I do not see any links or references for the 'worldwide outpouring of sympathy' for Saddam in your post.

From the CBS news article linked,

...The photos have not provoked much of an outcry in the Middle East...The Al-Watan newspaper said, "It is the right of those who were tortured by the tyrant to gloat."

...The U.S. military in Baghdad said the publication of the photos violated its guidelines "and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals."

Manning: "...It is only tortorous [sic] to those loyal Saddam sycophants - otherwise known as the anti-war movement - but also to those Ba'athists and their fellow sympathetic terrorists in Iraq."

Nice -- equating legitimate, patriotic American 'anti-war' folks to baathist terrorists.

So when do you start rounding up "liberals" for a "shower" and a good "de-lousing"?

Manning, from here on out, EVERYTHING YOU WRITE IS SUSPECT.

Pig.

Manning: "...but as for everyone else who are up in arms over this - especially the British themselves - it only confirms that they'd rather embrace Saddam than be seen to appear pro-war or on America's side."

Maybe we should lock Tony Blair up at Gitmo.

=========

"You're either with us or against us -- or maybe both." --- Mark Edward Manning, coming unhinged in the throes of his nationalistic hallucinations

Question: Has Saddam been physically abused here, or even mentally tortured? No. Therefore, it's no violation of the Geneva Convention.

Wrong. Photographing prisoners of war in humiliating circumstances goes against the Geneva Conventions.

Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.

I would say that taking photos of a prisoner in his underwear constitutes public curiosity.

bhw, thanks for the clarification re. the Geneva accords.

Apparently, (post-Abu Ghraib) everyone in America knows about that stipulation -- except Manning and most of his fellow Right-Wing Blowhards.

===========

BTW:

In the interest of accuracy, I suggest that the headline:

"Photos prompt outpouring of sympathy for Saddam"

should be changed to:

"Photos Prompt Outpouring of Hateful, Distorted Bullshit from Manning"


Just tryin' to be helpful,
Shark

Can't we just blame this whole thing on Newsweek? It's so much easier than accepting responsibility ourselves.

The enemy doesn't hestitate to display humiliating and Geneva-violating photos of our military or civilian captures, prior to beheading them. They don't hestitate to show the beheadings, either, which is even more of a violation. So why should we worry about insulting or 'humiliating' captured enemies? And don't give me that bullcrap about 'we don't want to sink to their level'. Sure we do. Why not? In fact, I think we should sink even lower, and not apologize for it, either.
My point is, if we're going to wage a war, then f'chrissakes, wage a war. That means no holds barred. Don't dick around with it and pussyfoot w/"rules" like walking over eggs; no enemy in the history of war has ever played by the rules, and neither should we. If we're that worried about our image and The Rules, then we shouldn't have gone to war to begin with.

In other words, "Bring it on!"

Bush said, "bring it on," but then he spends the next several years whining about America's image? Y'can't have it both ways: either you're beating the crap out of someone, or you're not. If you are, then don't worry about your image because it's gonna be demonized by the enemy anyway. That's what I find delusional and downright schizoid in all this. The US is out there waging an unnecessary and unpopular (with almost everybody except neocons) war, and yet our fearless leaders are wondering why we aren't being hailed as heros? But I digress: the point is, if you're going to go to war and win, then go do it, do whatever it takes, and to hell w/popular image or ditsy "rules". Play to win. What's that old adage: there are no rules in love or war?

Or in the case of Saddam's undies, "KEEP 'em on!"

Nancy, here's one good reason we should adhere to the Geneva Convention regulations: WE AGREED TO THEM.

Therefore, we are violating our own oath to behave or not behave in certain ways. If we do not do what we say we're going to do with POWs, then how can we be trusted to do what we say we're going to do with anything else in the global community?

What little credibility we may have had left is getting flushed down the now famous toilets ....

Forgot: ref, Saddam getting sympathy for being seen in his skivvies, now THAT is really, really wacko/psycho. This guy is a mass murderer and ultimate sadist/serial killer, and people are SORRY for him? For anything that happens to him? If so, this is an instance of human stupidity being so monumental, we deserve to get wiped out by SARS or HIV. Let's all be sorry for Stalin, Hitler, and all the other great monsters of history while we're at it. There's also the whole issue of anybody giving a rat's ass about this. Obviously some people have waaay too much time on their hands, and waaaay too little lives of their own for them to be fixating on photos of Sadism Hussein in any condition except dead.

Nancy your position - that we should become them - is dangerous and disquieting. Think a little more on that, please.

No, don't just hit reply. Think a few.

I've been thinking on this for years, and I still don't understand why we're supposed to tie our own hands being as noble as the Lone Ranger's horse, thereby inflicting additional pain, suffering, and effort on our side that is pretty much unneccessary - not to mention on those caught in the middle. Do you tell me you think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima to bring the war to an end was wrong? Do you mean that Russia sacrificing its own to defeat Napoleon was wrong? Do you think doing whatever had to be done to defeat Hitler & Co. was wrong? Puh-leese! If that's wrong, then long live error. It becomes a choice between the lesser of two weevils, as they say; and if you think that something is a big enough evil to warrant war, then you go to war and you do whatever is necessary to win. Period. If it isn't, then you don't go. Period. Pretty logical & straightforward.

