Comment exchange

So I’ve been writing some lengthy comments in response to other comments, and instead of continuing to do that, at least for this batch of comments, I figured I would just post them here because I feel like it, and because I think this conversation is somewhat interesting.

dmarks said:

“The US has become a militaristic/terrorist organization under the leadership of George Bush”

It is as it was before: a rather anti-terrorist organization. The blame for the civilian deaths lies with the terrorists who use civilians as human shields.

Jolly Roger said:

dmarks appears to have had a healthy glass full of the Kool-Aid; how approproate for November 18!

If dmarks hadn’t been swilling the wingtard poison, he’d know that Chimpy’s war on Iraq means that we simply don’t have the resources necessary to stop or punish activities like these. I guess maybe going after ACTUAL threats isn’t such a bad idea after all…

unrulytravller said:

I have to disagree with blaming terrorists for the deaths of civilians caused by U.S. actions. Sure, the “bad guys” sometimes hide in populated areas, but that doesn’t mean that we have to fire missile strikes into those areas. Those civilians are what is conveniently termed “collateral damage,” but in truth they are much more than that. They are people trying to live their lives in a peaceable way. Ordinary folks just trying to get through the day, but because we (the U.S.) think that we are right and just and know the only way for the world to go they die. There are alternatives to just blowing up a bunch of people and letting god settle it.

We could warn the civilians, or work with the Pakistani government in a cooperative effort to actually strike the targets we are going after. Of course if we did that, we could no longer kill people indiscriminately, and would–heaven forbid–have to start taking some responsibility for our actions as a nation.

And did you miss the part about the Saudi Royal family being big sponsors of terrorists? And how the Bush family is good friends with the Bin Laden family? And yet we are a “rather anti-terrorist organization,” except of course for those terrorists and those who fund them who can make some of our more powerful elected officials and citizens money.

So in a way, you are right, “it is as it was before” in the sense that we are still hypocrites who condemn one form of terrorism while accepting and practicing another kind. Oh, and what about water-boarding? Despite what the Supreme Court or Department of Justice say, that shit is torture, and last time I checked torture spreads terror, so there is another example of how the U.S simply can no longer claim any moral high ground because we torture, we imprison unfairly and unjustly and for indeterminate amounts of time, and we blow the crap out of villages in sovereign nations with which we are not at war, all under the blanket excuse of “we are fighting the war on terror and to make America safer and the world a better place.”

And yet, we behave as terrorists so we should be fighting ourselves, we have, in fact, helped make the world a more dangerous and despairing place, and as far as our safety is concerned, I really doubt that we have become any safer since the war on terror began than we were before it started.

dmark said:

Jolly: Sorry, I am not as up on the blind partisan blog lingo as you are.

Going after actual threats, such as Saddam Hussein (a major terrorist kingpin who had attacked us many times and promised to do it many times more) wasn’t a bad idea at all. After all, our likely future Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, voted to retaliate against the terrorists in Iraq. So did the Vice-President Elect. I guess they are both “wingnuts” too?

@Trav: You make some good points. However, about “And how the Bush family is good friends with the Bin Laden family?”, you miss the fact that the Bin Laden family is vast beyond what typical Americans know. Using that type of logic, you might as well call those who enjoy friendship with Ted Kennedy “friends of rapists” becsuse William Kennedy Smith is in the Kennedy family. And the Kennedy family is much smaller.

unrulytravller said:

Right, Saddam and his “army” were so much of a threat that they were defeated within two months of the invasion. Newsflash: by the time we invaded Iraq, Saddam was all talk and no bite. We had successfully kept him and his country down through sanctions, both economic and food. We were sanctioning them into starvation and the stone age.
So Saddam was not an actual threat, and I would say that five years, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and billions upon billions of dollars would disagree with you and say, that in fact, it was a bad idea to go after the “threat” that was Saddam.

I can’t speak for Jolly, but I will say that Clinton and Biden were misguided and just plain being stupid when they voted for the war in Iraq. As was anyone else who thought that Iraq was going to be the next place for terrorist training camps, especially those used by Al Qaeda–the ones who attacked us.

The invasion of Iraq was trumped up–how many reasons were we given before it was finally decided (after the invasion might I add) that we are there to “spread freedom and bring democracy to the people of Iraq?” First there were the terrorist ties, which have been disproven. Then there was the yellow cake uranium, which turned out to be a lie, and of course there were the WMDs. This one we were sure of because we had given Saddam some WMDs when he was fighting Iran in the 80’s. Maybe not nuclear capable, but definitely large and dangerous weapons capable of mass destruction. Again, this turned out to be false. By this time, though, the nation was too scared and confused to know what was true and what was false anymore. Then the invasion happened, Mission Accomplished happened, and we have gone on killing and spreading terror in the name of security and democracy.

