Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
As conservatives have taught us, the only people who want a definite timeline for leaving Iraq are callous-souled individuals who have no regard for the Iraqi people.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
One wonders whether they will have any say about it, or if the land will just be in perpetual lease a la Guantanamo. It doesn’t sound to me as though Maliki’s government is in the mood to roll over on a longterm lease, which is encouraging. If memory serves they still only had an interim government when the plans were laid out for the jumbo embassy.
“51 State” FTW
“Purple fingers for McCain!”
This is news? Ever since a post-Hussein Iraqi government was established, they’ve demanded a timetable for a withdraw of occupational forces. Each time the Coalition rejected it.
Don’t tell that to the mouthbreathers, they’re too busy drawing up bogus comparisons of occupied Iraq to occupied Germany or Japan.
I guess this means the Iraqis hate AMERICA, too!
Maybe we can swiftboat Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during the next round of elections.
That will show ‘em!
…….Or perhaps the Iraqi government now feels confident enough in their military that they no longer feel they need us there playing a major role….which…um…I thought most people would think is a good thing? Are you all really too stupid to understand the difference between the Iraqi gov’t asking for a pull-out and left-wing american politicians?
Sick that so many of you are soooo disappointed that things on the ground, after 5 long years, have finally calmed to the point that we now have a good chance of winning. Oh, by the way, that’s a good thing for all Americans – Republicans AND Democrats. The only people that could either be upset about or negatively spin the amazing progress made by our troops and the Iraqis are bitter, ideologically-driven hacks like the the ones making ridiculous comments like the ones above this one.
Never thought I’d see the day when American citizens would root for their own country to lose a war just for their own political gain. But then again, I didn’t consider the fact that many on the left are drooling Marxists left over from the 60’s or stupid “young people” that have never had a job.
So I’d like one of you kooks to please tell me what is bad about the Iraqi government FINALLY feeling confident enough in themselves and in their military that they can secure their own country and start sending our troops home….
Marxists respond now.
“But then again, I didn’t consider the fact that many on the left are drooling Marxists left over from the 60’s or stupid “young people” that have never had a job.”
With such a firm grasp of reality, as demonstrated so clearly in the above caricature-free description of the left, it’s no wonder that you’re able to so readily collapse the difference between expecting the Iraqis to step up to the plate for themselves and “rooting for America to lose a war.”
What an idiot.
Are you all really too stupid to understand the difference between the Iraqi gov’t asking for a pull-out and left-wing american politicians?
Nope. Understand that perfectly. They are now saying the saem thing as us “Marxists.”
You keep using that word. I do not thing it means what you think it does.
Still no answers to the question…
What? Ya ain’t got nuthin, Marxists?
mccann, you DO realize that Oliver’s post was sarcasm, right? It’s just that last time the Iraqis asked us to leave, the ultra cons like you ignored them.
tupid “young people” that have never had a job.
Translation: “You durn kids get offa my lawn!”
I’d go on, but I don’t want to keep you. After all, those gay people won’t beat themselves, now will they?
Never thought I’d see the day when American citizens would root for their own country to lose a war just for their own political gain.
McCann, I ask this in the friendliest, most cheerful tone possible in a blog forum – Do you personally know many Democrats? Because not one of those I know is hoping that the United States ‘loses’ this war, inasmuch as victory can still be declared after something on the level of over half a million dead (the word ‘pyrrhic’ is overused, often where it doesn’t belong, but I tend to think this is one of the few where it does).
Every Democrat with whom I have spoken on the subject – without exception – greets any legitimate news of improvement in the lives of the Iraqi people with a sense of relief. Those improvements, however impressive and grand they are relative to the worst moments of the conflict, are not validation for the President’s strategy, and they certainly don’t render judgment upon his critics.
If anyone is playing politics with the lives of Iraqis, somehow I don’t think it’s the Democratic Party, though I won’t deny that perhaps some in power do. You can’t trumpet every piece of not-awful news as egg on the face of your political opposition and then accuse your opposition of playing politics.
So I’d like one of you kooks to please tell me what is bad about the Iraqi government FINALLY feeling confident enough in themselves and in their military that they can secure their own country and start sending our troops home….
Since I’m not a marxist, nor, in my opinion, a ‘kook,’ I’m not sure if I’m supposed to reply to this. However I find myself unable to resist. There is nothing bad about this. Nothing at all. Something that would be bad, however, is if we were to maintain a presence past the preferred date of the will of the Iraqi people, expressed through their elected republican (small ‘r,’ mind you) government. That would feel to people in that part of the world suspiciously like an colonial occupation, though for the life of me I can’t imagine why.
Of course, McCann there, will be clamoring for us to leave now that the Iraqis are ready to stand up right? Right McCann? C’mon, join the marxists who have been saying we should turn Iraq over to the Iraqis for the past couple of years.
And of course we can expect Bush and McChameleon to announce they are ready to start withdrawing our troops and abandoning their plans for never-ending occupation. McCann, hold your breath on that.
j mccann said
drivel drivel drivel Marxists!1111!!!!eleven!!!!@2hippys defeatocrats rabble rable
Dude, Goldwater lost get over it already.
You pigs were ready to leave when AQ in Iraq and Al-Sadr said so…..not the iraqi gov’t! You were ready to QUIT, we didn’t…..and now it appears WE WERE RIGHT! And it’s all for the better. Of course, I would never expect marxist pigs to admit that though.
Barack is gonna have to eat a giant sh*t sandwich on this issue now.
Dude, you guys were right. Can we bring the troops home now? Why not?
Hey, Geezer, read my post, they wanted us to leave over a year ago, and yet we’re still here. Why is that.
Alright, McCann, for real. Let’s forget Iraq for a minute. I just gotta know.
1) Marxism, fifty words or less.
2) As distinct from Socialism.
3) Leninism v. Trotskyism.
4) Stalinism.
5) Maoism.
Extra credit: Why might the people of the ‘third world’ might have found marxism attractive?
A single straw-man answer is an automatic failure.
“What? Ya ain’t got nuthin, Marxists?”
No WMD’s, thats for sure, dumbass.
The only people that could either be upset about or negatively spin the amazing progress made by our troops and the Iraqis are bitter, ideologically-driven hacks…
…and the folks who won’t be coming home, and the people who will carry physical and emotional injuries for the rest of their lives, and their families and friends, not to mention all the dead Iraqis.
Other than that, spot on, McCann!
“You pigs …”
Wow. There hasn’t been a seriously for realsies mentally unhinged troll here since the days of, wait, what was that guy’s name again? You know, the really crazy one … oh yeah, Frank.
I think j mccann is gunning for Frank’s crown. Keep going J, if you want to unseat Frank, you’ve got a lot more crazy to go …
Looks like this village has a new idiot.
What strikes me is that the fighting keyboarders of wingnuttery have such a big tent — plenty of room for those who confuse liberals with Marxists and those who equate liberals to fascists.
plenty of room for those who confuse liberals with Marxists and those who equate liberals to fascists.
In the minds of some, one can be at once fascist and marxist, for each is a synonym for ‘extra-bad.’
Still no answers to the question…
What? Ya ain’t got nuthin, Marxists?
Would you repeat the question? ‘Cuz all I saw was an angry, bitter and deluded rant.
You should go outside, I think there’s a fire hydrant wants to talk to you.
You know, the really crazy one … oh yeah, Frank.
Like when he gave out his home address and invited folks up for an ass-whuppin’?
Good times.
“Like when he gave out his home address and invited folks up for an ass-whuppin’?”
Oh yeah. Now that’s some classic crazy, right there. See, i don’t think Mccann really knows just how high a mountain of bonkers he really has to climb to even come close to a legend like Frank.
I am rooting for him but I don’t know if he has it in him.
Who can forget the Frank/Frame wars?
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2006/03/31/were-losing-our-culture/#comments
Ok Marxists…..here’s the question again….
“So I’d like one of you kooks to please tell me what is bad about the Iraqi government FINALLY feeling confident enough in themselves and in their military that they can secure their own country and start sending our troops home?”
There it is. Marxists respond now.
I give it a 4- 8 for persistance but only a 2 for originality- though the Soviet judge may see differently…
There it is. Marxists respond now.
Asked and answered.
Game over.
Play again?
Who can forget the Frank/Frame wars?
Meeemories, meeemories…
Still waiting, Marxists….
(que theme to Jepoardy)
answer the question….
