Condoleezza Rice is "proud of the decision" to invade Iraq. This kind of sentiment, which John McCain has of course echoed, not only reveals a strange attitude toward the wisdom of the decision to invade but a profound gap in strategic judgment between mainstream American conservatives and normal people.
« Nadal-Federer | Main | Part V »
Proud
04 Jul 2008 02:50 pm
Comments (46)
This would be pride-as-hubris. "Pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction."
WTF, MY? Sure, no tie to 9/11. Sure, no WMD. Sure, destabilized the region. Sure, hundreds of thousands dead and maimed, trillions spent, opportunity costs, etc.
But "we got to kick raghead ass! USA! USA!
Indeed, "suck on this" was a triumph of the American will.
Well, she probably can't help being an utter damned fool.
Rice may know her Russian history, but this sort of statement shows the woeful lack of knowledge about ME history.
Will this country be able to recover from this batch of fools running us now? Electing the *I see everything through the military lens* McCain sure won't do it.
"You can't fix stupid." -- Ron White
This kind of sentiment, which John McCain has of course echoed, not only reveals a strange attitude toward the wisdom of the decision to invade but a profound gap in strategic judgment between mainstream American conservatives and normal people.
Then I guess the anti-invasion sentiment of mainstream American liberals in 2003 reveals a profound gap in strategic judgment between mainstream American liberals and normal people.
But I know, I know: the views of "normal people" have value only when they agree with liberals, not when they agree with conservatives.
Hey, she's gotta have something to be proud of - wouldn't you hate to have her resume over the past 7 years?
People's sentiments after something has actually been tried (and has blown up in their face) are moderately more valid than they were beforehand.
It's called learning.
People's sentiments after something has actually been tried (and has blown up in their face) are moderately more valid than they were beforehand.
Then if things continue to improve in Iraq and "normal people" decide that the war was justified after all, will the sentiments of opponents of the war become "invalid?"
Is Mixner really Al? One would think that discovering a tactic to be tragically wrong would have an effect on conservatives. Like it would with normal people.
Is Mixner really Al??
Nah, he's much, much dumber than Al. Al is intelligent enough on these subjects to understand he's lying. Mixner is so incredibly stupid he actually believes what he's saying.
Mixner is that kind of stupid that insists (like his bloodthirsty ideological twin - robert powell) that bringing the violence levels up from where they were in 2002 to where they are now demonstrates that the surge is "working."
How many dead Iraqis will it take to slake your thirst Mixner?
It's going to be great fun watching the Vanguard of the Proletariat continue to fume and froth as Obama continues our support of the Iraqi transition to peace and democracy. They're so smart, and regular voters are so stupid, that they are perpetually isolated from the process to the extent that all that's left for them is behaving like emotionally disturbed kids in special ed classes. Lot's of boorishness, little to no attempt at serious arguments..."Look at me, look at me!"
Pathetic.
robert powell's arguments for slaughtering the Iraqi people rest on events more than 15 years prior to Bush's assault. He cannot explain how this brutal assault on the people of Iraq has made their lives better. When defending the escalation he uses only the reference point of how bad the American occupation had made Iraq so that the surge seems better.
This is what he calls "serious arguments." It's only "serious" if you are talking about how dishonest it all is.
Come on powell, let's have a serious argument. Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis that existed in 2002 and how Bush's assault on Iraq has affected that crisis. Let's talk about the humanitarian goals of the Bush administration. Let's talk about the validity of elections held under the watchful eye of a massive occupying force. Let's talk about the difference between the Iraqi experience under sanctions and under their current unelected dictator George W. Bush.
But you don't want to do any of that. You want to score cheap political points on the backs of dead Iraqis. You want to use one methodology to count the dead under Saddam Hussein and a different one for those killed under Bush. You also want to ignore the responsibility for keeping order by passing off Bush's body count as "merely Iraqi on Iraqi violence," as if this made them less dead or made an occupying force less responsible for order.
Your line of argumentation is not fact based, it is based on a cartoon version of Iraq and a nonsensical hagiographic version of Bush. It deserves no more than to have scorn heaped upon it.
bringing the violence levels up from where they were in 2002 to where they are now demonstrates that the surge is "working."
No, bringing the violence levels down from where they were a year or so ago demonstrates that the surge is working.
It's going to be great fun watching the Vanguard of the Proletariat continue to fume and froth as Obama continues our support of the Iraqi transition to peace and democracy. They're so smart, and regular voters are so stupid, that they are perpetually isolated from the process to the extent that all that's left for them is behaving like emotionally disturbed kids in special ed classes. Lot's of boorishness, little to no attempt at serious arguments..."Look at me, look at me!"
