Does anybody care to take a guess as to what the international outcry will be over reports that 2 American troopers were tortured and killed by Islamo-fanatics in Iraq? How many days of condemnation will the MSM dedicate to pillorying Islamist fanatics? How many of the world’s leftist elite will step forward and condemn the crime without the usual excuses thrown in (ie: If the USA wasn’t in Iraq, this wouldn’t happen)? How many lefty blogs will condemn the crime without drafting moral equivalency arguments that include Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or Haditha? And, how many politicians from the “progressive” camp will condemn the deed without piggy-backing into a “withdrawal timetable”?
Celestial Junk:
Brace yourselves boys and girls, it’s going to be ugly. Amnesty will of course decry the fact that Islamist terrorists, after this sadistic act, are now even more depraved than the Abu Ghraib bum-pile perverts. Leftist blogs the world over will warn Muslim fanatics that they had better start wearing uniforms if they want to be accorded Geneva convention rights.
Update: From LGF the KOS response.
ET
The Permanent Members of the Security Council have to agree to invade otherwise it is not sanctioned. Russia and France saw no reason to go further than they had already gone. That is to say let the inspectors finish their job and then we’ll see. Bush didn’t want that because he knew when the arms inspectors finished their job he would have no pretext for invasion, and he sorely wanted a pretext to invade.
Did you notice how the coalition of the bribed is quiting one by one…Spain, Italy, Japan…Did you notice how many allies did not go?
The horror was much worse in Rwanda, but Bush didn’t go there did he? Everyone know that North Korea is a nightmare of a country, starvation and gulages galore,torture you name it. Bush didnt go there either.
No it is quite clear why Iraq was chosen. Saudi Arabia is not the place to have as your centre of operations for the strategic contol of the oil states. Iraq is perfect. Right in the middle of things. There are three reasons to invade Iraq, location, location and oil. It also helps when Saddam is a weak despot and you are assured of a slam dunk victory. Slam dunks are hard to resist, even for a cowboy.
Sorry, no terrorists in Iraq. Saddam was a weak, paranoid despot. The last thing he would do would be to invite a competing centre of power and influence into his country. Saddam trusted no one. So how is he going to make an exception for a terrorist? Saddam may have been mental but he wasnt nuts!(you know what I mean).
Saddam knew how to handle tribalism. Kill them until they behave. i think G.Bush is beginning to respect Saddams ability to control Iraq. He could use a Saddam right about now. Ah, the irony of it all.
No, there is no altruism. No evidence for it. What appears on the surface to be altruism when scratched is found to be what it really is..self interest. There are always ulterior motives and/or strings attached. That is just reality.
steve d – I have to comment on the most egregious nonsense in your post.
1)The UN is not in charge of the world. Wars are not legal or illegal according to the UN. The US went into Iraq because (a) it had ignored sanctions and (2)terrorism in the ME had spread to the West.
2) The coalition were not bribed. Kindly do not insult other nations. They are leaving because the Iraqi forces are taking over.
3) The UN was in charge in Rwanda. Why don’t you blame the UN?
Is the UN doing anything about Sudan? No. Why don’t you blame the UN? Is the US the war-boy for the UN and all its countries?
No, Rwanda was not about terrorism. The US was primarily focused, in the ME, with terrorism. I don’t think that you have a clue about the basic causes of the current Islamofascist terrorism and its causes. That’s what the Iraq war is about.
4) The Iraq war is not about oil and it never was. It’s about islamofascist terrorism – which is something which you ignore and don’t understand.
5) You state: ‘Saddam knew how to handle tribalism. Kill them until they behave”.
Steve – that act of Saddam IS tribalism! You obviously don’t understand tribalism!! That is NOT how to deal with tribalism – by yet another tribal action!! Tribalism is the root cause of islamic fascism; it has to be ended so that democracy can emerge, and Islam can be reformed and modernized. You don’t understand a thing about tribalism or Islam.
6)No, Bush doesn’t want a Saddam tribal leader in Iraq. You only think about control; all your posts talk about control. Control of people, control of oil, hidden tactics of control, control. That’s not what democracy is about, steve, and you don’t understand this.