How would we be inflicting more pain on our side by not photographing prisoners of war in the underwear? And then releasing the photos?

nancy: "...And don't give me that bullcrap about 'we don't want to sink to their level'. Sure we do. Why not? In fact, I think we should sink even lower, and not apologize for it, either."

Mindless claptrap from yet another Ugly American.

The Good News: Nancy, you have a great future ahead of ya!

re. the post-9/11 question:

"Why Do They Hate Us?"

~ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

To put it another way, "why do they hate us, but not the other side (who does stuff so much worse)?" After all, we may have a mania for naughty photos, but we're hardly beheading anyone. Would they prefer we start doing that?

Ref: the job thing; thanks, I sent your recommendation to Bush.

Shark: "Manning, from here on out, EVERYTHING YOU WRITE IS SUSPECT."

So you say, little Sharkie-parkie. Am I to be frightened by that declaration or something?

Who died and made you know-it-all? (Er, on second thought, forget it. I think we know who ...)

Aaman: "I do not see any links or references for the 'worldwide outpouring of sympathy' for Saddam in your post."

Well, with all due respect, Aaman, here you go.

Maybe it's not the world after all, but certainly it's the mainstream attitude in Britain. Pay close attention to the entries by people from the UK. It's very refreshing to know that they're more concerned about the feelings of a murderous dictator than about any possible positive outcome of this war.

Where's the Support the Troops sentiment in the UK? It doesn't exist. Being a British soldier has to be the most thankless job in the universe.

It always has been - They had the original "Forgotten War" in Afghanistan, after all.

>>Wrong. Photographing prisoners of war in humiliating circumstances goes against the Geneva Conventions.<<

But is is humiliating? He looks pretty damned good for a 68 year old who lived in a spider hole for months. Plus the underwear are clean and they've clearly let him have access to hair dye.

>>Nice -- equating legitimate, patriotic American 'anti-war' folks to baathist terrorists.<<

He gets a pass on this Shark. He gets a pass because there ARE anti-war groups here in America which have raised money for terrorists. There are direct links from some of the CPUSA surrogate groups to terrorist surrogates. I've covered some of this before here.

Dave

Dave, as I quoted from the Geneva accords:

They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity.

Having a photo taken of you in your skivvies -- without your permission -- and then "leaked" to the media isn't exposure to "public curiosity"?

Granted, it's the least egregious offeense in the list of no-nos, but it's still a violation.

I know, BHW, I was just making a point about how relatively trivial an offense it is.

This is the work of one individual looking to make some money. He's going to be punished appropriately, and that's just about all there is to the story.

Dave

I always thought Saddam a boxers man myself.

Nice package btw.

Sounds like a tempest in a teapot, MEM.
Nothing that I have read elsewhere backs up your assertions.

The silence from the Arab world on this
issue has been deafening.

Bhw..I have not bought a Newsweek for over a year. I would rather read time but most of the time I hit the net for my reading. Even if I did read newsweek, I am not responsible for a poor decision their editors made.

dee, I have no idea what you're talking about.

SFC Ski: "Nothing that I have read elsewhere backs up your assertions."

Either you don't care to see it, or you'd simply have to live here.

And, if I'm wrong, don't simply tell me - prove it to me. My argument is that there is a ton of sympathy for Saddam, especially in the UK. Your job - prove me wrong.

Actually, MEM, it's your job to make me vbelieve that what you cite backs up your assertions.

Your headline states an outpouroing of sympathy, but your primary cite indicates a mix of symapthy, apathy and derision for Saddam. In a part of the world where people take to the streets to express their discontent, it's just not happening. Now, if there are demonstration in your home country, IIRC, Britain, then why not talk about that?

I personally wouldn't have published the photos, but I wouldn't call myself symapthetic toward Saddam.

I personally wouldn't have published the photos, but I wouldn't call myself symapthetic toward Saddam.

Egggggzactly.

Shark on Herr Manning: "Nice -- equating legitimate, patriotic American 'anti-war' folks to baathist terrorists."

Nalle: "...He gets a pass on this Shark... because there ARE anti-war groups here in America which have raised money for terrorists."

Raised money for terrorists? Knowingly?

You mean lIke the best friends of the Bush's: the Saudi Royal Family?

Fucking Hypocrites.


Will Manning "get a pass" if some 'patriotic' nut-case right-winger takes Manning's irresponsible words to heart and kills an innocent "anti-war folk" as a traitor to his country during a time of "war"?

feh. Manning doesn't get a pass on any of this bullshit post. It's hate-speech hyperbole meant to incite violence against liberals while sounding patriotic. In reality, people like Manning are the most un-democratic, unpatriotic dangers to American democracy and stability.

And as to his ridiculous "Right-Wing Chicken Little" cry of "outpouring of sympathy" for Saddamm -- as Ski, Saxman, et al. have pointed out, there's hardly been a peep from the Arab world about these photos.