Excitingly enough, I have a Robert Powell statement on this same subject from July 4, 2003:
It's going to be great fun watching the Vanguard of the Proletariat continue to fume and froth as Bush continues our support of the Iraqi transition to peace and democracy. They're so smart, and regular voters are so stupid, that they are perpetually isolated from the process to the extent that all that's left for them is behaving like emotionally disturbed kids in special ed classes. Lot's of boorishness, little to no attempt at serious arguments..."Look at me, look at me!"
What's interesting about this is that Powell & co. have no interest whatsoever in Iraq or Iraqis. Indeed, if they spent more time thinking about what they're supposedly doing, and less in drooling anticipation of how they're FINALLY GOING TO SHOW THEM (whoever the "them" might be), they might not be such incredible fuck ups.
Isn't that cute. Mixner thinks that re-stating my sentence using a different goal post refutes it.
Mixner, is the violence level under Iraq's current tyrant Bush higher or lower than it was under their previous dictator?
We both know that it is higher. We both know that concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people is nowhere on your list of reasons for supporting their brutalization (and please, please, ask "how many bombs does it take to brutalize someone")
is the violence level under ... Bush higher or lower than it was under their ... dictator?
No one knows, and the question is irrelevant to the issue here anyway. The surge is working because it has reduced violence. Massively reduced violence, in fact.
Right Mixner (the stupid and insane), you are happy that Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein. In fact, you think the question of whether a greater or lesser number are dying as a result of your grand adventure in butchery is "irrelevant." I understand. It's the position of a sociopath. It helps explain your support for torture. And it marks you as far outside the bounds of decency.
... Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein ...
You haven't produced even a shred of evidence that Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein. And that question is irrelevant to the issue of whether the surge is working, anyway.
Repeating your sociopathic expressions of disinterest in the welfare of the Iraqi people merely demonstrates that you are a sociopath - it doesn't help you win the argument.
Yes, we all know you don't care whether the surge is still killing more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did. Why should I provide evidence you've just claimed doesn't matter? Sure, the number of car bombs is up. Sure, the number of suicide bombers is up. Sure the number of hospitals, doctors and other health-care professionals is down. But to Mixner, these things are irrelevant.
Now, in an amusing bit of misdirection he wants to make the topic "teh suge." But a reader might notice that Matthew's post is on the "decision" to invade Iraq." Which means that, unlike the thickwitted ideologue Mixner, I am on topic when discussing how much worse people like Mixner have made the lives of the Iraqis.
And he thinks I'm the one who is insane? Ha!
Why should I provide evidence you've just claimed doesn't matter?
I didn't claim it doesn't matter. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein, or don't you?
Now, in an amusing bit of misdirection he wants to make the topic "teh suge."
Er, you raised the surge (sorry, I mean "teh suge"), not Mixner. Apparently, you now think you're misdirecting yourself.
Mixner, pretending you aren't also posting as "Not-as-stupid is insane" isn't convincing. Pretending that you are "evidence based" is not convincing either.
Want to provide evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a more violent place than George W. Bush's Iraq? No? Didn't think so. In fact, you can't defend your support for the 2003 assault on the Iraqi people. That the escalation of the conflict in Iraq, combined with the arming of local thugs, combined with the results of ethnic cleansing has resulted in fewer deaths than Bush's previous level of chaos does not in any way justify the brutal assault on the Iraqis in the first place - the point of Matt's post.
So, fuckwit Mixner, put up or shut up. But you can't. Just as you were too stupid to know that there were benchmarks for the escalation and that fewer than one in three had been met, you are too stupid to provide even the barest of evidence on the violent death rate. I'll give you a hint, you can look it up.
Want to provide evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a more violent place than George W. Bush's Iraq? No? Didn't think so.
I'm not sure why you expect me to provide evidence for statements I didn't make. You claimed: "Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein."
Do you have any evidence to support this claim or don't you? To quote yourself: "Put up or shut up, fuckwit."
I'm sure you understand how this works Mixner. You are an ignorant bloodthirsty asshole who supported the slaughter of Iraqis. The post contends that Rice supports the decision to start murdering Iraqis. A position you support.
Until you can provide some evidence that they are better off under your bloody dictator, you aren't in a position to demand evidence.
Come on, you want to refute me? Go ahead, provide something that approximates evidence. If you were so certain of your position you could do it. I don't have to - I've provided more than enough indirect evidence of my position. All you've done is go "no it isn't." Which, while funny in a Python sketch just demonstrates you are every bit the moron I have claimed you are.