ET,
You’re right, I do blame the UN for Rwanda, but I also blame the US for it’s double standard.
I also don’t know how you say:
“The Iraq war is not about oil and it never was. It’s about islamofascist terrorism – which is something which you ignore and don’t understand.”
How on earth could miss Bush ranting on and on over WMD in Iraq, even long after he invaded? I was so sick of hearing the same words over and over again. That man, can’t even put two words together. And secondly, you bring in islamofascism from IRAQ??? Iraq was headed by a Baathist regime!!! That’s Arab nationalism, nothing to do with Islam. And I assure you and promise you, that Saddam has nothing to do with Islam. Even al-Qaida wouldn’t associate with him.
And don’t you know the oil fields and refineries were the most protected in Iraq by coalition (US) troops?
You seem free to make up a bunch of what-ifs. Let me make one up too. China may consider invading the US because of the rise of Christian fundamentalists. Sounds silly huh? So does attacking a nation when that nation did not attack. So does saying Iraq was attacked to prevent terror when it had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other attack on US soil.
ET, you seem to want to dispute or debate in a reasonable fashion and I appreciate that, but I don’t know why you don’t concede that there seems to be some double standards going on when it comes to US foreign policy. I tell you, the Saudi regime is an oppressive monarchy and that Bush walks hand in hand with their king like old friends and you don’t see anything wrong with that? Jordan is a monarchy and so is the UK. Does Jordan have elections??? Does Jordan have elected MPs? Apples to oranges ET. Come on.
Steve D, I don’t know what to tell you. Few people on this site seem to acknowledge any wrong doing by the US.
And the point about the coalition forces joining the US in Iraq? ET, what good was that point? Would any of those nations have attacked Iraq if the US didn’t take lead with some 150,000 troops or whatever the number was?
When no WMD was found, not even an APOLOGY was made to the Iraqis, nothing. What kind of arrogance is this?
ET, you say, Iraq violated UN sanctions, yet you know the UN is weak. If that was even remotely a just reason, Israel would have been invaded decades ago for it’s violation of around a 100 UN resolutions. Not to mention that the US will veto anything against Israel.
ET, like I said, you seem to want to discuss in a good way, but there are some blatant double standards going on and you just don’t see it.
steved – on what basis can you ‘assure me and promise me’ that Saddam has nothing to do with Islam. Really? What’s your evidence. Itaq is a Muslim country.
And you are ignoring the real problem – which is TRIBALISM. Saddam had a great deal to do with tribalism. Tribalism generates fascism in the ME. That’s Islamic fascism. That’s what the war was about – tribalism, which is the root cause of fascism in the ME.
The oil fields were protected to prevent the Iraqi military from, as they did in Kuwait, setting fire to them and destroying the economic base of Iraq. The economic base of Iraq FOR the Iraqi people. In Saddam’s era, the economic base of Iraq was also oil. But, it was FOR Saddam Hussein and his family. OK?
No, your analogy of China attacking the US because of the rise of Christian fundamentalists in the US is not relevant. Why not? Because no Christian fundamentalists have hijacked any planes and bombed any high rise buildings in Beijing.
Your chief problem, in my view, is that you don’t understand tribalism. You don’t understand the nature of the political structure and economic structure in which tribalism operates and how it becomes dysfunctional when the population reaches a critical threshold.
So what if Jordan is a monarchy? It is moving from a tribal system to a democratic system. Half of the gov’t is elected. Half is appointed. By the way, did you know that in Canada, only the House of Commons is elected? The G-G, the Senate, the judiciary, the chiefs of public corporations, the deputy ministers, on and on..are all unelected and appointed and unvetted. The ratio of appointed to elected in Canada is 3 to 1. Hmmm.
The point about the coalition forces, steved, is your continual focus on and only on the US. You ignore the other countries, who, on their own, decided to join in the war. You denigrate their action, asserting without proof that they wouldn’t have done so without the US. What you ignore is that they actually CHOSE to join in. JOIN IN THE COALITION. They made the choice. So did Canada. Do you know why Canada ‘chose’ (no vote) to not join in? Was it because Chretien is aligned with the oil interests of Chirac and Germany? Chirac is a buddy of Hussein. I’m sure you knew that already.
