of resolutions against Israel because of its aggressions in the region. Without the US standing behind the resolutions, they have no effect. Here’s a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel
And as I said, when the Iraq was gassing Kurds most of the west did not care. However, you start caring when you need reasons for invading the country.
And it’s this kind of behaviour that leads up to terrorism. It’s common consensus that the West Bank crisis is critical for peace in the region. Also, it is know that the image of the US suffered trememdously because of the way it went to war and the way it is fighting it. These things upset who generations in the area and thus favor terrorism just as much as the treatment of catholic groups in Northern Ireland did. Check the history of Fallujah - the lootings, the proximity to Abu Ghraib, the killing of civilians during a demosntration. This stuff favors terrorism. “Damaging” half the city and destroying thousands of homes in the war against insurgents favors terrorism. I am not even going to talk about “fighting Islam”, a suggestion made by people here on the site.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:11 amDoug, this is stupid. First, there were more than two fascist governments in history. Even if you stick to the inner circle, you have to at least mention Portugal in the 20s and Spain under Franco. Probably also Imperialist Japan.
And why should Hitler and Mussolini use the term “anti-American”? Both used terms that would be translated into “anti-German” and “anti-Italian” respectively. Anti-German were people that, independent of race, were against the German policy of that time or harmed the war effort in any way, including criticising the war.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:53 am(forgive my barbaric spelling/grammar/syntax,etc….I’ve got no time to spellcheck)
Morlock,
No sh*t, sherlock/bad digging, watson. (your assertions are very true of Franco, arguably true of Imperial Japan)
[I’d add the Croat regime of Tudjman to your list, considering the events in Krajina that took place during the operations ’storm’ and ‘flash’]
{er…I’m too kind to the serbs…surly elements of serb forces during the secession of the 1990’s were inconvertably fascist in their organization, ideals, and leadership.)
(also US puppet regimes of the cold war are arguably fascist ex: somozaI,II,III,Castillo Armas,the Shah,etc)
okay,
Say, recalling my angle and your invectives here (my angle is that your usage of the term fascist is incorrect when applied to America)…….are you still sure that ” a forced national union based on the narrow views of some political leaders” is 1. present in the USA?. and 2. indicitave of fascism?
March 15th, 2007 at 10:09 pmSure, you can add other regimes to the list.
I did not say that the US is fascist. I say that you are engaging in fascist reasoning, since the logic seems to be that if you oppose the aggresive policy of one administration, you are agaisnt America, suggesting (as is being done with Obama on this very site) that you want to do the country harm. Now we can have a debate whether it is the war that harms the US or opposing the war, but claiming that people who oppose the war *intend* to do harm to the country is fascist reasoning. It’s been done to death by fascist regimes.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:48 am” By narrowing the list of contractors down from the beginning you are not creating a free market.”
What does this have to do with anything? we are not worried about the practicing of free market economics while we are still fighting insurgents. When people are trying to rebuild in a war szone, special considerations must be made including ones ability to committ to the job despite the dangers. many of these companies have military backgrounds, and american military experience is far superior to say french experience. With building one needs to be able to offer security for your company and that means working with the local security which is comprised of american, coalition and iraqi soldiers.
“This is especially true when it comes to Iraqi businesses who were either excluded from the list of potential contractors or can be completely bought up by foreign investors. Some members of Congress suggested that involving more Iraqi contractors could save a lot of money. Of course, it also would strength Iraqi-owned companies, which is truly pro-Iraq.”
Who is making assumptions here? Iraqi contractors competed but did not have the manpower or economic depth to compete, however, many of the companies who won contracts employed iraqis and still do. These iraqi companies are being strengthened by the fact that they will pick up where the foreign companies left off when the US leaves.
“I agree that the UN as an organisation is not effective in stopping human right violations almost from any side. For example, the UN passed a number of resolutions against Israel because of its aggressions in the region. Without the US standing behind the resolutions, they have no effect.”
again israel is mentioned by leftists. The battle for Israel is a religious war between judaism and islam. leftists always ignore the religious implications. Islam will not relent to anything but pure surrender of the jews becaus islamic law states that once a land is conquered by islam it must remain under islam. Muhammaed hatyed jews and his injunctiuons against them is quite clear and transcends time.
“And as I said, when the Iraq was gassing Kurds most of the west did not care. However, you start caring when you need reasons for invading the country.”