“So I’d like one of you kooks to please tell me what is bad about the Iraqi government FINALLY feeling confident enough in themselves and in their military that they can secure their own country and start sending our troops home?”
Here’s your answer, McCann: Nothing.
There’s nothing bad about the Iraqi government telling us it’s OK for us to bring our men and women home. That’s what we “Marxists” have been wanting all along, remember?
Of course, even though our current President has said time and again that our troops would “stand down” when Iraqi troops stand up, and that we would withdraw if the Iraqi government asked, we’ll believe it only when we see it.
What’s really amusing is watching clowns like you tumble out of your tiny little car to congratulate yourselves that you were right all along. Never mind the 4,100 young men and women who won’t be coming home or the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. Never mind the trillion-dollar cost of this awesome adventure that we’ve put on our grandchildren’s credit card. It all worked out just fine in the end, right McCann?
It all worked out just fine in the end, right McCann?
Positioning the goalposts means never having to say you lost. I get the feeling if I played a game of horse with some of these people the game would be ‘horse-drawn carts’ by the time we were finished.
Is there a target audience here for your incoherent wankery, McCann?
Seriously, us dirty hippies / Marxists who knew it was going to be the big fucking mistake that is are not exactly in a “maybe you were sorta right” mood.
We said, “Don’t do it” but you went along because you rode a wave of post 9-11 retribution and now you hope to buy an out; “Well, it was the right idea but it might not have benn done quite the way we wanted”.
Instead of looking for the devil in the details of the invasion and outcome of Iraq, it’s about time that self proclaimed experts face the devil in the mirror: You weren’t part of the solution. You were the problem.
Yes! We won! We invaded a country that didn’t need to be invaded to protect us and some other countries from a military threat that could barely hang on to power, secure some WMDs that never existed and to stop Al Qaeda from having a country to shelter in, even though they weren’t there.
And look at all we accomplished:
We killed a million Iraqis.
We destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq.
We dragged the credibility of the US through the mud.
We let Al Qaeda into Iraq.
We drove gas prices up to over $4/ gallon
We gave Iraq over to the influence of Iran.
4,000 dead US soldiers.
$2 trillion or so in costs.
Hoorah!
And McCann, you are going to be pissed when Bush and McCain refuse to withdraw right?
“Here’s your answer, McCann: Nothing.”
Concur. Only adding that the question itself is ridiculously KoolAid-addled.
When the Left and Obama call for a timetable for withdraw it is premised on the fact that the US military has done it’s job and it’s time for the Iraqis to sort things our for themselves. As Obama has indicated, we will still offer a helping hand when and were needed at the Iraqis request or where our interests are threatened but if the ultimate goal is a sovereign Iraq that can defend itself against threats internal and external, that’s never going to happen until the Iraqi government steps up to do it themselves. For this we are accussed of “rooting for defeat.”
Now that the Iraqis themselves seem to want a timetable for US withdrawal we should all be able to agree that this is a good thing and that there’s no reason not to agree to it, the goal being, after all, a sovereign Iraq that can defend itself. At least, that’s what you’d think.
The real question, Mccann, is whether or not you agree that there should now be a mutually agreed upon timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. Do you agree that this is the best way to proceed?
“marxist pigs”
How did you know the name of my band?
Okay, so that’s what, 6 people – I’m sorry, “Marxists” who have answered the question.
Any response? Or was that not the answer you were looking for?
Tool.
The real question, Mccann, is whether or not you agree that there should now be a mutually agreed upon timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. Do you agree that this is the best way to proceed?
Considering the significant drop in violence and the performance of the IRAQI military in a leading role, and the desire to discuss a withdrawal timetable also at their request, I personally think that it is reasonable at this time to discuss bringing our troops home. Of course, it’s still a delicate situation as much improved as things are, and my view could change based on future events. But until the surge though….it’d have been foolish to do so, which is what many on the left were screaming for, probably for political purposes. Wasn’t it Harry Reid that said “this war is lost?”
My my, looks like we just might win this one.
What say you, Marxists? Does that burn you up?
And I can’t remember who the fool was that said a million iraqis have been killed, but that figure is so far out of whack that you immediately lose credibility when spewing that one. That’s a bogus number peddled by marxist america-haters with a political agenda. You have been dismissed and will not be responded to by me in any future posts. You have no interest in being intellectual honesty. Goes right along with “the ends justify the means” though, doesn’t it Marxist pig? LMAO!
*intellecutally honest.
sheesh. d**n typos. tryin to do 3 things at once.
What does “winning” entail?
Having in place a functional, democratically elected government and a military that is willing and able to protect it’s citizens from foreign and domestic threats, which can in turn provide the type of environment that can enable the people of the country to be safe and succeed. (In a nutshell)
Looks like Iraq is getting there. (finally)
According to you fascists, we achieved that years ago when Hussein fell. So can we leave now? Mission accomplished!
Since the goal of the anti-war left is to bring the troops home, wheeeeee! Now McCann, under Bush the troops won’t be coming home and McCain has stated his goal isn’t to bring the troops home, which side do you take? The never ending occupation of the McBushes, or bringing our troops home?
I too thought a million dead sounded high until I found this.
Here is the site for the publishers of the report –
Opinion Research Business
McCann, do you have a credible rebuttal of this report (preferably not from the Defense Department)? Do you stand by your ‘fool’ comment?
According to you fascists, we achieved that years ago when Hussein fell. So can we leave now? Mission accomplished!
Smart comments only score points with immature people with a pack mentality. You are dismissed.
Since the goal of the anti-war left is to bring the troops home, wheeeeee! Now McCann, under Bush the troops won’t be coming home and McCain has stated his goal isn’t to bring the troops home, which side do you take? The never ending occupation of the McBushes, or bringing our troops home?
There is a difference between the “anti-war left/bring them home now no matter what” and the “we’ve about won so let’s start bringing our troops home right.” One is responsible, the other is not. Personally, I’ll be waiting on words from Petraeus before I can make an informed decision. But I’ve always thought we should stay until the job is finished. And hopefully, that will be the case.
My my, looks like we just might win this one.
What say you, Marxists? Does that burn you up?
Oh for the love of….
NO!!! Alright?
I can’t remember who the fool was that said a million iraqis have been killed, but that figure is so far out of whack that you immediately lose credibility when spewing that one. That’s a bogus number peddled by marxist america-haters with a political agenda.
Of course, you can provide some REAL figures on that, right? Linkee?
Ya, no, didn’t think so.
There is a difference between the “anti-war left/bring them home now no matter what” and the “we’ve about won so let’s start bringing our troops home right.” One is responsible, the other is not.
I see. So you’re an Obama supporter, then?
The Bush/McCain plan is for neverending occupation. The question to McCann was: Do you support that.
McCann’s answer seems to be: duck, dodge, bark.
Of course, you can provide some REAL figures on that, right? Linkee?
I’ve got a link to the British ‘Opinion Research Business’ putting the figure at a million plus, updated Jan. 2008. But it’s sitting in the moderation cue. Here’s the URL again, minus the http to hopefully avoid moderation-land:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Fascist.
**’queue,’ meant to say, not ‘cue.’**
I’m sure the Opinion Research Business is a Marxist outfit.
Shoot, everybody knows the British have a Marxist agenda.
Right?
Facts have a well-known Marxist agenda. I am aware of all Internet traditions.
Dont. Feed. The. Troll. Troglodyte.
“d**n typos. tryin to do 3 things at once.”
Let me guess: Typing, breathing and talking out your ass?
As Duros pointed out, McCann, your position is Obama’s position: Begin drawing down troops now in a reasonable and responsible manner and let the Iraqis run their own affairs.
McCain’s position is just the opposite: Keep US troops and bases in Iraq permanently, unless, of course, there are casualties, in which case we need to keep US troops and bases in Iraq permanently. Or something.
Obama has been clear and correct from the beginning on this. McCain has been wrong and bullheaded all down the line.
iraqbodycount.net
check it out, Marxists.
It’s about as reasonable as you’ll find. A million is just ridiculous. If you honestly believe roughly 4% of an entire country has been wiped out, you’re a damn fool. Do the math…..
that’s about 200k per year…..divide that by 365 and you get about 547 deaths per day. Now, can any of you Marxist fools remember one specific day where you heard of a sum total of 547 deaths attributed to this war? Every time a car bomb kills 2 or 3, it’s on the news. So are they just conveniently ignoring all these huge attacks and only reporting small ones???? And again…ONE day with that body count wouldn’t do it….it would have had to be EVERY day for five years. And considering we’ve got a media that makes it a big issue every time someone ALLEGEDLY throws a koran in a toilet, to believe that the body count is a million or over shows me two things – one, you have no interest in the truth, and 2, to believe something so absurd shows a serious lack of critical thinking skills. And basic math.
