Blogcritics: Comments on "What do the Americans want from us now?"

Comment by Billy Brady

Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:49:18 EDT

Man i miss u Harryson!!! DAMN this sux im here in English thinkin of all the good times we had in shop and with chewy. O well man take care dude!!

Comment by stacy

Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:20:52 EDT

Song: Stacy's mom has got it going on, she all i want nd ive waited so long, stacy cant u see your not the girl for me, i know it might be wrong but im in love with stacy's mom!!

Comment by Ned

Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:18:22 EDT

My name might be ned but im not a bed. haha bush sux weeny and so does america

Comment by Harryson Lima

Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:16:44 EDT

Bush is an idiot.if he wants all of are kids to enlist then why dont his?? he needs to think about how the poor people always fight the wars otherwise he will go down and so will america. fuck jesus christ- ps from justin v.

Comment by Nancy

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:06:25 EDT

I always felt that if Bush wanted to set Iraq straight so very badly, he should have taken up residence in Iraq and bankrupted THEM instead. And took those obnoxious twin tarts with him so they could justify their existance & do some actual work of value instead of bar hopping every night.

Comment by Harryson Lima

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:27:51 EDT

you people can stop kissing bush's ass... he cant run this country at all!!

Comment by Harryson Lima

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:26:03 EDT

this is stupid!!

Comment by the evil queen

Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:12:37 EDT

another excellent post, brian. thank you. xoxo, jared

Comment by Brian Flemmig

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:52:55 EDT

Thanks, Michelle.

Comment by Michelle

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:26:57 EDT

I really like the use of the word "liberate" in the post. That's how I imagine a good satitre to be!

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:03:01 EDT

andy, I think you give what is probably an accurate preview of what we'll hear if the military occupation of Iraq remains, um, military (i.e., violent). No matter how bad it gets, no matter how many of the "bad Iraqis" (i.e., the ones who don't want freedom) are killed or locked up, we can always say, "Hey, it's better than they had it under Saddam." I mean, that's a really high bar. Or low, depending on how you look at it. Anyway, there's lots of leeway. I have no comeback for it, I have to admit. You're right--as bad as it gets, it probably won't be as bad as Saddam. Yay! Eric, "...not the Crusades model again?"
That was an offhand comment, appropriate to the Christianity motivation--which I imagine Bush and his supporters feel is a nice side benefit to the war. That converting Muslims into Christians is a strong desire of some of Bush's most important supporters is, I think, undeniable. How much that will impact the occupation/liberation of Iraq, I don't know. That's why I only mentioned it in passing. "I have no problem with you keeping a clear eye on what happens next to make sure we follow through on our promises, but I see no basis for such abject cynicism."
The basis: the history of every other outside occupier of Baghdad, the history of the British Empire, and...well, history. Oh yeah--and the record of those who are in charge of this occupation. I am deeply skeptical that the particular American leaders in charge right now will conduct themselves with honor and grace in this occupation. So far, the pattern getting into the war has had bald-faced lies woven into its fabric. The war utterly depended on lies. Additionally, the war depended on contempt for the international community. Additionally, George W. Bush himself has shown nothing but contempt for the rest of the world since taking office. Additionally, the White House's own master plan for our security requires dominance over literally every single country on the globe, to be maintained through the "reaffirmation" of military force. This isn't my opinion. This is their plan. Lies. Contempt. A stated desire to dominate. An infatuation with military deployment. Yeah, I'm cynical about the notion that these qualities will lead to fairness and justice in Iraq.

[Newsweek]

Comment by NC

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:57:32 EDT

Speaking of the Crusades: as I understand it, the goal of Christians there wasn't so much the conversion of people of different faiths as it was the killing of them. Killing people because they don't believe in the same god as you. I wonder, which of the world's major religions currently most adheres to that principle? HMMMMMMM.... Oh well. I'm sure socialism will straighten it all out. Just look at the track record!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:42:29 EDT

Brian, not the Crusades model again? Do you really think converting Muslims to Christianity has anything to do with this? If it's about conversion there are way more fertile grounds than the heart of Islam: China has a billion people with NO RELIGION AT ALL; there are tens of millions of animists ripe for the plucking in Africa. "Freedom" doesn't mean in America's interest: it means in the native people's interest, which will ultimately be in our interest - market economy democracies don't fight each other, remember? I have no problem with you keeping a clear eye on what happens next to make sure we follow through on our promises, but I see no basis for such abject cynicism.

Comment by andy

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:37:05 EDT

you are so right! Ok send Saddam back in because it's so clear now that things were better with him!