But Manning figures the deal is this: He makes some wild ass assertion -- and it's your job to prove him wrong.

Manning's posts constantly remind me of chickenshit, verbal imitations of the burning of the Reichstag on February 27, 1933: just excuses to do away with our liberties -- to be followed by the Night of the Long Knives aimed at the "unpatriotic, anti-american, liberal, left-wing, intellectual elite."

Talk like this is not only highly UNPATRIOTIC, it's fucking dangerous.

(Oh wait, did I just equate Manning with a Nazi?)

Naw, just the tactics.

Shark, you need some Haldol, man. Manning's post wasn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. Surely you know that when you start making the nazi comparisons you've slipped over the edge into ineffective ranting?

Plus, no one, not even Arab terrorists, gives a rat's ass about Saddam appearing in his underwear. The only people making anything of it are political opportunists, particularly far-left agitators here in the US, because no one but their constituency is dumb enough to care.

Dave

funny, every once in a while, i get bored and think it'd be funny to take somebody's commentary and run it through one of those 'translate this page' things.

when i translate dave's comments back into english (from whatever 'target' language i've chosen), it always comes out like this:

"You are stupid. Shut the fuck up you dolt."

True enough in this case, Mark. But at least I'm polite enough not to come right out and say it. Plus, I do explain how people demonstrate their idiocy. I have no idea why they're idiiots, of course. It seems to be part of the human condition.

Dave

Ohh, Mark, will you do my comments too? I have always wondered how I translate.

Nalle: "...at least I'm polite enough not to come right out and say it."

No, you're a deluded, dishonest, disengenuous chickenshit who confuses 'politeness' with condescending bullshit that happens to lack cussin'.

But I still luv ya!

Nalle: "Manning's post wasn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. Surely you know that when you start making the nazi comparisons you've slipped over the edge into ineffective ranting?"

Comparing liberals to terrorists is like comparing Jews to rats; it encourages an irrational demonization -- and justifies pretty much anything, included murder.

PS: How long did it take the Christoid Right-Wing talk of "abortion doctors" as "murderers" before some TERRORIST lunatic started killing doctors and nurses and blowing up shit?

i would dawn, but i don't need eric jumping in the car and driving all the way out here to kick my ass into next week.

having stayed out of most political commentary for a while now due to a severe headache, I must commend both Dave N and Shark for movign several steps in the direction of civility and actual discourse. I didn't say civility had been reached, but I can't help but notice a certain level of respect creeping into what used to be utterly hateful lob-fests.

>>No, you're a deluded, dishonest, disengenuous chickenshit who confuses 'politeness' with condescending bullshit that happens to lack cussin'.<<

I can skip the politeness and add the cussing if you like, but it's not my style.

>>Comparing liberals to terrorists is like comparing Jews to rats; it encourages an irrational demonization -- and justifies pretty much anything, included murder.<<

Shark, I still don't see where he really did what you think he did. There's this one virtually incomprehensible sentence in his post which kind of says that leftists sympathize with Saddam, but it by no means says that leftists are the same as terrorists. I know it's painful to read Manning's writing, but read that paragraph again. I don't think it's on the same level with Ewige Jude.

>>PS: How long did it take the Christoid Right-Wing talk of "abortion doctors" as "murderers" before some TERRORIST lunatic started killing doctors and nurses and blowing up shit?<<

But that's an entirely different issue. The people calling them murderers and the people bombing the clinics were basically the same people.

Dave

Eric, yeah yeah, FU!

Naw, just kiddin'. Actually, E, Nalle and I have a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship similar to a lance and an infected pustule.

(I'm the lance. Guess who's the pus.)

==========

Dave, seriously, if you can't parse:

"...those loyal Saddam sycophants - otherwise known as the anti-war movement - but also to those Ba'athists and their fellow sympathetic terrorists in Iraq..."

--Then I can't help ya.

"Maybe it's not the world after all, but certainly it's the mainstream attitude in Britain. Pay close attention to the entries by people from the UK. It's very refreshing to know that they're more concerned about the feelings of a murderous dictator than about any possible positive outcome of this war."

i'm british. i am against this war.

i do not give a shit about the feelings of a murderous dictator. i dont give a toss.

i am aware however, that we have done absolutely nothing about Zimbawe. why? because it has no oil. zimbabwe is shagged. we do nothing. get down off your republican soapbox and look at the "facts" of the "war"... you were lied to. end of.

I haven't heard so much "sympathy" as concern that this kind of thing is unhelpful to our cause, which is Bush's position. I don't think there is much sympathy anywhere toward Saddam

Dave Nalle: "Shark, I still don't see where he really did what you think he did."

Dave, you must understand, this is what Shark does, and does best: Sees shit in conservative posts that the author never wrote or asserted. This is his raison d'etre here on BC. He'll go on like this for time immemorable, no doubt reminding us that he's a true, patriotic American.

Just ignore the smell of burning flags from his backyard, nod your head and say, "Yes, Shark, you love your country. I so believe it ..."