You claimed: "Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein."
Do you have any evidence to support this claim or don't you? To quote yourself: "Put up or shut up, fuckwit."
She should be prosecuted for War Crimes.
Hey, Mixner, since nobody was running around blowing up Hussein's people at the same rate that the US troops are being blown up, clearly he wasn't killing enough people - not to mention displacing four million more - to piss off enough people to do that.
Also, we have good estimates as to what the kill rate is today - some three hundred thousand Iraqi civilians and another million as a result of the general carnage. The Hussein estimates are considerably less over a considerably longer period of time.
So STFU, moron troll.
I just found an asshole on a par with you. Some nitwit back in 2003 claimed that the civilian deaths in the war were trivial compared to Saddam's reign:
Here is his quote:
"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.
By contrast, taking at face value Iraq's Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf's recent claims of 500 Iraqi civilian deaths since the start of the campaign we are left with the tragedy of 38 civilian deaths daily since the start of the war."
Well, guess what, fucktard? The civilian deaths for the last five years have been considerably in excess of 70-125 per day. And the total matches or beats Saddam's rate over a mere 1500 days as opposed to EIGHT THOUSAND DAYS.
So again, shut the fuck up, moron.
Then there's this:
Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds
http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?articleId=446&menuId=1
Wed 18 May 2005May 18 - Responses to a detailed survey conducted by a United Nations agency and the Iraqi government indicate that everyday conditions for Iraqis in the aftermath of the 2003 US-led invasion have deteriorated at an alarming rate, with huge numbers of people lacking adequate access to basic services and resources such as clean water, food, health care, electricity, jobs and sanitation.
"This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq," Barham Salih, Iraq's minister of planning, said in statement, adding: "If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration."
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) conducted the far ranging survey, titled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004," in cooperation with Iraq's Ministry of Planning.
Researchers determined that some 24,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US-led invasion in 2003 and the first year of occupation. Children below the age of 18 comprised 12 percent of those deaths, according to survey data.
The study also indicates that the invasion and its immediate aftermath forced more than 140,000 Iraqis to flee their homes.
The 370-page report evaluating the survey, which was in turn based on interviews conducted with more than 21,000 Iraqi households during the spring and summer of 2004, might not end the controversy over civilian casualty figures, but the study's authors drew a narrower range of estimated deaths. They report that the total number of war dead is between 18,000 and 29,000.
But they also acknowledge that their numbers are derived from a question -- posed to household members concerning dead and missing relatives -- that "underestimates deaths, because households in which all members were lost are omitted."
Other sources have reported widely varying figures for civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count, a website that tracks reported civilian deaths in Iraq, put the total number of civilians killed by military intervention at somewhere between 14,619 and 16,804 during the time covered by the UN survey.
A survey published last fall in The Lancet, a renowned British medical journal, extrapolated that 98,000 "excess civilian deaths" had occurred in Iraq during roughly the same period covered by the UN study, compared to the number of deaths to be expected in relative peace time. The authors of that study, who based their findings on interviews with fewer than 1,000 Iraqi households in various regions, were also careful to note that based on the same confidence level as the UN report, the possible range ran from 8,000 to 194,000 deaths.
Child Malnutrition WorsensIn addition to deaths attributed to warfare, Iraqi children have suffered from a lack of adequate nutrition since 2003, the survey reports.
Data from the survey indicates that 23 percent of children between six months and five years suffer from chronic malnutrition, while 12 percent suffer from general malnutrition, and 8 percent experience acute malnutrition.
The malnutrition figures are consistent with statistics from previous, smaller surveys cited earlier this year by Jean Ziegler, the UN's expert on malnutrition.
Ziegler drew harsh criticism from US officials in March when he told the UN Commission on Human Rights that child malnutrition rates in Iraq had nearly doubled since 2003. Ziegler said the rise was "a result of the war led by coalition forces."
In addition to war, the new UN report suggests that more than a decade of harsh economic sanctions against Iraq, enthusiastically supported by the US and British governments, has had a major impact on the health of Iraqi children.
"Most Iraqi children today have lived their whole lives under sanctions and war," the study says, noting that "the suffering of children due to war and conflict in Iraq is not limited to those directly wounded or killed by military activities."
The survey notes that children under the age of 15 make up 39 percent of the country's total population.
Health Care Facilities Dilapidated, Doctors FrustratedYears of sanctions and war have also had a major negative impact on Iraq's health care system, once considered among the best in the Middle East, authors of the survey observe.
So, again, STFU.