More assumptions. correction some americans cared when george senior went against his promise at the behest of media opinion polls. We screwwed our allies : the kurds. yet they now credit the US with their liberation( see www.theotheriraq.org)
“And it’s this kind of behaviour that leads up to terrorism.”
Islamic terrorism stems not from aggressive policies against its abuses, but from passive dismissal of its tenets. 9/11 occured solely because the US supports jews and christians above muslims. Muhammeds authority was challenged by jews and christains and ever since he has waged war against them. The call of allah akhbar is a call of war used to incite fear and terror among those who are the object of islamic attcks. Times of peace were times of reorganization recruiting and rearming.
If you spent as much time listening to the jihadists as you do listening to george bush, you may finally realize that they mean what they say and that their actions speak clearly to their beliefs.
“I am not even going to talk about “fighting Islam”, a suggestion made by people here on the site.”
Why? because you are ignorant of islam and you dismiss its relevance as you do with regards to israel.
see http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD150807 . for evidence of the downplaying of religion in hyping dissent among americans. The jihadists think you are naive and stupid and they will do whatever they can to get you to focus on secular political ramifications of various policies in the middle east and ignore islamic principles that are the foundation of policies in israel, sudan, and across the arab world. Islam hates you and me, and it wishes to invite you to islam in three ways : conversion, dhimmitude, or death. It doesnt matter what your economic policies are, or even that you oppress muslims it only asks that you either become a muslim or subjugate yourself to muslim rule, short of this you are to be tortured raped or killed.
Don’t believe me. Do the research yourself. the quran and sunnah are mostly online , in english.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:22 pmMorlock, I have read all you posts. I have come to the conclusion that it’s pointless to reply with any type of rebuttal.It has become crystal clear, your mind could not be changed if the truth was poured down your throat with a funnel.So far you have said 1 You are anti-American 2 Anti-Semite 3 called us fascists 4 called Bush a liar 5 you think terrorist are just freedom fighters 6 troops torture prisoners. Besides, you’re not even American, we have more than enough of our own leftist America haters, we really don’t need anymore imports. You find it much to easy to defend just about everything and anything that is not American.
April 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI just have a couple things to say:
1) Never quote Wikipedia for anything. Any body who wants to can edit any entry in that encyclopedia and change it to say anything they want. I have done this about ten times already
2) Everyone seems to forget that before we went into Iraq the senate voted and approved the invasion. We would have never gone into Iraq without senate approval. The senate (or at least those cowards in the senate) have only changed their mind once they realized that we are actually gonna have to do some work in order to finish the job.
3) The only reliable information that I have ever found about Iraq is by talking to those who have been there. I don’t see how study groups and think tanks can even make an educated guess about what is really going on.
4) If you are not an American do not presume to know the opinions of Americans. Polls and Online studies can have their information distorted just like everything else in the public domain. In short, don’t believe everthing you see on TV. Such information is heresay evidence at best, and outright slander at worst.
5) Do not make the mistake in believing that everyone in Iraq hates us. Our enemies watch the same TV we do and are quite good at influencing what the mainstream media reports on. It’s as simple as feeding false information to the right people, who have neither the time, nor the ethics to check up on what they report.
(There was a post earlier about a news story about 18 dead kids in an explosion at a soccer field that ended up being entirely made up. Where is all the Journalistic integrity and commitment to truth on that one?)
And for Pat, two words:
April 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThank You
Yo Pat -
Very excellent bro! Thank you for getting out the truth and for your personal courage. BTW - who did that song for your “credits” video? Awesome!
Ya gotta former Marine here - with a son on his way back to Iraq. I tried to get back in, but they said I was too old. I said, “Bullshit - I climb telephone poles for a living.” Crap … still wouldn’t let me back in. Grrrr …
Thank you for all you have done and are doing brother.
Steve Wetzel
April 17th, 2007 at 9:30 pmUSMC 79-82
Pat: why don’t you host the vids on YouTube or something?
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 amVery helpful
June 14th, 2007 at 9:18 amAmericans need to see and hear what you have recorded there, Pat.
The leftist pukes that are spewing lies and bs via their liberal media outlets are effectively permeating the atmosphere with a bunch of baloney that originates from their own personal agendas.
Me dear old Gramps used to say “The Left must not be allowed to seize the reins of power in this country.” He used to always say that.
That, and “Fuck ‘em.”
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 am[…] Read and See More — […]
August 4th, 2007 at 10:54 pm[…] Read and See More — […]
August 4th, 2007 at 10:58 pm