Then, laugh, as you will be quite entitled to do.

Salmoncatchingbear: "i am aware however, that we have done absolutely nothing about Zimbawe [sic]."

Yeah, right, Salmon: If America dared to make one move toward liberating Zimbabwe, you'd join the Socialist Workers crowd in crying "racism" and damning America for her "imperialism."

Don't pretend differently.

Shark: "Dave, seriously, if you can't parse: '...those loyal Saddam sycophants - otherwise known as the anti-war movement - but also to those Ba'athists and their fellow sympathetic terrorists in Iraq...' then I can't help ya."

Not that I'm putting words in Dave's mouth, mind you, but did it ever occur to you why Dave cared not to comment on that valid phrase, Sharkie?

>>Dave, seriously, if you can't parse:

"...those loyal Saddam sycophants - otherwise known as the anti-war movement - but also to those Ba'athists and their fellow sympathetic terrorists in Iraq..."

--Then I can't help ya.<<

Well someone can't parse it. What it says is that people in the anti-war movement are sympathetic to the Ba'athists, the terrorists and Saddam.

You said:

>>Nice -- equating legitimate, patriotic American 'anti-war' folks to baathist terrorists.<<

Claiming that he was saying that Anti-War folks ARE terrorists and baathists.

Newsflash - being sympathetic to a group doesn't mean you're equivalent to the group. Manning didn't equate them, he said they were in sympathy. Not the same thing at all.

I sympathize with the PLO but I'm not going to strap on a bomb and blow up an Israeli bus.

Dave

MEM - you can hardly play innocent. Shark is exaclty right to his original claim of your original, false claim of sympathy for Saddam.


Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and briefs
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me lucifer
'cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste

Why has the Arab world been so quiet on
this subject?I know that he was hated in
many quarters but usually they would
have something to say somewhere about
this.Do they not care or are they a bit
indifferent about it? Feel like maybe he
is getting some come-uppance or what?
It is strange there has been almost no
reaction. The Arab media aren't exactly
known for being shrinking violets when
it comes to giving opinions.

Do you think crap like this sign is healthy?

If a Mosque posted the same sign about
the Bible could you just imagine what
the uproar would be like?

What uproar? I expect to see signs like that posted by unthinking extremists. People like that exist in Christianity and in Islam, and I wish we could take both groups and drop them on a desert Island to see who's still alive after a year.

Dave

Addendum to Comment #50: Has the US done
so many fucked up things in the past two
years that running photos of Saddam in
his drawers is not even noticed on a
large scale? After Abu Ghraib, throwing
insurgents into rivers to drown,beating
them to death,"accidental" killings in
Afghani jails etc.,the "suspected" mis-
handling of the Koran, is shit like the
public humiliation of Hussein not even
deemed a big deal anymore? I think we
really need a new PR team here folks.

And no I'm not sympathizing with Saddam
just pointing out that we've made so
many errors that they don't even cause
much outrage anymore,they're becoming to
be expected.

Unfortunately, people like you are in a minority, Dave, at least in this regard

HW, I think that what you describe might be the case with some other issues, but not here. This issue of Saddam in his skivies is just trivial by any measure.

How is this different, really, from a picture of a pregnant Gwyneth Paltrow topless on a beach, for example? Saddam is a celebrity, the Sun makes their money off of Paparazism. This just fits right in.

Dave

How is this different, really, from a picture of a pregnant Gwyneth Paltrow topless on a beach, for example?

Um, because Gwyneth Paltrow isn't a prisoner of war and in US military custody?

True, BHW. But to the average reader of the Sun who's eating spam and waiting in their council flat for their number to come up so they can get their bunions removes, all of that means nothing. He's just another celebrity caught in his skivvies on the cover of a tabloid. And that's why no one is raising a stink about it. The finer points of the Geneva convention don't really come into play.

Dave

"Yeah, right, Salmon: If America dared to make one move toward liberating Zimbabwe, you'd join the Socialist Workers crowd in crying "racism" and damning America for her "imperialism."

Don't pretend differently"

erm... what makes you think that you know me at all?!

i would not join any crowd, i think for myself and do not need join any mob.

i would not at any point think that it was a racist invasian, i would see it as a true effort to enable real democracy in an oppressed land.

how you dare to suggest otherwise is beyond me, you really think that you can put everyone in a box with a label? how about all the soldiers who have been put into a bag with a toe tag because of this war on oil. sorry, terror.

Parsin' 'em up here, boss!



Herr Manning: "...It is only tortorous to those loyal Saddam sycophants - otherwise known as the anti-war movement - but also to those Ba'athists and their fellow sympathetic terrorists in Iraq..."

Dictionary.com - ["Sycophant - A person who seeks favor by flattering people of wealth or influence; a parasite; a toady."]

Can't say I've ever heard a liberal, anti-war person flatter Saddam. Apology due from Manning.

========

SHARK SAID: "...equating legitimate, patriotic American 'anti-war' folks to baathist terrorists."

[Dictionary.com: "Equating - 1) To make equal or equivalent... 3) To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent"]

Apology due from Nalle.