Whether you believe the site I posted doesn’t matter. I’ve shown the stupidity of your claims. With the Marxist, the ends justify the means, and if that entails spewing blatant lies to serve a political agenda, then so be it.
Marxists respond now.
God DAMN, you’re a fucking tool.
So, what would be an acceptable level of dead for you, Fascist?
Fascist says what?
Evidently Il Duce believes that a count using only the English-language media and morgue reports would be an accurate reflection of reality. One has to appreciate that they’re actually trying to record the names of everyone they’ve confirmed dead, but even they admit their number is way too low – “We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording.”
(Posted w/out links to avoid moderation, pardon the repetition…)
Evidently Il Duce believes that a count using only the English-language media, NGOs and morgue reports would be a more accurate reflection of reality. He’s welcome to that belief, I suppose. One has to appreciate that they’re actually trying to record the names of everyone they’ve confirmed dead, but even they admit their number is way too low – “We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording.”
Duros….
I posted the site with the body count on it. You Marxists requested it, I gave it to you. And I have shown the idiocy of stating that war has killed a million Iraqis. Strangely enough Marxist, you have no response to that. Did that simple math lesson confuse you?
Oh, by the way…
God you’re a fucking tool.
neener neener neener, Marxist.
mccann, why do you hate America?
By the way, Geezer, the Cold War’s over.
First of all, I didn’t state anything, that must be the voices in your own head (BTW, if they ever tell you to drink Dran-o, do it).
Second, I did have a response, and you didn’t answer me. How many dead poeple is acceptable to you?
I have no time to go look over scrubbed websites that fit your arguments. They have as much credibility as you do. Further, I tend not to go to web sites that gleefully report the number of dead people in a region. It’s depressing as all shit when you remember that it could have been largely avoided in the first place.
JMccann; the new Exalted and Supreme Leader of Asshatistan. Long may he reign.
Ok Marxists…….simple math….
1,000,000 iraqi civilians killed over 64 months = 15,625 per month. 15,625 divided by 30 days/month = 520.83 civilians killed per day.
So, to the Marxists that honestly believe that a million iraqi civilians have been killed, find for me JUST ONE day where there has been a report of this many casualties. Now consider that this would have to be the average EVERY DAY for over FIVE YEARS to reach a million. You people can’t be this stupid. Or can you. Or do you know I’m right and you just continue to blatantly lie.
And Duros…..that website is hardly “gleeful.” It’s thought of by most as the most reputable one around by people of most political persuasions. But of course, it doesn’t claim that eleventy bazillion trillion Iraqis are dead because of GWB, so I didn’t expect you to look anyways.
Marxists respond now.
McCann – A few questions. Who believes this site is the ‘most reputable?’ Is ‘reputable’ a synonym for ‘accurate?’ If so, do you have some sort of evidence that its thought of by most as ‘the most reputable?’ Do you think relying on the English language media in the region and reports from the morgues makes for an accurate casualty count, especially since, when cause of death is obvious(such as, say, a suicide bomb), they turn the bodies over to the families and bypass the morgues?
Google it, Marxist. It’s got quite a bit of press.
“Do you think relying on the English language media in the region and reports from the morgues makes for an accurate casualty count, especially since, when cause of death is obvious(such as, say, a suicide bomb), they turn the bodies over to the families and bypass the morgues?”
And to answer that question, yes. I do believe it’s accurate. Like I pointed out earlier, every time someone farts within a hundred yards of a koran, it’s a news story. So there’s no way in heck people could have been shot and bombed to death at a 520 per day clip. Not without us hearing about it. Christ…..abu ghraib was on the front of the NYT like what….40 times????? It’s unrealistic to think that these casualties would just go unreported when the Marxist media outlets make an issue out of far less.
jmccann: Still no answers to the question… What? Ya ain’t got nuthin, Marxists?
parthenon: Alright, McCann, for real. Let’s forget Iraq for a minute. I just gotta know.
1) Marxism, fifty words or less.
And in reply, jmcann, who thinks it so important that answers to questions be given, presents his reply:
You Marxists requested it…
Strangely enough Marxist,…
neener neener neener, Marxist.
Ok Marxists……….
Marxists respond now….
Google it, Marxist….
In other words he has absolutely no idea at ALL. He just likes tossing around the name because he thinks it doing so means he wins, like it’s some kind of magic spell. If he can fill all of his postings with “Marxist” then that they are completely empty otherwise might not be noticed. (When actually all it does is just show how much of an idiot he is.)
Please don’t feed the troll.
Would it change things if I called you a “f*cking tool” as I have been called? You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. And I’m the one outnumbered here too. And yes, as a polisci major, I’m very familiar with Marxism. As well as others. But this isn’t a classroom, you aren’t a professor, and I will not allow you to obfuscate the issue at hand by demanding I do term papers in the comment section of a weblog on things I did them on my freshman year of college.
Did you get that, Marxist?
Good. Then answer the questions, Karl!
Shorter jmccann: I don’t know what it means but rather than admit that I’ll claim I do with credentials I can’t support while pitying myself.
Actually Marxist, I always found it pointless to ask people definitions on a blog. Ever heard of dictionary.com? Wikipedia? Google? Anyone with an IQ over 5 can post a definition. Therefore, I feel no need to engage in such pointless activities.
que theme to jeopardy.
Still waiting for a response to my rebuttal of the ridiculous casualty figures being peddles by Marxists on this board…
Marxists respond now.
Well, since you only have an IQ of 5, allow me to point out that the reason the Marxists aren’t responding to your question may be because there aren’t any Marxists here.
And those that are here are sufficiently ID’d to know they shouldn’t have to do your work for you. You should support your own arguments and so far have spectacularly failed to do that so far as showing any understanding of what Marxism actually is (other than an apparent insult in your mind).
It’s like my saying “All idiotic assholes, respond now.” If there aren’t any on this board, then I’d get no response.
“sufficiently ID’d” –> sufficiently IQ’d
*sigh* Nothing quite like blowing an insult with a typo.
At least I can note when I’m wrong…
Ok, I’ll humor you…
All NON-Marxists please respond to my rebuttal about ridiculous casualty figures such as 1,000,000 iraqi civilians being killed because of this war.
Non-Marxists respond right now.
“And those that are here are sufficiently ID’d to know they shouldn’t have to do your work for you. You should support your own arguments and so far have spectacularly failed to do that so far as showing any understanding of what Marxism actually is (other than an apparent insult in your mind).”
And maybe you have missed a meeting or something…but my point has nothing to do with Marxism….again, it has to do with a couple idiots on here claiming that over a million iraqis have been killed because of this war. I laid it out mathemetically, showed how absurd of a claim it is, linked to a website that is reputable (google it, iraqbodycount.net) and have yet to get a response from all of you Marx….er…I mean NON-Marxists.
So, NON-MARXISTS respond right now.
jmccann: but my point has nothing to do with Marxism
Hard to tell, considering how often you trot out the phrase. You’re covering your signal with a lot of noise.
In any event, how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion is something that no reasonable person could ever claim to accurately know. There is an extremely heavy political component to any count and arguments abound as to what should count as a death caused “because of the war”. Some estimates given include:
Iraqbodycount.net estimates ~90,000 civilian deaths since 2003 based on “a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources”. Said sources do not include any non-English and the site has been criticized for being heavily biased towards western news sources which have in turn been criticized for consistently under reporting civilian casualties.
The World Health Organization estimates ~151,000 based on interviews conducted by trained interviewers with 9,345 heads of households across the country who had been selected according to statistical methods that are standard in peaceful areas. The extraordinarily dangerous situation (at least one co-author of the report was killed on his way to work) kept surveyors from visiting about 11 percent of the areas selected. “The study missed the period of what is believed to be the worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007 [following the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra.]”
A Johns Hopkins study estimated ~600,000 violent Iraqi civilians deaths. The study involved one-fifth the number of households and one-twentieth the number of areas surveyed by the W.H.O. study and has been criticized for it’s methodology.