Mixner, I've provided evidence, you haven't refuted it. Car bombings, suicide bombings, and ethnic cleansing are all features of the occupation, they were not under Hussein. These things are known - even by thick-witted goat-blowers like yourself.
Shouldn't you morons be at a pro-Robert Mugabe rally? Only socially handicapped white guys chained to their computers and ex-Ba'athist goons believe things were better under Saddam, even with the benefit of outdated, bogus statistical propaganda and transparent attempts to blame the US for everything everyone does in Iraq, from AQ to garden-variety criminals.
Over 80% of the Iraqi population is Kurdish and Shi'ia. NONE of them are saying things were better under Saddam. If you actually talked to some of them instead of depending on anti-American websites you'd know that many of them consider the idea to be an insulting joke by ignorant foreigners. But then, some Americans thought Hitler and Stalin represented The Future.
Saddam ran a neo-Stalinist police state that terrorized the region, invading or otherwise attacking the neighbors causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives; repressed its own population killing hundreds of thousands more; manipulated the sanctions in such a way as to tighten the regime's grip on power and kill perhaps a million of Iraq's most innocent citizens; and disrupted the world's trade in vital commodities in such a way as to cause world recessions of incalculable cost.
The idea that all this was in the past, let bygones be bygones, is just beyond foolish. Analysis of captured documents post-2003 proves that as sanctions crumbled, Saddam was fully prepared to return to business as usual, including the wmd program he'd used to kill tens of thousands of people. There is no statute of limitations on genocide, and a violated ceasefire agreement even without the systematic defiance of the only system we have to enforce internationally agreed norms of state behavior, routinely sanctions a return to offensive operations.
The idea that clowns like Hack and -stupid actually represent a serious constituency in Iraq or anywhere else is risible. The more they behave like disturbed adolescents, the clearer it becomes. As in the past, events will unfold without anyone paying any particular attention to their antics.
And now we have the return of the complete fucking idiot robert powell. A man so pathetic that he still can't explain what, in 2002, was a valid justification for bombing the fuck out of the Iraqi people.
No one, you mindless maggot on the corpse of thought, is saying "let bygones be bygones." This expression of idiocy is entirely yours, created from whole cloth. Just like your fucking stupid defense of Iraq's current dictator that says he isn't responsible for the security of the people. Sorry moron, rule one of an occupying force is that they are the government and the government is responsible for the safety and security of the populace. If you can't do it, don't invade.
Now, fuckwit, provide some EVIDENCE. You say that things are better for the Iraqi people. Show it. Show that millions of displaced, hundreds of thousands dead, and god knows how many wounded all as a result of Bush's brutal assault on these people has made their lives better.
The difference between us seems to be this, you incredible toad, I know that Saddam Hussein was bad. But I'm not so stupid or so bloodthirsty as to think that the way to change things is to destroy the lives of the people who were oppressed.
You, dipshit, are the only one who supports oppressive dictators. You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between, for example, not supporting the death penalty for McVeigh and supporting right wing bombings.
Similarly, you simple-minded terror loving goon, the fact that I recognize that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States and that there was no humanitarian crisis demanding we invade is not the same as being a supporter.
Shorter robert powell "you were oppressed, now you're dead - at least you aren't oppressed. Where the fuck is my thanks?"
Let's assume that we institute a plan whereby we slaughter the least popular 20% of the population. Let's assume that 75% of the remainder are fine with this idea. We have three-quarters of the populace on our side. Pretty big majority. It's still fucking wrong. But powell hasn't provided any statistics that indicate that Iraqis are better off. Nothing on power generation, oil output, availability of medicine and food. Nothing. Just bland assertions that anyone who says things aren't better under Bush's bootheel is "anti-American."
Mixner, I've provided evidence, you haven't refuted it.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that "Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein." None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Not one iota of evidence.
I'm not interested in your guesses. I'm not interested in your wishful thinking. Show me your e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to support your claim that "Iraqis are dying at a rate higher than they were under Saddam Hussein." Not some other claim. That claim.
You don't have any evidence, do you? Because you're making things up out of thin air, just like you always do.
I'm not interested in you Mixner. The next time you provide e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to support any of your claims it will be the first. This is a game like your games with supporting torture. If you had any evidence that my analysis was wrong you would provide it. You don't because there isn't any.
I'm done with you moron.
It does amuse me that Mixner level morons (like robert powell) think that the statistics on violent death rate under Saddam Hussein aren't available. Why don't I provide them? Because taunting Mixner is much more fun. Besides, were I to allow this nitwit to bully me into provide the figures he would just lie about them ("ooh, so now you trust the figures from Saddam Hussein?" prompting calls for proof that these were not, in fact, Saddam Hussein's figures, further game playing).
