"the criminal Zionist state of Israel where the average citizen consumes almost three whole turkeys a year."

I hear the gravy they use is made largely from the blood of Palestinian children, and they sop it up with their filthy unleavened bread, or "matzo" as the criminal Zionist scum call it.

Oh, and no offense. :-/

It strikes me that if a certain person had written this same article (I think we all know who I mean) it wouldn't be labelled as satire.

Dave, the Amazon book you chose to link to at the top of the article disturbs me somewhat. I have no problems with plumpness, but a perky turkey? In my book, perky turkeys are not desirable at this time of year. I wish the turkey on my plate to be decidedly unperky. I desire all of its perkiness to have been previously removed either through neck-wringing, by electrical means or by an excitingly large and sharp knife. I do not want to see my turkey running perkily around the kitchen, gobbling perkily and depositing perky souvenirs on the tile.

In short, perkiness is a quality best reserved to breasts (live, human, female, still attached). I think my position on this important subject is now clear.

Dave, why have you written a story about Turkey?

And mate, you should have included them in the little list of empires. Those Ottomans caused strike everywhere they went.

My favourite headline (possibly apoccryphal but sill good): "Man Trapped in Turkey for Christmas".

Goebbels..Goebbels.......Goebbels..Goebbels.......Goebbels

I think the prize for cleverest response may have to go to Franco on this one.

Dave

And verily it came to pass on 9/11 that many innocent turkeys escaped from the jaws of death when the twin towers anointed the heads of the little Eichmanns.

And then they came for the Turkeys, and I did not speak up, because I ... ooh, this stuffing is delicious.

Dave,

You know as I was reading your piece, it occured to me and apparently to Doc that there are some who write and comment here that your post is not an overstatement, and is, in fact, dead on.

For the record, I'm not among those.

However, that being said, it's not really so over the top as you obviously believe. That the U.S. is and has been an agent of world exploitation is pretty much true. It was true of the Soviets, the Brits and pretty much every "empire" in history. I know that there are two sides to every coin. We have also engendered a great deal of good throughout the world. But I believe we have, certainly since WWII allowed our heads to swell to the point where they may well burst in a cataclysm of self righteous rot.

It is obviously true that much of the world looks upon us pretty much as you characterize it above. That you and others deny it or thumb your nose at those who denigrate us doesn't mitigate the situation. We must get over ourselves if we are to survive. We must endeavor to be better than our predecessors. Righteous indignation will not fend off terrorists. World opinion does have its consequences - both good and bad. Believing that we're the good guys, just misunderstood, will not help us. As Andre Agassi said in the Canon camera ads: "Image is everything." How we are perceived in the world is nearly, if not as important, as what we do. American advertisers understand that. Why doesn't the government?

B-tone

...or one could say:

*eat with shame and sorrow for the turkeys and all of their human brothers who have given their all to keep your belly as full as your wallet*

quoted for truth

Baritone, as I'm sure you know, it's not viable satire if there isn't an element of ironic truth included. In this case both the truth that there ARE people like Lapdog who could easily mistake this for a serious post, and the truth that I could rewrite this piece in a more moderate tone and make the same argument and make it at least appear relatively reasonable.

Dave

Well, yeah. The piece could have been written in several keys, as it were. But the truth of it, the turkey slaughter notwithstanding, is a bit too close for comfort, or for knowing, derisive laughter.

Of course the commenter I had in mind has a more celestial monniker.

B-tone

"That the U.S. is and has been an agent of world exploitation is pretty much true. It was true of the Soviets, the Brits and pretty much every "empire" in history. "

So long as there is more than one nation on this earth, there will always be one nation that is more powerful than it's peers, and this super power will always use it's position to direct global affairs to it's own interests. That said, I'd rather it be the U.S. in that position than say Putin's Russia, or China or frankly anyone else in the world (and I think anyone who isn't a socialist or worse would be hard pressed to disagree with that).

Further, considering that the continuously negative international opinion of the activities of the US have existed way before WWII, I'd say that this matters about as much as any of our opinions (not a whole lot). American foriegn policy isn't about winning popularity contests, it's about doing what's in the best interest of this country, both short and long term. It's when we stray from that guiding principle that really gets us in trouble - and not the lack of warm and fuzzies that international idealists expect us to generate.

Great piece Dave!

The time has come for the turkeys to revolt, and revolt they have! Already many towns and city parks are being colonized by flocks of belligerent turkeys who will not be moved! I understand the whole town of Penngrove CA is intimidated by bellicose gobblers. Of course, in PC Los Altos crowds of people come from all around to gawk at the strutting turkeys at Ranch San Antonio Preserve, a popular suburban park. But then, so do the bobcats, heheheh.