Johns Hopkins and WHO are every bit if not more reputable than iraqbodycount.net and come up with estimates considerably higher. While 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians dead is higher than any of the estimates listed above, iraqbodycount is clearly the lowest and a fair discussion wouldn’t promote their particular number as the final word on the subject.
I agree. It’s impossible to have an exact figure. But it isn’t impossible to tell when one is just plain ridiculous. Considering the media coverage on events in Iraq, I think we’d be well aware if 520 civilians per day were being killed in Iraq. Especially when you consider how much of a big deal the media made over a naked pymramid and a book being thrown in the toilet. (allegedly)
A million is just stupid.
Still waiting for a response to my rebuttal of the ridiculous casualty figures being peddles by Marxists on this board…
And I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. Fancy that.
And yes, as a polisci major, I’m very familiar with Marxism.
I have no way of verifying that one way or the other. For all I know, you never went to college (not for a lack of desire to do so, of course).
and I will not allow you to obfuscate the issue at hand by demanding I do term papers in the comment section of a weblog on things I did them on my freshman year of college.
50 words = term paper? Wow, what college did you go to (again, if any at all)?
Would it change things if I called you a “f*cking tool” as I have been called?
Honestly, a little.
Sean’s post above clarifies things. The million figure is the highest estimate of which I’m aware (although the group that did the study placed their high estimate at 1.4 million), and the one McCann posted is (by far) the lowest estimate I’ve seen. Iraqbodycount.net in fact admits that their count is undoubtedly too low.
I’ll not endorse any of them (and have not, despite McCann’s jumping to that conclusion) except to say that the likelihood is probably somewhere in the middle. In any case they all fall under the definition of ‘God Awful,’ if you ask me.
I’m sure we can all agree that a total count of the dead doesn’t even begin to calculate the human and social cost incurred.
Especially when you consider how much of a big deal the media made over a naked pymramid and a book being thrown in the toilet. (allegedly)
McCann, respectfully, does your expertise include both political/economic ideologies and religion? Do you know much about Islam? If so, do you still think the ‘Marxist media outlets’ unnecessarily made a ‘big deal’ out of this event?
Panthenon….
we’ll never know the real count. that i can agree with. And yes, I do understand that the islamic has unjustified and irrational anger issues over being humiliated. Stupid on the part of those punks at abu ghraib….but equally stupid of the NYT to run 40 or so front page stories on it. And for the record, I’m an agnostic conservative. Don’t care much for any religion. Right now, islam and it’s followers suck the most.
And yes, I do understand that the islamic has unjustified and irrational anger issues over being humiliated.
I’m not convinced you’re aware of the relevant tenets Islam or the attitudes of the Islamic world, the west’s interactions with said Islamic world throughout recent history, and how those intertwine to create a mindset that renders the Muslim reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal neither ‘unjustified’ nor ‘irrational.’ This really comes down to whether we can look at it from their point of view, or just continue to commit the completely counterproductive mistake of denigrating them and their beliefs, and then have the audacity to be surprised when we keep killing terrorists but more of them keep getting recruited.
But, as the president made explicit several years ago, some of us ‘don’t do nuance.’ I don’t know whether you fall under that category, you may not. At least you don’t defend it (and thereby insult the military justice heirarchy, as Limbaugh and Dennis Miller did).
but equally stupid of the NYT to run 40 or so front page stories on it.
The nation’s third-largest paper shouldn’t have covered an enormous scandal and all its effects? Why not? To paraphrase one of Sean’s recent points, why are we so uncomfortable with self-criticism?
And for the record, I’m an agnostic conservative. Don’t care much for any religion. Right now, islam and it’s followers suck the most.
I think some of those in the Islamic world might argue that it’s us who suck the most. I’m not endorsing either viewpoint, except to point out that both they and we have valid reasons for our thinking. If I were to objectively review the west/Islamic world interactions over the 20th century(and I have tried), I’d say they have plenty of reason to be pissed off at the United States. How much of that is really the fault of the US is open to interpretation, we were fighting other battles at the time (cold war, world wars) and they were, for the most part, pawns on the board.
There is nothing valid about rioting over a cartoon. If christians were still doing that you’d be calling them bloody savages. I just love how some folks prefer to stay stuck in the gray area. They’re paralyzed essentially.
jmccann: If christians were still doing that you’d be calling them bloody savages.
Well, the bloody savages seemed to get pretty riled up over TV shows and movies. You know, things you can avoid seeing unless you deliberately seek them out.
McCann, I don’t know how you can call being able to look at things from the point of view of somebody else ‘paralyzed.’ What strikes me as ‘paralyzed’ is the inability to resist straw manning any argument or activity that deviates from one’s own.
Well, the bloody savages seemed to get pretty riled up over TV shows and movies. You know, things you can avoid seeing unless you deliberately seek them out.
The elephant in the GOP’s room, dutifully put aside by the libertarians and the social cons for the sake of electoral gain.
So you think it’s “understandable” to riot over cartoons?
“Well, the bloody savages seemed to get pretty riled up over TV shows and movies. You know, things you can avoid seeing unless you deliberately seek them out.”
When was the last time xtians rioted over a tv show? committed violence? I can’t quite remember. I’d say there’s a slight difference between “christian rage” and “muslim rage” at this point. Again, a little moral clarity please. Killing people over a cartoon and whining about a show are not in the same league. I see more fear of ideas from the left with the fairness doctrine garbage than I do from the right.
So you think it’s “understandable” to riot over cartoons?
If the editorial cartoon example is the one you would like to use, well then, yes, it is understandable. If we are using the word ‘understandable’ to mean what the dictionary says it means, yes, yes I do believe it to be so, based on what I know of the history of the Islamic faith and its tenets, and the living conditions in the region where it is most prevalent. I’m not using the word ‘understandable’ to convey ‘forgivable’ or ‘morally acceptable’ or ‘okay by me.’ I’m using it to mean ‘understandable,’ for I’m not going to cover my ears, scream ‘LA LA LA’ and pretend (as much of our media have pretended) that there is no justification behind the actions of the rioters.
Unfortunately for those who wish it were not so, life is nuanced. Reality is unkind to a rigid black-and-white mind. That I find it understandable does not make the harming of innocents over one’s religious objections acceptable or morally just. But it is ‘understandable.’
So you think it’s “understandable” to riot over cartoons?
To be fair, those cartoons were godawful. And by “godawful” I don’t mean “offensive” (though that is true as well), I mean Spawn godawful. The greatest injustice here is that the “artists” actually got paid money to make those.
So, let’s just ban offensive cartoons? After all….somewhere….sometime…..some place……radical muslims might flip out.
You might might call it “understandable,” but I would never call it justified or rational. Civilized people don’t murder over cartoons.
And Zython……were you equally outraged over “Piss Christ?” Google it. Don’t remember any xtians stampeding each other or murdering over that one, which was far more offensive than any cartoon.
Never mind the 4,100 young men and women who won’t be coming home or the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. Never mind the trillion-dollar cost of this awesome adventure that we’ve put on our grandchildren’s credit card. It all worked out just fine in the end, right McCann?
You never answered me, mccann.
Yes, it all worked out……
We stayed the course, and we will win. Those young men and women didn’t die in vain, as you demanded they did.
Respond now, marxist quaker.
I see. The families who will forever be missing a father or mother can take great comfort in knowing that we “stayed the course.” Even if we didn’t find WMD, even if there wasn’t going to be a “smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud,” even though there weren’t any unmanned drones that could fly to the U.S., we have succeeded in creating a new satellite state for Iran. Hooray for us.
As you have neglected to mention them, may I assume that you are wishing away the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and our trillion-dollar borrowings for this adventure?
Civilized people don’t murder over cartoons.
Someone was murdered over a cartoon?
Yes. See: riots over mohammed cartoons. People were trampled to death, authority figures trying to maintain some kind of order were murdered. Over cartoons. Numerous death threats have been issued against the illustrators of them as well as those that published them. Cartoons. Death threats. Do you not see something wrong with this? Or is this another example of “bad western civilization picking on those poor islamic fundamentalists?” Ya may want to look up Theo Van Gogh or Geert Wilders too. One is dead, the other may end up that way.
And to answer your first question, if Iraq turns out to be a stable democratic nation in the heart of the region where most of our problems arise from, it will be well worth it. WMD or not. Looks like things are moving that way too, which I’m sure you’re quite upset and disappointed about.
Especially when you consider how much of a big deal the media made over a naked pymramid and a book being thrown in the toilet. (allegedly)
Try to imagine that naked pyramid was made up of American prisoners and the smiling, laughing guards were Iraqi Republican Guards.