==========

Herr Manning; "...the British themselves... they'd rather embrace Saddam..."

[Dictionary.com: Embrace - 1) To clasp or hold close with the arms, usually as an expression of affection 4) To take up willingly or eagerly"]

Can't say I've heard ONE BRIT embrace and/or show affection for Saddam.

Apology due from Manning, Der Fuher of Crazed Nationalistic Hyperbole

========

Equal does not mean 'the same as', Shark. No apologies coming from me. Keep looking for definitions that work better for you. Manning still didn't say what you think he did.

Dave

Shark: "Can't say I've ever heard a liberal, anti-war person flatter Saddam."

One name: >George Galloway. Galloway, who told Saddam in person, "Sir, I salute your strength, your courage and your indefatigability". Galloway is now a standard bearer for the anti-war movement, not only in Britain, but elsewhere too.

"Can't say I've heard ONE BRIT embrace and/or show affection for Saddam."

This same man, Galloway, is now a minister of parliament for a London council, having beaten the pro-war Labour incumbent. It speaks volumes that nobody cares about Galloway's obvious affection for Saddam; all that matters was that he was anti-war. So, in an albeit indirect way, and certainly establishing their guilt through association by electing him MP, that's several hundred Brits for you right there. Besides, Shark, did you even bother to read this thread that I provided in Comment #19? See for yourself.

Apologize? Over Saddam's tighty-whitey covered ass I will.

Ms. Nancy wrote (and yes, I am ashamed for her): "don't give me that bullcrap about 'we don't want to sink to their level'. Sure we do."

You do. Decent people don't.

Digustingly, she continued: "Why not? In fact, I think we should sink even lower, and not apologize for it, either."

I wonder if this person is a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian. (If so, she needs to reread her new testament.) And I must pray for her in hopes that she will develop a heart and a conscience and realize that the harm people do to others -- even to those who, like Saddam Hussein, have done egregiously horrible things -- does big-picture harm to the entire world and all of humankind.

Or, as little kids learn before kindergarten, two wrongs don't make a right.


As far as the running debate over this execrable essay, it appears to me that Mr. Manning is saying that IHO the antiwar movement has something in common with Baathists and their ilk, not necessarily that they are equal or on the same side of any issue save being upset at humans humilating other humans using humiliating photos. What the unfortunate author also said, however, is that IHO those against war are sycophants of Saddam. That statement is vile, foul, and damn near unforgiveable. However, fellow peaceniks, it is completely unsurprising that right-wingers will stoop to such semantic treachery. Just look again at the comments of the eminently avoidable Ms. Nancy. If you want to save your blood pressure, my dears, I recommend ignoring these sorts of things -- all you're doing is giving Bushites glee. Why would you want to do that? Help them if they are starving or bleeding on the street,absolutely, but otherwise? Stay far away if you want the slightest bit of peace while you live in a world and society that glorifies violence and the violent, that finds joy in the suffering of others, and (if Ms. Nancy's remarks are a guide; in my experience, her words show her to be so fucking typical it is sad) slanders those who dare to hold different views. And in the interest of fairness, it's important to call out those lefties who act like righties (see Ted Rall and his comments after Reagan died).

My, my ... aren't we self-righteous. Save your prayers and your shame for yourself; you need them far more than I do. As for me being a right-wing christian, I'm going to save this and show it next time I get accused of being a liberal atheist!

Self-righteous? Hardly. Obviously, you don't know me. And I will send my prayers out as I decide, not you. (And it sounds to me that another round of prayers for you is in order.)

Actually, I do believe that you are an atheist. Which is great -- I know some fantastic people who don't believe in a deity. But you -- a liberal atheist? That notion gives me a stomachache. But hey, this is a weird and terrible world: There certainly are right-wing, violence-embracing atheists here. A pity, I suppose, but diversity is supposed to be a good thing.

At any rate, have a good life. If violence makes you happy, though, I pray for all our sakes, that your existence is a sad one.

>>There certainly are right-wing, violence-embracing atheists here.<<

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Dave

Apparently, so do I.

The day I want to get closer to liberals, I'll start believing in Allah.

Natalie Davis: "And I will send my prayers out as I decide."

Eh, Natalie? Isn't it the job of uber-liberals like you to ensure that praying soon becomes illegal?

Please don't lecture us about prayer when you don't even have any faith.

Why does anyone need to have sympathy for Saddam? It would seem Allah graced him with a respectable jimmy, which means of course, he can find work in adult films once he gets this whole "gassing the fucking hell out of his people" thing behind him.

"Isn't it the job of uber-liberals like you to ensure that praying soon becomes illegal?"

Only if you buy into stereotypes, Mr. Manning. Do you?

"Please don't lecture us about prayer when you don't even have any faith."

Whom have I lectured about faith? I merely said that I would pray. What problem could you have with that? As for me not having faith, where in heck have you gotten that notion? True, I have no faith in your nation, in your government, and in you, but I have a wee bit of faith remaining that some goodness lies in humans and I have loads of faith in the Creator.