After months of UN wrangling, the WMD were moved out into Syria.
Again, your key problem is that you don’t understand tribalism and how it generates fascism, Islamic fascism, in the ME, and how that is deeply affecting the West. That’s what Iraq is all about. Not oil. Not even WMD.
It’s about tribalism which leads to fascism and which can only be dealt with by democracy. That’s it in a nutshell.
ET
It is well known and easily found out that Saddam kept the Imams down,doesn’t like competition remember. Saddams religion was power.
What Saddam had to do with tribalism is that he fed his own and kept the others under thumb.
It is not fascism, it is authoritarianism or despotism. However, they do have many of the same elements.
The Iraqi oil will be for the Iraqis like Canada’s oil is for Canadians. That is the oil companies take it out of the ground for $1.15 a barrel, give you 1%, then add on the rest,$65 or so between the source and the pump. A very nice business. If they pull this off they will be the real winners of the war.
To think they give a hoot about the Iraqis is a joke. If they did they would have protected more than just oil wells when they invaded.
Coalition of the bribed stands. That is geopolitical reality. America has vast economic power and uses it to full advantage. As they do militarily as well. Witness the long list of military invasions.
Cretien didn’t like Bush and was looking for an out on Iraq. He knew Iraq was a fiasco. He just convinced Bush that it had no support among the people. Our polls suggest Canadians didn’t want any part of the Iraq invasion and Bush couldn’t argue with the polls. Other leaders, conservative leaders in countries like Spain and Italy where the conservatism has a fascist bent to it agreed to go in over the wishes of the people. Both were defeated in elections since.
If Iraq was about terrorism I am sure you could find evidence other than the Bush administration say so, right?
Re: “Hey steve d., screw you. We don’t want you in our foxhole.”
And therein lies one of our soldiers basic problems.
We are stuck with steve d. and his blowhard cohorts and so is our military and our enemys understand this very well.
In the best case scenario steve d. etc. slows our soldiers down and then ties one arm behind their backs.
And guess what?
It will not be steve d etc. who get their teeth broken.
And in the worst case scenario the so called neutrals and antiwar crowd will get our soldiers killed.
Thanks greg.
I see your prospective and agree.
Did you ever see the movie The Sandpipers, where do gooder Candace Bergan gets the sailor Steve McQueen killed after he is ordered to rescue her and her dipstick father from the Chinese Boxer Rebellion?
Great movie and the story is timeless.
What a stretch concrete. A person puts their opinions on a website, and you think this “slows” our troops down? How on earth do you draw that conclusion?
Shouldn’t you be at school?
(I’m sure you’ll be dying to reply to this post with another “blowhard” type comment).
Grow up chump.
I said we are stuck with steve d. AND his blowhard cohorts.
Unfortunately it is not just one persons opinion on a website.
Many politicians from the Liberals and NDP are saying the same.
Also your assumptions about my age are laughable and IMO so are your posts.
As someone with family in this war, for me once our troops are deployed by our own government the debate is over.
I cannot abide those who, once the decision is made to send our soldiers to war will then undermine them. /spit
The thing that up set most, I think, is the fact that their was no discussion on the war or what our mission would be. Just have to look at Iraq to see what happens when you go in without a plan.
As long as we don’t get to cozy with the americans we should do ok. The fact that our troops are protecting prisoners of war from abuse makes us more welcome that others we know.
Those two americans, in Iraq, got it from the Iraqi army they were training.
Karzi’s got the Taliban in most departments of the government so getting set up by them is always a possibility.
RE: “As long as we don’t get to cozy with the americans we should do ok.”
Our “cozy” relationship is a long standing one that is inevitable as we are also for the most part, one people.
Two distinct nations, but we are family and neighbours and partners in every way and that is not going to change.
Our American allies are critical to our own success and that is true here at home as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Success for America is always a win for Canada and their loss will also be ours to share.
I also cannot abide those who would undermine our allies in war. / spit
Concrete,
So when G. Bush says jump off a bridge, be ready to do so.