You might have been outraged, such were the case. It’s no way to treat people. Period.
Marxist Quaker? Is there such a thing?
And to answer your first question, if Iraq turns out to be a stable democratic nation in the heart of the region where most of our problems arise from, it will be well worth it. WMD or not. Looks like things are moving that way too, which I’m sure you’re quite upset and disappointed about.
Dude, you’re not supposed to eat the fairy dust.
if Iraq turns out to be a stable democratic nation in the heart of the region where most of our problems arise from, it will be well worth it. WMD or not. Looks like things are moving that way too,
If? And if it turns out that “stable, democratic nation” turns out to be a client state to Iran? Will that have been “worth it”?
WMD or not? We should just forget all the reasons we were told we had to go to war in the first place?
“Dude, you’re not supposed to eat the fairy dust.”
Nice intelligent response. Done like a true Marxist.
And Duros…I said it was stupid of them to do that to the Iraqis…..but did I shed a tear over a naked pyramid? Nope. I’ll never shed a tear over enemies being humiliated. And do I think it hurt our country by sticking it on the cover of the NYT 40 times? Yes, and even worse, they did it for political reasons.
People were trampled to death, authority figures trying to maintain some kind of order were murdered. Over cartoons.
But it’s “civilized” when it happens because of a Furby or a Tickle-me Elmo?
And Zython……were you equally outraged over “Piss Christ?” Google it.
I don’t have to, I know what you’re talking about. And you missed my point (surprise surprise). My outrage wasn’t over their offensiveness, but because as political cartoons, they failed to be funny or even have a meaningful message.
Don’t remember any xtians stampeding each other or murdering over that one, which was far more offensive than any cartoon.
Sure, they just prayed to Jesus to do their dirty work for them.
And Geezer, you’ve STILL failed to answer my question. Why do you hate America?
but did I shed a tear over a naked pyramid? Nope. I’ll never shed a tear over enemies being humiliated.
Unlike you, I think America is better than that, in that they shouldn’t give into their basest animalistic urges (one of the reasons I oppose socialized vengeance). Obviously, you disagree. So again, why do you hate America so much?
Forgive me, like many others, seeing terrorists form big gay terrorist pyramids doesn’t bother me. I’d rather they not have done it because of the mess it caused which corrupt left-wing news organizations like the NYT pounced all over for ideological reasons, but I just do not get saddened by big gay terrorist pymramids. Not one bit. And I think you’ll find that I’m in the majority with that view.
And if you look at America’s history….more times than not, we haven’t been better than that. Just thought I’d point that out. Not condoning torture or anything. I’m just sayin…..we’ve been a lot harsher than that in most every war we’ve ever been involved in, including one against ourselves.
Lovely.
“Stable, democratic nations” brought to you by our finest sadistic deviants. I thought this conflict of cultures was supposed to be all about our superior values.
Also mccann, you seem to be under the impression that all those men in the pyramid were “terrorists.” Wherever did you acquire such a notion? Not all who were held at Abu Graib were charged, and not all those charged were accused of terrorism.
Perhaps your assumption bears reviewing?
I just said I’d rather they not have done it. It did us no good and it gave the NY Al-Times a way to spread their propaganda. But again, (assuming they were SUPPOSED to be held at Abu Graib) I’m not going to get emotionally bent out of shape over a big gay terrorist pyramid. Doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t bother many people that don’t see it as a political opportunity to bash the Bush administration. This conflict of cultures, at least to me personally, is about winning and making our country safe. My reaction to the whole thing when I saw it was something like this…
“Daaaaaayum……that’s kind a funny…..but it’s really gonna suck because you now that’s the next batch of propaganda.”
Honestly….I saw worse on Jackass the Movie. College frat pranks are as bad as that was.
jmccann: I’d rather they not have done it because of the mess it caused which corrupt left-wing news organizations like the NYT pounced all over for ideological reasons,
Notice that the objection isn’t to our soldiers breaking the laws and the dehumanizing treatment they inflicted on people who largely had not yet been found guilty of any crime. No, the objection is to getting caught.
Again, a main part of the Republican philosophy in a nutshell.
jmccann: I just said I’d rather they not have done it.
Yes, but only because you didn’t want the bad publicity. You’re not objecting to it being done. You’re objecting to it being publicized.
Have you even considered that if they hadn’t mistreated the prisoners there would be no “propaganda” available for anyone to use?
Gosh, I’m so old I remember when we at least pretended that “American values” didn’t include practicing sexual depravity on unwilling captives. But here we have young mccann who thinks it’s “kind a funny” for members of our military to act out their darker fetishes using prisoners as props.
If this is how we go about creating “stable, democratic nations,” it’s understandable why it takes so long.
“Yes, but only because you didn’t want the bad publicity. You’re not objecting to it being done. You’re objecting to it being publicized.”
Not exactly. If some depraved moron forces a big gay pyramid, then yeah, I’ll laugh at it. I’d rather them not do it though. Gotta try to have the moral high ground. But if I see it, I’ll laugh. And I’m also objecting to it being OVER-publicized for political reasons. This was a handful of bad apples not worthy of 40 front page stories on the NY Al-Times.
And oh please…..quit acting like you were seriously hurt and offended by this. The phony outrage is just ridiculous. I’ve seen many on the left dance on the graves of political opponents time and time again. And they aren’t even terrorists. Ask yourself why comments were disabled at Huffpo when Tony Snow died. The left is just as hateful and intolerant as anyone else in this country. Get over yourself. I laugh at nutjob terrorists and insurgents being humiliated, and other people laugh at the death of political opponents.
Gotta try to have the moral high ground. But if I see it, I’ll laugh.
What else needs to be said. There it is.
“Daaaaaayum……that’s kind a funny…..
I imagine it would be funny to a sex offender.
If some depraved moron forces a big gay pyramid, then yeah, I’ll laugh at it.
You know, it’s hard to tell how old you are. This makes me think you’re 12, but the way you talk about the “young people” makes me think you’re 120. Hmm…
Doesn’t bother many people that don’t see it as a political opportunity to bash the Bush administration.
I told this to Jay, and I’m going to tell it to you. Not everyone is as depraved as you. I’m sorry, this must come as a great shock, I know.
Marxist Quaker? Is there such a thing?
Probably.
Yeah I know. Those poooooor little insurgents and terrorists. They had dogs barking at them and were forced into a college style frat-hazing prank by a few bad apples.
God…..what an awful country we are. And the fact that a lot of people don’t give a rat’s ass about how people that would saw off innocent peoples’ heads off with a butterknife….well…guess that just makes us even worse.
Like I said, I’d rather it not had happened, but when it did, I laughed at in a Jackass sort of way. Have you even heard of that show? That movie? Just wondering.
Perhaps I’m just not as “enlightened and nuanced” as some of you. Or perhaps you could just be playin the phony outrage game so you can try to make yourself look morally superior to people. Either way, I don’t give a shit. If it was up to me, I would have waterboarded em, and if they had nothing, firing squad time…..you know…how we used to do things. And I suggest you watch ghosts of abu ghraib if you get a chacne. These people here weren’t innocent bystanders. Some of them were the worst of the worst in Iraq…..and I feel nothing for them. Not. one. bit. Suffer for all I care.
I only hope Obama has the same sympathy for terrorists that you do. MIdas well hand the election to McCain.
If it was up to me, I would have waterboarded em, and if they had nothing, firing squad time
Is that what you meant by “Gotta try to have the moral high ground”?
Awesome, mccann. Sexual deviancy, torture, and murder. Remind me again what we’re fighting against?
Wondering why I’m bothering, I nevertheless find myself unable to resist…
McCann, Gen. Odierno’s fourth infantry division was dumping thousands of unscreened Iraqis on Abu Ghraib. Just to be certain we’re absolutely clear, ‘unscreened’ is sort of another word for ‘not interrogated’ or ‘not interrogated very well.’ This is a fantasy that every or even a majority of the men inside that prison were terrorists/insurgents. The odds that any (or more than two or three) of them were involved with beheading an innocent are statistically astronomical.
Can you really claim to support everything good about conservative values and actually defend this with a straight face? Even a little? Isn’t it conservatives, who most vociferously supported this war of freedom and liberation, who should be most outraged?