Dawn, I suspect humor was the impetus for your last post, but here is a serious answer to your question, "Why does anyone need to have sympathy for Saddam?"

In my belief, Jesus said we were to treat the least of us the way we would treat him, meaning JC. If one considers Mr. Hussein among the least of us, it would behoove us and the world to treat him with some semblance of compassion. The same would be true for any human, be it an Ann Coulter devotee, a member of Hitler Youth, or a terrorist (even a terrorist who has suckered some into seeing him or her as a "leader" rather than "terrorist.") That doesn't mean those who commit crimes against humanity should not receive justice. Mr. Hussein, one of the few to actually have a shot at being punished for his crimes, deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars. But IMO, meting out justice does not include humiliation. I pray Lynndie England understands that concept now. It depresses me considerably and endlessly that others do not.

With all due respect for your beliefs and values Natalie, I do not hold any sympathy for evil, vile murderous individuals. I reserve sympathy for those who deserve, and Saddam hasn't shown one act of contrition for his actions and the dead are still being found in Iraq: dead he is fully responsible for.

Oh, and I was trying to be humorous, it seemed better than expressing how much I wish someone would just kill Saddam already.

re: Galloway's quote

Well, Manning, since we're pulling out old actions by ONE MAN and drawing conclusions about ENTIRE NATIONS, check this out.

um, who's that synchophant!?

"...the British themselves - it only confirms that they'd rather embrace Saddam..."

"The American GOP -- it only confirms that they'd rather embrace Saddam"

Literally!

ahahahaha

Apropos.

Different time, different era, different circumstances, Shark. The U.S. was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. The Reagan admin. was obviously of the mind of the phrase, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It wasn't right, but circumstances were what they were and we can't change that.

This is in stark contrast to Galloway who had no special reason whatsoever to shake Saddam's hand and lavish him with praise. His tune hasn't ever changed. Galloway has consistently been Saddam's most committed defender.

Sorry, Shark, but you haven't entrapped me at all. Nice try though.

You're going to pray that someone has a sad existence, Natalie? For someone pretending to be a Christian, you've gone far, far astray, babe. Careful or you're going to blow your cover.

No, I don't want you to be unhappy, Ms. Nancy. But if there is a choice between violence/making yo happy and peace/making you sad, I have to opt for peace.

("Babe?" You don't know me and I do NOT appreciate the familiarity!)

on the photo of Rumsfled playing bootlicker to Saddam Hussein, Manning sez

"...Different time, different era, different circumstances..."

Shark replies:

"...same hypocrisy, same opportunism, same greed..."


re: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

-- DOH!

According to that rule, I guess I do support the terrorists.

re: my accusation against Manning's infamous rhetorical tactic of using "actions by ONE MAN and drawing conclusions about ENTIRE NATIONS..."

--the fucker remains silent.

...Which is always a good approach when one's methods are indefensible.

Mark Edward Manning: Different time, different era, different circumstances...

The MEM discovers moral relativism.

Saddam Hussein was killing people the whole time.

Who is the "fucker?" Is that Saddam or Mark? I thought we were supposed to be a little cordial with fellow BC's. It seems the compliments for civil discourse were handed out too soon.

It really bugs me when crazy liberals give us good moderate liberals a bad name.

Man do I look forward to voting for McCain in 2008 - 'cuz everyone on either side had lost their ever-loving fricken mind.

Thank you, Dawn. I could support McCain in '08. I did vote for him in the primaries in 2000.

Here's hoping we can patch up this Vietnam era-like rift.

By the way, Sharkie, I wouldn't talk about characterizing an ENTIRE NATION or going on about ONE MAN. You do it with America and Bush all the frickin' time.

Won't happen. And what makes a moderate liberal necessarily a good thing? It's the middle of the road I find most dangerous.

Natalie, on a personal level I love you, on a political level your rhetoric is tiring and wearisome.

I am a moderate liberal/moderate conservative - and the only people I am dangerous to are murderous criminals.

Nice generalization though. How refreshing to have people only see one side of everything. Because clearly they are always right and everyone who doesn't think like they do is a fucking moron.

Sheesh, that kind of thinking will get us....oh, wait it won't get us a damn thing.

Dawn, I love you too, but I could say the same to you. I loathe generalizations because there are some moderates and conservatives that I love. At the same time, who is the greatest threat to this world and to all that is good and decent? The answer differs for everyone, and I can only say what I believe. And I know which philosophies are dangerous to me and mine. Yes, wacky libs and rightists can be dangerous, but from this vantage point, the wacky get away with the terrible, unconscionable things they do because the middle allows it. If the middle believed in true equality, the law would reflect that. If the middle believed in peace, your government would have to give up all things involving war and corporate culture. It doesn't. How can I see the middle as anything but a danger to all I hold dear?

As far as being overly political, everything, from what I see, is political. Everything.

I've called no one -- especially you -- a fucking moron. Do I believe you are wrong on many issues? Absolutely, and vice versa.

So. Should speaking be limited only to those whose rhetoric you find pleasing?