What is really pathetic about this piece is that the Professional Oaf wrote it as satire--spitting in the faces of all the victims of the US genocidal mania around the planet.

No wonder everybody hates the US--and its greasy-faced obese gringos.

Keep lording it over the rest of the planet, Nalle!

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

And now the satire is complete with MR's addition of her inadvertently satirical contribution.

Keep lording it over the rest of the planet, Nalle!

Will do. Thanks for your vote of confidence.

Dave

The funniest take on thanksgiving I ever saw was the episode of WKRP when the radio station staged a promotion by having turkeys tossed out of a helicopter. After they'd splattered on the streets of downtown Cincinatti the station owner said, "As god is my witness I thought turkeys could fly."

As it turned out the little Eichmanns who jumped off of the burning WTC had as much flying skill as typical thanksgiving dinners.

see for yourselves

Moonie. I'm crippled, not blind. Try to keep your disabilities straight when u start insulting the disabled.

BTW is Lapdog's racist ranting covered under the comments policy?

#24 -- Lapdog

As it turned out the little Eichmanns who jumped off of the burning WTC had as much flying skill as typical thanksgiving dinners.

This comment goes beyond my understanding on how anyone could even think it, let alone write it and post it in public. It's a good thing you are not sitting across the table from me because my reply to this goes beyond words.

From The Mind Of The Sheeple

Oh yes, I am a sheeple, and oh so proud to be.
I'm way too smart and clever, to believe in conspiracies.
Three towers falling straight down - it all makes sense to me.
"They're all just jealous", Bush tells me, because I live so free.


Terrorists hiding everywhere, even places I cannot see.
I know they must be out there, cause I heard it on tv.
My newspaper is completely honest, it would never lie to me.
Oh yes, I am a sheeple, and so proud to be.


Did you know we saved the Iraqis? The bad guys had to flee.
And now those people love us, that they're dancing with such glee.
The whole wide world should thank us, all on bended knee.
Oh yes, I am a sheeple, and oh so proud to be.


You Conspiracy theorists are so stupid, as blind as blind can be.
Even Anti-war protestors should be hanging from a tree.
They and all the traitors - ship them off to Germany!
But me, I am a sheeple, and oh so proud to be.

Jumpin' sweet potaters, its a funny Thanksgiving article. We're seriously hunting for things to argue about now.

Franco #6

"Goebbels..Goebbels.......Goebbels..Goebbels.......Goebbels"

Lapdog #?

Splatter..Splatter.......Splatter..Splatter.......Splatter

More Franco: "It's a good thing you are not sitting across the table from me because my reply to this goes beyond words."

Thanks for the alert.

I do my best to avoid flatulent nutters.

I don't quite understand Lap's "Eichmann" line. What the hell is he implying?

As to WKRP - That was the best episode of an all too briefly lived, but very funny show.

I also loved a bit between Lonnie Anderson's character, Jennifer and Hessman's Johnny Fever in another episode when he asked to borrow $50 from her so he could impress a girl. Looking askance at Fever she says, "It can't be done."

Also funny was the reason Fever's character got fired from a California radio station: saying "booger" on the air. Different times.

Then there was Venus Flytrap's "All Barry White Week-end."

B-tone

"I don't quite understand Lap's "Eichmann" line. What the hell is he implying?"

It's a Ward Churchill reference

That's Ward Churchill the ethnic studies Prof from Colorado, no relation to Winston (the Christian gentleman) Churchill who was "...strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."

Or Ward Churchill the disgraced former academic plagiarist, pretend Indian and notorious anti-semite, who shares a three-letter acronym personality disorder with one of our most frequent commenters.

Dave

Damn, Lapdog stole my 'Krp bit. Since you used Arthur Carlson's line here's one from Les Nessman:

"It's a helicopter, and it's coming this way. It's flying something behind it, I can't quite make it out, it's a large banner and it says, uh - Happy... Thaaaaanksss... giving! ... From ... W ... K ... R... P!! No parachutes yet. Can't be skydivers... I can't tell just yet what they are, but - Oh my God, Johnny, they're turkeys!! Johnny, can you get this? Oh, they're plunging to the earth right in front of our eyes! One just went through the windshield of a parked car! Oh, the humanity! The turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement! Not since the Hindenberg tragedy has there been anything like this!"

I'm giggling even as I read this.