It was a tragic moment for a military with a long and proud heritage of treating its prisoners better than most – especially one thta had come to Iraq thinking of itself as a liberation force, again solidly in the American tradition. During the Revolutionary War, the historian David Hackett Fisher noted, Gen. George Washington had ‘often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies.’ This compassion toward prisoners was extended by Washington expressly in the face of the cruel British handling of American captives. Washington ordered Lt. Col. Samuel Blachley Webb, in a passage quoted by Fischer, ‘Treat them with humanity, and Let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren. The United States Army was a long way from home in Iraq.
-Thomas Ricks, “Fiasco”
Or perhaps you could just be playin the phony outrage game so you can try to make yourself look morally superior to people.
And you might try not making it so easy for us to look morally superior to you. Here’s a hint – we don’t have to do much.
jmccann: If it was up to me, I would have waterboarded em, and if they had nothing, firing squad time…..you know…how we used to do things.
In just one sentence you advocate torture, execution without trial of innocents and claim this is how we’ve always done things.
Can you possibly explain to me how that is in any way different at all from what something Saddam Hussein would say?
A) I’m not defending it. They were punished, as well they should have been. They broke the law.
B) Not defending it and laughing at terrorists being humiliated is well within the realm of possibility. I, and tens of millions of others have proven that.
C) No, I have no problem with waterboarding if needed, particularly with HVT’s. If waterboarding was extreme torture, people wouldn’t be doing it to themselves at protests.
D) Military tribunals would be good in my opinion for thugs like those at abu ghraib.
To me, this whole episode is something you’d see on a video on Spike TV. Plenty of people watch those and laugh at stupid people doing stupid things. Hell, it probably was on SpikeTV.
Get over yourselves. Your politically motivated phony outrage isn’t fooling anyone.
Where were you folks back in ‘98 when we bombed the s*it out of the Serbs, who by the way, were no threat to us? Just wondering.
jmccann: If waterboarding was extreme torture, people wouldn’t be doing it to themselves at protests.
Demonstrating, yet again, how he can miss the point entirely.
No point talking with this guy, folks. The blinders are fused to his brain.
Sean – I find I should have heeded your advice earlier.
do I think it hurt our country by sticking it on the cover of the NYT 40 times? Yes, and even worse, they did it for political reasons.
Fucking bullshit. What political reasons did the NYT have in running the story?
I’ll ask you again, just for laughs. If they were Americans – troops and/or civilians – wouldn’t you be outraged by the behavior of their captors or would you laugh it off like a Steve-O stunt?
Where were you folks back in ‘98 when we bombed the s*it out of the Serbs, who by the way, were no threat to us?
No, they were a threat to everybody else living there. Look it up, asshat.
Perhaps I’m just not as “enlightened and nuanced” as some of you.
Talk about understatement of the year.
I’m not defending it.
Yes you are.
They were punished,
Sorry, but I don’t consider honorable discharges “punishment”.
Not defending it and laughing at terrorists being humiliated is well within the realm of possibility.
Not really, no.
I, and tens of millions of others have proven that.
Again, not everyone is as depraved as you. Then again, Mind of Mencia is still on the air, so maybe there ARE 10s of millions with really bad senses of humor.
To me, this whole episode is something you’d see on a video on Spike TV.
The network that had those godawful video game awards where Halo 2 won all categories including best RPG? Talk about digging yourself a hole there.
Get over yourselves. Your politically motivated phony outrage isn’t fooling anyone.
Tune in next time when Geezer whines about the “sanctity of marriage”.
Either way, I don’t give a shit. If it was up to me, I would have waterboarded em, and if they had nothing, firing squad time…..you know…how we used to do things.
Look, I don’t care how you did things during the Spanish Inquisition, but that’s not this country is supposed to do.
And McCann has ably demonstrated his rather breathtaking ignorance of the middle east, Islam and effective foreign relations. That’s all right; it takes all types in this world and one could certainly fill many volumes with the things with which I am ignorant.
One can only hope that the next few presidents at least will have read a book or two about Islam (or at least reads books not published at Regnery), will take in a newscast now and then whose ad dollars don’t go to Murdoch, and an ability to see and deal with people through their own traditions, and not his/her own.
Although I am curious – on Spike TV, do they cover naked people in excrement, or stick their heads in clearing barrels and shoot bullets past their ears? Given the nature of cable TV these days, I guess I wouldn’t be that surprised.
on Spike TV, do they cover naked people in excrement, or stick their heads in clearing barrels and shoot bullets past their ears?
Actually, for any comparison to a entertainment TV show (be it Jackass, something on Spike TV or anything else) to be anything like valid the TV show would have to feature people who had these things done to them against their will.
Torturing and humiliating unwilling and largely innocent people against their will isn’t in any way the same as someone volunteering to be a Jackass and do something stupid to themselves.
Duros’s observation about “If they were Americans” is spot on. If American troops had been subjected to such treatment by their captors, would jmccann find it so funny?
Don’t be ridiculous, boys. We’re Americans. We’re entitled to do whatever we want to foreigners.
Hey Duros….
Did Clinton’s war of distraction against the Serbs make America safer? That seems to be the bar for justification, right? Isn’t that what Barry O says? LMAO! Funny how dissent for war is based on what letter follows the president’s name when on cable news. Hypocrites.
And oh gee……what political reasons would the NYT have????? Maybe….just maybe…..to smear the Bush admin. Ya think maybe? It’s just a hunch now….
Ok…I’ll turn the sarcasm off. That had to be the dumbest question asked on this entire thread.
And I’m wondering if you were outraged when people were beheaded. Or is that “Bush’s fault?”
No point talking with this guy, folks. The blinders are fused to his brain.
on Spike TV, do they cover naked people in excrement, or stick their heads in clearing barrels and shoot bullets past their ears?
You’re thinking of Shot at Love with Tila Tequila.
And he still didn’t answer my question.
Respond now, fascist.
On second thought, don’t. I don’t give a shit what you say, mcann.
Duros’s observation about “If they were Americans” is spot on. If American troops had been subjected to such treatment by their captors, would jmccann find it so funny?
I may have been in fifth grade at the time but even I remember the frothing outrage at American corpses being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu – and the desire to kill us some Somalis. That’s the closest parallel I can think of.
You fail to understand the complexities of Iraq. Those people in the big gay terrorist pyramid – THEY are against the Iraqi’s! THEY are the terrorists! THEY are the bad guys…..not US troops. If you were literally at war with some of your own countrymen or religious members, and they were KILLING indisciminately, would you really care if they were forced into a big gay pyramid? I wouldn’t. Well, nor do the Iraqis that want their country to be a safe and prosperous place.
The only people outraged are those that sympathized with their sick terrorist cause, and those that want to drum up as much negative press as possible to harm the Bush admin for political purposes.
It’s sick that you people will show sympathy to terrorists for political gain. Why not just hold a “take a terrorst to lunch” day for g-d’s sake.
Why do you hate America?
Respond right now, Marxists and red army members.
jmccann: The only people outraged are those that sympathized with their sick terrorist cause
Simply not true. Many who have no sympathy for any terrorist cause were outraged (rightly so) at the behavior of our troops.
But don’t let truth get in the way of your making absolute statements.
jmccann: You fail to understand the complexities of Iraq.
Says the guy who insists the only people outraged by Abu Ghraib are terrorist sympathizers and that everyone in Abu Ghraib was a die hard active terrorist.
Who is failing to understand complexities?
Il Duce would be entertaining as hell, were I certain he had not the power to vote. Today’s exhibit of why democracy is dangerous. But I suppose since I’m a red he already knew I felt that way.
Shorter mccann: Sexual abuse of prisoners is the American way!
I may have been in fifth grade at the time but even I remember the frothing outrage at American corpses being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu – and the desire to kill us some Somalis. That’s the closest parallel I can think of.
Exactly. We shouldn’t treat other people, whether they suspected terrorists or not any different than we would want to be treated by an opposing force. When we engage in bad behavior against prisoners, we encourage the same behavior in captors.
Think about that, fascist. BTW, you seem of active service age; how come you’re not over there gettin’ some? More important things to do, like Darth Cheney?
Why do you hate America?
Hey Duros…
How come you aren’t in Afghanistan…..chickenhawk.
And quaker….
I guess your american way would be “hugs and treatment for terrorists, after all, it’s our fault they’re mad, and anyone that’s angry at the USA, regardless of their reasons, is always justified.”
go hug Osama, Marxist quaker.
Typical blowhard. When asked a question as to why he isn’t over there, jmccann doesn’t answer. Instead he tries to turn the question around.