And you want weary? Try living my life under these circumstances.

It bears repeating: I love you, Dawn. I have few friends here and am grateful for the exisence of you and Eric. But if I can't speak and speak honestly, I should not be here. Just say the word.

My point Natalie isn't to chase you off, I have managed without trying to do that to more than one Blogcritic, and you are one of the few who I have genuine affection for.

If I was overly harsh, I am sorry.

I suppose what I was trying to impart was that it's pointless to stray wildly to one side or the other when most Americans (and people in general) fall somewhere in the middle.

The middle is where compromises must be made. I want most of the things that liberals want; equal rights for ALL people regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or creed, I want the poor to be helped and given opportunity to help themselves, I want education to be the ticket for everyone, especially those in poverty, reproductive rights blah blah blah. All the good stuff, but I also want and advocate a strong defense, fiscal responsibility, thoughtful use of tax dollars, more violent criminals to be viciously and severely punished.

I mean I guess you could say I want to have my cake and eat it too, the best of both worlds, the whole kit and kaboodle.

BUT, we can't have both worlds, so we must compromise. Why? because we live in a society filled with people of all kinds of ideas and beliefs about what is right and what is wrong.

This country is never going to be strictly liberal, it just won't happen because it's not reasonable and it doesn't mesh well with capitalism.

But if moderates don't bring things back to the middle, we could very well keep moving right until the middle just gives up in frustration.

The middle is going to save this country and we need more people there and less people on the fringe.

That's where my weariness comes from. We need reasonable people like you to come into the fold and slowly turn the ship around.

Does that make sense?

Not to me. But I love you anyway. And no, I won't become part of the middle. My feelings and fears have not changed. This is not my country; this is not my home. And the way things are, I have no choice but leave when possible. If that isn't able to happen in the not too distant future, in all seriousness, suicide is my only option.

I am NOT saying that is the plan and it is nothing that is imminent. I am stuck here (unless god blesses me by taking me in my sleep, say, tonight -- ah, if only) until my kids are adults. I sincerely hope my life and situation improves in time. If it continues as is, however, I am left with no other option. I reveal all this, Dawn, to make it quite clear that my need to flee your country and my fear of what further horror the middle and right will cause to my existence and to the lives of others are deadly, deadly serious. I am in hell.

Reasonable? I don't see how the middle could be described thusly. Sure, there are reasonable individuals like yourself, but on the whole, the middle is dangerous to me. Simple fact.

Natalie, I wish you all success in finding the place you think all will be well, but I will be surprised if it turns out to be as good as you think it will be. I have been around a large part of the world, and no place yet has been perfect. Good luck.

Here I thought you were strong, but yet you are considering an out that is nothing but giving in to those that oppose what you believe in. You have more to offer than that, and more to discover than you can imagine. I suggest a break from this debate, this stress that builds up feelings that left, right, or middle, there is no appreciation for the singular fantastic person you really are. There IS appreciation for Natalie, and although I don't know you personally, I like knowing you here at BC.

Sleep well, and come out fighting.

Natalie,
Please seek counseling.If not for your
own sake then the sake of your loved
ones of which it seems you are blessed
with many.This is said seriously and by
someone who has fought depression for
years. Since my early teens well into
adulthood. There is all kinds of help
available out there: Support networks,
free counseling,etc. It is all easily
accessible. This is written without any
condescension, smart-assed overtones or
whatever. Peace.

I appreciate that, Mr. Saxton, but it isn't necessary. I am fine, and I am not the problem. And as I said, if Plan B becomes necessary, this won't happen for at least a decade. Beyond that, and most importantly, there is no reason for any of you to be concerned for me. None. Focus on people who matter.

Suicide, though sometimes an appealing option, isn't really an option after all. If everyone felt the way you did, then I imagine there would never have been an equal rights movement and all gays, minorities, Jews and the disabled would have been eliminated long ago.

It's the fight to fix the wrongs and change the future that should keep a good hearted person like you going. It's okay to wallow in your misery for a short time occasionally, but you have children so you know the reality of life: no one ever said it would be easy.

Would you counsel your own children to just throw in the towel like that? You'd be surprised how many loved ones follow suit when you do something heinous like that. Seriously, anyone with as much love for their family as you have wouldn't even DARE consider that as option.

Canada isn't that far away, I'd rather lose you to the Canucks than have you cash your chips in early.

Please try to find the good. Lots of people here love you, so I imagine that those in your life must adore and cherish you.

Try to find the good while under the cloud of inequality? I've been here 43 years and the very search seems more impossible every day, especially since 2000. See, that's the thing. I really wonder if the MOR crowd can grasp fully the magnitude of the suffering caused by the policies and inequities they allow. If they did, they would give up all that "find the good" and "deal with it" crap. You guys are equal under law and likely will die equal under law.

Dawn, I've been fighting for my entire life. What is good about that? Things are becoming more frightening and intolerable each day. And my hope is gone. I think about Jim Carruthers a lot, and IMO, he's way better off than those of us he left behind.