There goes cowpoke Nalle riding shotgun on a creaky right wing bandwagon filled with American holocaust deniers.

We don't cotton to talkin' 'bout fair trials around these parts, stranger.

Same goes fer genercide podner.

'noxious: *So long as there is more than one nation on this earth, there will always be one nation that is more powerful than it's peers, and this super power will always use it's position to direct global affairs to it's own interests...American foriegn policy isn't about winning popularity contests, it's about doing what's in the best interest of this country, both short and long term.*

I hears these notions with their 'realist' tough guy baggage a lot from nationalist types...

but you're jumping the gun...folks might disagree with what you choose to see as national 'best interest' and how you make this choice

what's your decision procedure - ?

in the best interest of this country, both short and long term

Being a jerk is never in any-one's long-term interest. Somehow it always catches up with you.

I agree with troll. What is in this country's best interests? Especially, what is in our long term interests? Just as corporate boards are easily spooked into making knee jerk responses to the up and down movement of profits, often governments make similarly quick, often ill considered decisions without consideration of the longer term effects, for good or ill, of such decisions. The decision to go to war in Afghanistan was made rather quickly, but was probably the best decision to make at the time. The decision to more or less abandon the effort in Afghanistan in favor of an all out invasion of Iraq was hasty and obviously, ill-advised. We are now living with the consequences of that decision.

American arrogance and hubris - typical big dog characteristics - have put us in the unenviable position of being more isolated from our former allies than ever before. One can only hope that the next administration finds means of narrowing the divide between us and at least some of the disaffected nations. It's a dangerous world, not a safe place to be walking alone at night.

B-tone

Brilliant, Baritone! Simply brill.

The decision to go to war in Afghanistan was made rather quickly, but was probably the best decision to make at the time.

Why has it become de rigeur to preface any statement in opposition to the war in Iraq with a statement in support of the nearly as poorly conceived but marginally better executed invasion of Afghanistan? Did invading Afghanistan stop al Qaeda? Did it catch bin Laden? Did it even go after the country from which most of the 9/11 attackers came from and from which al Qaeda gets most of its funding?

Afghanistan was arguably as much of a misdirection as anything. And the Iraq war has done far more harm to al Qaeda and done much more to pressure the Saudis into cracking down on the problem elements within their society.

The decision to more or less abandon the effort in Afghanistan in favor of an all out invasion of Iraq was hasty and obviously, ill-advised. We are now living with the consequences of that decision.

The question was about short AND long term consequences, and on a geopolitical level the invasion of Iraq served long-term objectives which could be argued to be enormously more important than anything we were likely to have ever accomplished in Afghanistan.

As I've said before, I don't think large-scale military intervention was the proper response to the 9/11 attack.

However, once you accept the idea that we're at war with Islam, or at least its radical elements, Iraq becomes the lynchpin in any strategy to neutralize the major threats in the region.

American arrogance and hubris - typical big dog characteristics - have put us in the unenviable position of being more isolated from our former allies than ever before.

Do you ever consider that those allies, rather than the US might be the ones displaying a certain amount of short-sighted and self-serving arrogance? Did you consider any other possibilities before deciding that America was solely at fault?

One can only hope that the next administration finds means of narrowing the divide between us and at least some of the disaffected nations.

It's a divide which can just as easily be closed by them coming over to us as by us going over to them.

Dave

I'd go a bit farther and propose that the idea of a 'divide' is overblown - our disaffected allies are pleased as punch for the US taxpayer to carry the expense of being the world's superpower (read international guarantor of contracts and property rights) for just as long as they can/will

"...our disaffected allies are pleased as punch for the US taxpayer to carry the expense of being the world's superpower (read international guarantor of contracts and property rights) for just as long as they can/will"

Quoted for Truth.

Perhaps it would have been a better idea for the US to invade Burma and Zimbabwe, which seem to be the most blatant examples of the denial of democracy and freedom on the planet right now?

Sorting out the mess in Israel & Palestine is obviously the single greatest thing that could be done to defuse the tensions with Islamic nations. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Iran would not have a cause to use as an obvious rallying point if this one issue was resolved.

As to troll's point, I don't understand what "international guarantor of contracts and property rights" means in any legal sense? How exactly does the US do this? Will they pop round to help me if I have a beef with a Spanish company or the neighbours? Sorry for the latter jokey question but I really don't get it.