Better to remind this idiot that he has not once provided any evidence and that if he really thought evidence was important then he would provide some of his own. He doesn't. He's a right-wing hack interested only in wasting everyone's time. Hell, he knows Bush's Iraq has been far deadlier over the last five years than Hussein's Iraq was over the five prior to that. He's just in favor of it. After all, those brown people aren't important to him - only that he get to steal their oil.
You are welcome to the thread Mixner.
Why don't I provide them?
Because you don't have them and you're just making things up. Same as you always do.
Everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that Condi Rice is hot!
Condi Rice is an ugly, psychotic bitch.
Much like SLC.
I provided some evidence and Mixner (and lying SOS Powell) ignored it. There you go.
Trolls, the lot.
RSH,
I provided some evidence and Mixner (and lying SOS Powell) ignored it.
You didn't produce any evidence for the proposition in dispute. But never mind. You're in the "too stupid to bother with" category anyway.
Powell's psyched that we're getting the oil and we got to watch 200,000 wogs die in the process, a little bonus for him.
As for Mixner, he'll never understand that even if Iraq turned into Switzerland tomorrow, it was of course an immoral choice.
Finally, what both idiots like Mixner and Powell don't realize is that the Iraq War was just a great wealth transfer from the American poor to the American wealthy.
Robert Powell's proud, the american rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and 200,000 wogs got killed. Perfect.
Given the level of "argumentation" by the blame-America-first brigade, it's no wonder they are perpetually on the outside looking in when it's time to make important decisions.
Even knuckle-dragging mouthbreathers like Hack and -stupid should know that the often stated legal imperative to overthrow Saddam Hussein was based on the fact that HE STARTED THE WAR! Between the time Iraq invaded, raped, and annexed UN member and US ally Kuwait and 2002, when Congress overwhelmingly approved the invasion and spilled a lake of ink explaining exactly why it voted as it did, Iraq had systematically and comprehensively violated the ceasefire and sixteen other Chapter VII Resolutions. It took one (1) Chapter VII Resolution for sainted Harry Truman to send us to the "war of choice" in Korea that killed two million people, including about 40,000 GI's, in three years.
Iraqis now have MUCH better nutrition, more money, a rapidly growing national economy, more freedom, more political say, better relations with their neighbors and the world community, and much more hope for the future. Except for a few remaining hot spots, things are much more peaceful than they were when they were subject to the depredations of a genocidal police state that maintained a more-or-less continuous state of war with the neighbors and the international community.
But don't let facts get in the way of your reflexive hatred of the people and governments of Iraq and the US. Folks like you nearly always find a dictator to support and apologize for.
"Iraqis now have MUCH better nutrition, more money, a rapidly growing national economy, more freedom, more political say, better relations with their neighbors and the world community, and much more hope for the future. Except for a few remaining hot spots, things are much more peaceful than they were when they were subject to the depredations of a genocidal police state that maintained a more-or-less continuous state of war with the neighbors and the international community."
That graf is, to put it mildly, DEEPLY debateable, I'll put that debate aside for a second.
The crux of the matter that it WAS NOT UP TO US to attempt to create this "better" situation, and we unleashed a horrific torrent of violence (and committed much of it ourselves) on a foreign population that was ZERO threat to us (and pretty much no threat to it's neighbors).
"Folks like you nearly always find a dictator to support and apologize for."
Fine. Folks like you are always happy when brown people die.
Except for a few remaining hot spots, things are much more peaceful than they were
Shorter Bobbitt: "all you wogs should feel grateful."
That stick up his ass is the size of a tree trunk.
You can't debate it mike, because it's a fact. Be a sport, do some research. Learn something, then get back to me.
It became "up to us" at the point we decided, in a giant bi-partisan majority domestically and in concert with most of the world's most important democracies internationally, that regime change in Iraq was the only practical way to bring the war started with full legal authority and ample justification in 1991 to an acceptable conclusion. If you remove a regime, you're responsible to put something in its place. Why not a democracy?
Folks like you seemed to be perfectly okay with killing a million of the most innocent Iraqis while tightening the regime's grip on power and enriching its collaborators through the "working" sanctions. It's "none of our business" if whole populations are wiped out with nerve gas, and an aggressive fascist police state controls the world's most strategic real estate while actively undermining the basis of the post-war international security architecture.
Fortunately, no one outside the media is paying attention to this sort of juvenile nonsense, then or now.
Comments closed July 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"So what?" V.P. Dickless Cheney.
Posted by JohnMcC | July 4, 2008 3:17 PM