C’mon, jmccann. If you’re so gung ho on putting it to the terrorists, why haven’t you signed up? All talk, no walk? Answer now.
Of course, you can’t, can you?
Must be a ‘medical issue.’
Cuz I’m old. What’s your excuse?
Typical blowhard. When asked a question as to why he isn’t over there, jmccann doesn’t answer. Instead he tries to turn the question around.
I can think of 3 reasons.
1. He’s too young to enlist.
2. He’s too old to enlist.
3. He’s a registered sex offender.
I guess your american way would be “hugs and treatment for terrorists, after all, it’s our fault they’re mad, and anyone that’s angry at the USA, regardless of their reasons, is always justified.”
If you’re so sure that EVERYONE imprisoned by the U.S. is a terrorist, then how come you’re so afraid of trying them in a court of law? Sounds like you have something to hide.
no, you idiot. the chickenhawk argument is flawed, and I was pointing that out. when there is a war YOU support, and you aren’t there, it’s no different. Afghanistan would be the case. Why aren’t you there? I can ask you the same thing and level the same accusation by your standards. It’s bogus and flawed. Let me translate what you’re saying….”You’re for the war that I’m against, so you’re a chickenhawk.”
But I don’t expect a simpleton like you to understand that.
And for the record, I did work for a branch of the DHS for almost three years. Wasn’t in the military, but I did my part in keeping people safe. Learned some interesting things, saw some interesting things too.
thank you.
So, why didn’t you enlist either, since you “claim” to hate terrorists too? Why not head to Afghanistan and take part in your “just” war? Chickenhawk.
Don’t you hate terrorists, Marxist?
I can think of 3 reasons.
1. He’s too young to enlist.
2. He’s too old to enlist.
3. He’s a registered sex offender.
You overlook the far most likely reason: He’s a blowhard who finds it far more comfortable to hide behind his handle on a blog and call people names than to actually, y’know, do something real.
sean says…
“You overlook the far most likely reason: He’s a blowhard who finds it far more comfortable to hide behind his handle on a blog and call people names than to actually, y’know, do something real.”
LMAO….
Pot, meet kettle.
Oh the irony in that statement.
You’ve – GOT – to be kidding…
Funny.
jmccann: Pot, meet kettle.
Again, the most interesting thing about this reply isn’t just it’s inaccuracy, but rather that jmccann continues to respond to any question or challenge with “Well, you do to!”
You overlook the far most likely reason: He’s a blowhard who finds it far more comfortable to hide behind his handle on a blog and call people names than to actually, y’know, do something real.
Well, they’re not mutually exclusive.
jmccann: Pot, meet kettle.
Again, the most interesting thing about this reply isn’t just it’s inaccuracy, but rather that jmccann continues to respond to any question or challenge with “Well, you do to!”
Um yeah….it’s called hypocrisy on your part. Have you served in Afghanistan, or any other “just war” in your opinion? If not, you look like a fool for accusing anyone of being a chickenhawk.
pot, meet kettle.
And for the record, I did work for a branch of the DHS for almost three years. Wasn’t in the military, but I did my part in keeping people safe.
I shudder at the very thought. More proof that the DHS is the biggest black hole of cash in the history of mankind. They’ll hire anybody.
Um yeah….it’s called hypocrisy on your part. Have you served in Afghanistan, or any other “just war” in your opinion? If not, you look like a fool for accusing anyone of being a chickenhawk.
Do you not see a central difference between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? A central difference, concerning, just as a for-instance, a clear (some would say ‘actually existing’) connection to the people who attacked us? Or, perhaps just as another for-instance, the amount of support (or, maybe, the amount of people who absolutely did not support) for one and not the other?
jmccann: Um yeah….it’s called hypocrisy on your part. Have you served in Afghanistan, or any other “just war” in your opinion? If not, you look like a fool for accusing anyone of being a chickenhawk.
So let me get this right. First you accuse folks here of wanting to hug the terrorists, and then you turn around and say it’s hypocrisy to for those folks to not fight the terrorists?
Do you even know what “hypocrisy” means? Cause, the way you’re using it? “I don’ think that word means what you think it means.”
Sounds like some of you are missing Saddam Hussein.
No, what is hypocritical is being for what you call the “just war” in Afghanistan yet not volunteering, and against what you see as an “unjust war” in Iraq, and then calling anyone who sees it differently a chickenhawk.
By that logic, anyone that has ever been for a war, no matter how popular or unpopular, is a chickenhawk. Including you.
And don’t get feisty with me for pointing out your flawed logic. You dug this hole of stupidity yourself. Have fun talking your way out of it.
LMAO @ Marxist hypocrites!
Geezer, the problem isn’t JUST that they support an unjust war, it’s that they think that by being domestic supporters of that war, that makes them just as brave and courageous, if not more so than, the very soldiers that are fighting in the wars. In short, it’s not just the desire for war borderlining on bloodlust, it’s also the huge amounts of arrogance.
jmccann: No, what is hypocritical is being for what you call the “just war” in Afghanistan
Where did I do that? I mean, don’t let the facts upset your fanatically held world view but, where did I ever say I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan?
jmccann: By that logic, anyone that has ever been for a war, no matter how popular or unpopular, is a chickenhawk.
No, supporting a war doesn’t make someone a chickenhawk (seriously, j, how many words do you not know the meaning of?). Someone who loudly declares their support for a war but refuses to DO anything other than toss words around while others make the actual sacrifices is a chickenhawk.
Oh…even worse then. You DON’T support the war in Afghanistan. So I suppose 9/11 was all our fault, and those poor muslims were justified then?
My god, you’ve outed yourself as a fucking loon. Even most lefty democrats support THAT war.
Congratulations, you’re crazy, and you’d be laughed out of the room by the vast majority of people in both political parties.
I think you really are a Marxist.
jmccann: Oh…even worse then. You DON’T support the war in Afghanistan.
Where did I do that? I mean, don’t let the facts upset your fanatically held world view but, where did I ever say I was against the war in Afghanistan?
What I have said, repeatedly, is that you don’t know what your talking about and you make things up just so you can cling to your ignorant, simplistic views. Something you’ve continued to provide lots of support for with your last post just being the most recent example.
Or, there’s also the fact that realistically, when applying to the army, you don’t choose WHERE you get deployed. So while many people would LIKE to fight in Afghanistan, but the army would ship them to Iraq anyhow. And I, for one, don’t like the idea of gambling with my life, especially with the odds stacked against me.
either you support the war in afghanistan or you don’t. Why so hesitant to state your position? If you do support it, then by your logic, that would make you a chickenhawk because you didn’t volunteer.
Now, I have more class than to start throwing that insult around though. I am not, was not, nor will I call you or anyone else a chickenhawk. The logic behind it is flawed. But I do think that anyone that is AGAINST particularly, the war in Afghansistan has a pretty warped world view, and is more than likely another self-loathing white liberal that thinks the USA is generally a force for evil in the world rather than a nation that took on a noble cause in removing the taliban from power as well as Hussein.
So why don’t you tell us all where you stand then.
You haven’t said if you’re for it or against it. Wonder why.
If you do support it, then by your logic, that would make you a chickenhawk because you didn’t volunteer.
That’s simple, when Afghanistan was the only country we were fighting, I was too young to enlist.
Now, I have more class than to start throwing that insult around though.
Uh, no you don’t.
So why don’t you tell us all where you stand then.
I support it. There, you happy?
You haven’t said if you’re for it or against it. Wonder why.
Because some of us don’t feel the need to justify ourselves to an America-hating sex offender.
jmcann: Now, I have more class than to start throwing that insult around though. I am not, was not, nor will I call you or anyone else a chickenhawk.
And all the “Marxists” here know you’re far to classy a guy to hurl insults around.
Sheesh.
jmccann: So why don’t you tell us all where you stand then.
Because my position on the war has nothing to do with the point I was making: That you make things up, distort facts and refuse to answer questions while insisting others answer yours “now!” while hurling insults in nearly every post but claiming you’re “too classy” to do that.
The rightness or wrongness of the war I haven’t commented on.
“The rightness or wrongness of the war I haven’t commented on.”
Not surprising. Too many lack moral clarity. If a country harboring an individual/group of people that planned an attack that killed 3,000 innocent civilians isn’t worth waging war against, I’d like to know what is. Why don’t you tell me. To have done nothing would be sickening, and would also be a green light to islamic nutcases everywhere to attacks us when and wherever they want, because we’ll stand by and let it happen.