And Bin Ladens aside, the US, under several administrations–Bush Sr. Clinton, Bush Jr. Reagan–has been friendly with the Saudi Arabian government. Never mind the fact that they do, openly, support terrorists. Never mind the fact that something like nine of the men suspected of hijacking the planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Those facts are just too inconvenient, so let’s forget all about them because the Saudis have oil, and America, she loves her oil. She loves it so much that she will tolerate one group of terrorists while condemning another, all the while not realizing what a terroristic whore she has become.

Now before I get any “if you hate America so much get out of here” comments I want to make two things clear.
One: I am not in America right now, so I have, in fact, gotten out.
Two, and more importantly: I love my country. It has its problems, sure, but I still think that it is one of the best on earth. I love my country and I care about it. Loving one’s country does not mean you have to be blind to its actions, nor does it mean that you have to embrace every act it takes as if that act were the only one and true act. In fact, I would argue, that to love your country, especially a country like America, one sometimes needs to speak out against it, call it dirty names, slap it around a little, as it has slapped you around, and vocalize your belief in what the country should or shouldn’t be.

We won’t always agree America and I, but I know that when the dust settles we will still be together, and then watch out because there is going to be some hot and wild make up sex. And that, my friends, makes it all worth it.


6 comments on “Comment exchange

  1. JollyRoger says:

    Hillary and Joe aren’t wingtards. They’re cowards. They went with the flow instead of examining the evidence submitted by people on the ground in Iraq, who were surely in a better position to know.

    What you call “blind partisan lingo” is actually accurate description. I’m not a partisan, meaning that I recognize both delusional stupidity and crass cowardice when I see it.

  2. dmarks says:

    “First there were the terrorist ties, which have been disproven. Then there was the yellow cake uranium, which turned out to be a lie, and of course there were the WMDs.”

    Do you want links to the numerous reports during the late Clinton Administration (as well as early Bush) that detailed the terrorist organizations funded and hosted by Saddam Hussein?

    At the root of the yellow-cake story is the fact that Saddam Hussein sought to import something from Nigeria, and it is highly likely that it was the infamous yellow-cake.

    More than 500 WMD have been found since the invasion. These were WMD that were specifically proscribed as part of the cease-fire agreements, it was illegal under them for Saddam Hussein to have them, and Saddam Hussein and his apologists said that there were none anymore.

    @jolly: Biden and Mrs. Clinton made informed decisions to go after a major terrorist kingpin. This is one reason Hillary is a good choice for Secretary of State.

    Blind partisan refers to Limbaugh-style tactics of being too immature to call Presidents by their real names, and using such “cute and clever” insults as Chimpy, Slick Willie, Nobama, etc.

  3. yes I would like links concerning Saddam and his terrorist ties. Especially inn regard to the threat he posed to America and why we had to invade Iraq. If you have those links, then you must also be aware of the Saudi’s connection to terrorism, and my question still remains unanswered: why was it okay for US to attack Iraq under the guise of fighting the war on terror, but it was also okay for US to ignore that fact and leave Saudi Arabia alone. I am not advocating war, I am just asking, why aren’t we going after the real threats. You know, ones where we wouldn’t have to do any revising once the invasion began?
    About the yellowcake? “He sought to import something from Nigeria, and it is highly unlikely that it was the infamous yellowcake?” Right. So he wanted to import something, not the yellowcake, and yet Colin Powell stood before Congress and the Joint Chiefs of staff and said that it was yellow cake that Saddam was attempting to import. So it was a lie, a misdirection, and yet another false reason given for the invasion.

  4. dmarks says:

    I now saw your comment over on Valkyrie which explains your assumption that I was going to launch into some sort of “why do you hate America” thing. I rarely read wingnut/moonbat blogs, so there are a lot of tropes and lingos and laws that I just do not know.

    I can’t recall having made that accusation before, and I would not make it lightly. I would not apply it to any on Obama’s team, or any of his actual competitors during the fight for the Democratic nomination (I am referring to actual competitors, not joke candidates like Kucinich…. whom I am not sure about). I would reserve it for Al Queda, of course. And perhaps Howard Dean, who once said he hated half of the people in the country. Hating half of America goes far toward hating America, doesn’t it? And perhaps George McGovern, who once said he wants the terrorists to defeat us.

  5. To be clear, I was not directing that comment at you. And the “why do you hate America?” thing in the post, again was not directed at you specifically, but at anyone who resorts to that kind of thing when they are faced with an opinion that is less than rosy (especially about America) as some parts of my post were. It was a disarming device meant to address that possible response and make clear that I do not hate my country, even if I say bad things about it from time to time.

  6. dmarks says:

    It is probably common in the blind partisan moonbat-vs-wingnut blog community, which I have mostly managed to avoid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s