Throwing in the towel? If that's how it appears to you, you obviously don't get it. The breaking point is past. And my faith in supposedly reasonable people is gone.

Let me stop before someone finds me tiring and wearisome. I am probably too late for that.

I will do what I must. Expatriation is Plan A. But if that fails, and given being unemployed and all I have is Plan B. If not for the kids, I would have been gone, one way or another, long ago.

Cash in my chips. As if I had any. And my relationship with suicide is a long and storied one. Nothing surprises me.

Dear Natalie Davis,

"I think about Jim Carruthers a lot, and IMO, he's way better off than those of us he left behind."

Please speak for yourself on this one. I appreciate that you are going through a tough time, but believe me, I am WAY better off than Jim right now.

I can't help wondering if BC is really good for you right now? If you feel pain at the comments - on the slew of bigoted cristo posts we are wading through right now, many of them (the posts) attacking your sexual orientation, do you really need to put yourself through reading this stuff?

You don't seem to want any help or consolation. Yet you seem to be unable to stop wallowing in something that hurts you. Why?

I wish you the best of luck finding a job that gets you on the path to expatriation. Seriously.

Take care.

Bennett

Blogcritics: A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics. --

WARNING could cause suicide.

/dark humor]

I agree Bennett - a seemingly wise suggestion.

Take Ms. Davis at her word. Discussing it so openly means she's thought of it - as so many have - and discarded it - as so many have.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Stark. Plan B is down the road a bit. I am slipping this coil soon only if God loves me. Too many obligations at present.

Mr. Bennett, I appreciate your advice, but given that I always feel this way, should I give up BC altogether? I have considered that too many times to count. But truth is, I need to write and this is a platform to do so and Eric, whom I love, is here. I do this to write and I consider it part of my activism too. In other words, though I hate it, I am compelled to do it. Truth is, I know I raise points many people have never before considered. I may not change minds, but I do make some people think. That could blossom into something wonderful for someone like me a couple of generations down the road.

A wee bit more, then I'm done.

Truth is, I know I raise points many people have never before considered. I may not change many minds, but I do make some people think. That could blossom into something wonderful for someone like me a couple of generations in the future. The middle of the road needs to know the suffering it causes.

My honesty bothers people, I know. I am sorry for that. But you know what? The status quo makes more people than you may think suffer and long for escape or, failing that, death. It's a painful truth, but a truth nonetheless. And it is my responsibility, my duty, to speak truth.

Meaning, I am not insane. I don't need counseling. I am deeply depressed, but it would be crazy not to be, given reality. Think about it. Seriously. Depression is the only sane response to the insanity of life in this country and much of this world. It's a horrible thing to say, but it is the truth and I am painfully honest always. I'm just telling it as it is. Because I must. And honesty is part of integrity, which I must uphold to the best of my ability because, frankly, that's all your world allows me.

If, by some chance, the plan's implementation is moved to an earlier time, if you care about me (and there is no reason I can imagine why you would) be happy for me. Know that I am better off. Infinitely. 'Cause God knows, happiness is something that is not part of my existence as things are. I look around every day with the knowledge that most of the people around me are partially to blame for the hell millions suffer.

Of course, I am sure the real concern is that I am seen as buzzkill. A downer. I am spoiling your (general you) good time. Not my intention, of course, but that seems to be the message emerging here.

Same thing I said to Dawn: Don't worry about me. I am not worth your concern. But if you want me to leave for your benefit, just say the word.

Just plain 'ol Bennett will do. Think of it as an informal title, like "waiter".

I have enjoyed many of your comments, and yes you do stimulate my thought process, even when you are whacking me with my own words.

I have a small problem with the whole JuJu thing though. I believe that gonzo (think "busboy") was actually drawing a comparison between the strident religious bigotry that we've seen in the last week or so, and was reacting by putting forward his "Faith Of The Week". No disrespect intended, but parody definitely intended.

It was a way to both reduce tension, and point out the ridiculous nature of religious bigotry.

Just my opinion however.

Oh, please stop saying that you don't matter, it doesn't wash. The fact that this conversation is taking place...

...is a waste of space and is a digression from the actual topic.

And the statement sure washes for me. If I say something, it is because I believe it to be true. Otherwise, there is no point.

I appreciate satire, to be sure, but those who write satire should know that sometimes what reduces tension for you increases it for others.

Ms Davis...

your Writing is always a welcome Read, if it aids in your sorting things out and utilizing some time in the day for yourself....then merely do it here, or place the link..i for one, will read it..i am fairly certain others will as well

you are NOT alone and you DO matter

as for JuJu..please check the other Thread when you please...but Bennett Knows my Way

i hope that aids in Clarity

Excelsior!

If someone thinks I matter, it is a surprise to me. Don't know quite how to take that. But make no mistake -- nd you'd have to know details of my life to understand completely -- I am all alone.

your humble Narrator sez...

*everyone is Alone, and no one is*

perhaps a prose paradox professes a poignant Principle?

Excelsior!

Perhaps. However, I am alone. Here, at home, everywhere. Lonely too, but alone is safer.