That’s simple, when Afghanistan was the only country we were fighting, I was too young to enlist.”
What’s stopping you now? You expect me to go to Iraq….why don’t you get your butt over there too, since you support it any everything. You don’t want to be a chickenhawk, do you? LMAO! Also not surprising that you were too young to enlist. I kinda figured I was talking to someone that thinks cars run on “hope and change.”
If you aren’t happy with the hole you’ve dug when you insinuated that I was a chickenhawk, I suggest you save face and retract it. You look more and more foolish with every duck and dodge on this issue, not to mention a oouple of lame cop-outs you’ve spewed.
Here, it’s simple: Calling someone a chickenhawk is a bogus tactic. What you’re essentially saying is that no one has the right to an opinion on a war unless they’ve served. If that were the case, you’d have nothing but current and ex-military members voting, and I don’t think you’d like the way that turned out. They’re heavily conservative. Just don’t throw the chickenhawk label around, because if one person is a chickenhawk, then we all are, unless by your logic, you’ve served and have earned the right to a view or opinion.
Get it? Good.
Glad I could help Marxist.
I truly hope that “hope and change” can fill your gas tank if B. Hussein Obama gets elected.
What’s stopping you now? You expect me to go to Iraq….why don’t you get your butt over there too, since you support it any everything.
That’s the thing, I DON’T support the war in Iraq. There are many soldiers there that are doing their best because they think they can make a difference, and I commend their efforts. However, I am not so optimistic. I am not going to risk my life for a decision I wouldn’t have made myself.
If you aren’t happy with the hole you’ve dug when you insinuated that I was a chickenhawk,
Well, first off, I never said that, but go on…
I truly hope that “hope and change” can fill your gas tank if B. Hussein Obama gets elected.
Fortunately, I don’t have a car to fill up in the first place.
Here, it’s simple: Calling someone a chickenhawk is a bogus tactic. What you’re essentially saying is that no one has the right to an opinion on a war unless they’ve served.
I pointed this out earlier. Chickenhawk is used to describe the ultra-con bloggers that think that by blogging about the Iraq war, they are fighting in “the war of ideas”. It’s not just refusing to serve in a war they support to the point of near bloodlust, it’s also the arrogance of calling themselves soldiers as well. It’s having one’s cake and eat it too.
Look, Geezer, I can only imagine how much it must suck to be a sex offender, but you really shouldn’t take it out on us or the country.
I truly hope that “hope and change” can fill your gas tank if B. Hussein Obama gets elected.
I thought you guys were done being scandalized over the (gasp) middle eastern middle name. Or if you’re not scandalized I trust this means you refer to McCain as J. Sidney?
“Look, Geezer, I can only imagine how much it must suck to be a sex offender, but you really shouldn’t take it out on us or the country.”
Another cheapshot coming from a carless Marxist that rapes cute fluffy puppies and bunnies…..
“That’s the thing, I DON’T support the war in Iraq. There are many soldiers there that are doing their best because they think they can make a difference, and I commend their efforts. However, I am not so optimistic. I am not going to risk my life for a decision I wouldn’t have made myself.”
Then take your butt to Afghanistan! You said you support that war! LMAO! Chickenhawk Marxist!
Hopefully, you see how stupid your “chickenhawk” cheapshot is now.
Do you, or is that over your head? Or do you have too much pride to ever admit that it’s a lame, flawed argument that is on it’s best day nothing but a cheapshot used to smear those who see decisions on a war differently than you.
Either way, you look pretty foolish now.
McCann, I’m going to try to rescue this conversation from the depths to which it has fallen and point out to you the relevant difference in what makes a ‘chickenhawk.’
The analogy between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is a bad one. Nobody needed to beat the war drums to go to war in Afghanistan – we were attacked, they were protecting the individuals who masterminded the attack. The international community got behind us, and domestic support was something on the level of 80%.
In Iraq, this is not so. There is no clear and obvious casus belli that is bipartisanly agreed upon (leaving aside the Democratic lambs in the Congress that obediently fell in line). This war produced, worldwide, the largest antiwar protests in history; domestic opposition was enormous from the outset and has generally grown. Since Iraq did not attack us, there was a need to beat the drums and whip up support. The word ‘chickenhawk’ refers to those who had not served but beat the wardrums for what many regard as an unnecessary war against a country that, while its power structure was hostile toward the United States, didn’t have the ability to attack us even if it had wanted.
To save you the trouble, here’s shorter me:
One war – clear and obvious casus belli, broad support. No drumbeat.
Other war – no clear and obvious casus belli, sharply partisan support. Very pronounced drumbeat.
You are of course free to disagree with this analysis, but you’re going to have a hard time making the case that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are analogous situations, two points on the same continuum.
Then take your butt to Afghanistan! You said you support that war!
Now, since you don’t give a shit about the military unless it has to do with the arsenal, I can see why you might be confused as to why I don’t go. But let me explain something. When one signs up for the army, they don’t get to choose where they are deployed. The army puts them where they think they are needed.
Parthenon, very well done, but considering who we’re talking to, you might want to replace the following words with simpler ones:
casus belli
masterminded
community
for
Both wars had broad support at their onset. It wasn’t until things didn’t go as planned in Iraq that support dropped. This loss of support isn’t because everyone suddenly changed their minds and became democrats, it’s because we didn’t win in a year.
If we had won in Iraq w/in a year as originally stated, do you really think it would be as unpopular as it is now? I don’t. In fact, I think Iran would have no nuclear capalities if that were the case. We’d have hit them next. And my guess is that the people of this country would have supported that also.
You can make your case about Iraq and Afghanistan not being the same situation, but it doesn’t change anything when it comes down to the “chickenhawk” smear. As you stated, that’s your analysis, and I do disagree with it. My god, think about the list of reasons to take out Saddam Hussein, and honestly, can you really say that at least THAT PART of this war has been beneficial, regardless of your original standpoint or current thoughts on it?
Look, I just don’t think people should be so quick to throw “chickenhawk” out there. You never know when you might be the one believing in a war whose support falls within the general public.
Taking out the taliban was a noble cause, and I think taking out Hussein and trying to give Iraqis a chance at a civilized democracy is too.
Will it work? I don’t know…..but I think we’ve come too far to quit now, and with so many signs of improvement, backing out now would be horribly irresponsible, negligent, and damn near criminal on our part.
Thatisall.
Good day folks.
Our troops will have died in vain unless more of our troops die in vain.
If we had won in Iraq w/in a year as originally stated, do you really think it would be as unpopular as it is now?
Well, considering that if we had won in a year, we wouldn’t be in there now, I would have to say that’s irrelevant.
My god, think about the list of reasons to take out Saddam Hussein, and honestly, can you really say that at least THAT PART of this war has been beneficial, regardless of your original standpoint or current thoughts on it?
While I agree Saddam was a horrible person, unfortunately, that’s not the justification the administration was selling us.
j mcann, I appreciate this post. While I disagree with many points, I appreciate the maturity in which you presented your points. It has also given me a bit to think about (mainly the use of the term “chickenhawk”), as well as reminding me the importance of talking to someone rather than at them.
jmccann: Look, I just don’t think people should be so quick to throw “chickenhawk” out there.
But “Marxist”? Oh, that it’s okay to throw around with abandon.
Stay “classy”, j.
j mcann, I appreciate this post.
Actually, I do, too. Aside from the irony of the comment about throwing “chickenhawk” around it is a more reasoned and calm post than most from jmccann.
If the war had ended in a year then I think there would be far less objection to it. Not just because we wouldn’t be there now as Zython points out, but because a quick victory would have gone down well with the American public and would have overshadowed the doubts the objections that were shown at the start.
In the same way that those who predicted we’d be welcome as liberators and it would be over quickly try to change the subject when those (now clearly seen to be wrong) predictions are brought up, if it had been over fast those who were opposed to would tend to change the subject. “See, I told ya so that it would be over quick and not end in a quagmire.” could really only be answered “Yeah, but…” and nobody likes having to do that. Human nature.
That said, there was clearly no rational reason to expect the war would be over in a year, even if everyone here at home were strongly in favor of it. No significant plans were made beyond the initial stages, the reality of the ethnic/religious tensions were not considered and any who commented on the difficulty and time that would be involved were ignored. So playing with the hypothetical may be comforting but it doesn’t really help any view that actually deals with reality.