Chris - Michael Mandelbaum in his "The Case for Goliath" argues that the US not only 'reassures' the world governments that it will ensure stability and enable 'free' trade through the deployment of its military but further takes "responsibility for coping with the most oppressive and aggressive regimes...and [provides] a currency, reserves, emergency loans, and the largest and most welcoming market for exports on the planet..." p.141

...and where you find movements against private property you'll find the US and its CIA hard at work subverting the effort

Surely if it were true that the USA takes "responsibility for coping with the most oppressive and aggressive regimes", it would indeed be planning to resolve the extremely repressive regimes of Burma and Zimbabwe, to say nothing of the Middle East crisis?

It sounds a bit like nostalgia for the days when Empires did rule their subject nations more assertively to me!

As I indicated in #37, I agree with troll's (and Mandlebaum's) characterization of the role of the US in global politics over the past several decades.

I suspect, however, that troll and I might disagree somewhat as to the value (for the world and for the US) of that role.

Dave,

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. I really love this special day. However, I would warn against belittling the suffering of our ancestors especially those whom we have not paid due respect to by us as a nation.

As a way to cope with our national shame, we do all sorts of ducking, juggling, giggling and poking. We don't simply say we have a really messed up foundation. We are a nation built on lies but we are learning and growing. Instead we say we were wrong by making fun of those who are hurt by that wrong.

Chris

Why do you guys forget the in Zimbabwe the farmers were the bad guys?

"Why has it become de rigeur to preface any statement in opposition to the war in Iraq with a statement in support of the nearly as poorly conceived but marginally better executed invasion of Afghanistan?"

Because that way a person can oppose the Iraq Invasion without seeming to be a limp-wristed pacifist. Even tough thinking, hard headed, brass knuckles quasi-hawks can oppose the Iraq Invasion.

Why has it become de rigeur to preface any statement in opposition to the war in Iraq with a statement in support of the nearly as poorly conceived but marginally better executed invasion of Afghanistan?

Two words: Karl Rove.

I'd go a bit farther and propose that the idea of a 'divide' is overblown - our disaffected allies are pleased as punch for the US taxpayer to carry the expense of being the world's superpower (read international guarantor of contracts and property rights) for just as long as they can/will

Why troll, I didn't know you were intimate with the French.

Sorting out the mess in Israel & Palestine is obviously the single greatest thing that could be done to defuse the tensions with Islamic nations.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that you're sane and sensible and therefore other people would also be sane and sensible if given a little encouragement. The problem is that the Islamic nations don't WANT to defuse the Israel/Palestine situation. They created and maintain it specifically as a pretext for stirring up anti western sentiment and directing Islamic rage in a direction they see ss less dangerous than (for example) overthrowing the Saudi government or launching an all-out war on the Shiites.

Because that way a person can oppose the Iraq Invasion without seeming to be a limp-wristed pacifist. Even tough thinking, hard headed, brass knuckles quasi-hawks can oppose the Iraq Invasion.

Yep, Bliff. I think we all get that popular explanation. My problem with it is that it makes no sense at all. We're either at war with terror or we aren't. We're certainly not at war with it in useless Afghanistan and not at war with it in strategically important Iraq. That makes less than no sense. Do we only prosecute wars where we can do the least good?

On consideration, maybe we do...part of our desperate desire to look like the good guy.

Dave

"...part of our desperate desire to look like the good guy."

We did better when we WERE the good guy, not just trying to 'look like' the good guy.

bliffle - it's been smoke and mirrors from the get go...patriotic tales we tell ourselves that are only marginally related to 'reality'

Zedd, I hadn't forgotten that at all. What exactly gave you the impression that I had?

Dave: I am perfectly aware of how some extremists are exploiting the Israel/Palestine situation. My point, which you either missed or ignored, is that resolving it is something that actually IS within the power of the Western allies to achieve and doing so would absolutely cast us as the good guys.

*resolving it is something that actually IS within the power of the Western allies to achieve*

please explain...

Dave,

"Did invading Afghanistan stop al Qaeda? Did it catch bin Laden?"

Of course it didn't. I'm not saying that our effort in Afghanistan was successful. Quite the contrary. The decision to go to war against Afghanistan was probably correct at the outset as it was the country harbouring al qaida and bin Laden. We might well have stifled al qaida's existence and caught bin Laden had we not taken the bulk of our military and turned our attentions onto Iraq.

Al qaida had no presence in Iraq prior to our invasion. Our incursion into Iraq only fed the flames of hatred against the U.S. and probably did more to bolster the ranks of all islamic terrorist organizations.

Iraq was, perhaps, a thorn in our side with Saddam in power, but, in reality, it was not a significant threat to us, or anyone. Saddam's regime was a house of cards. Maintaining the status quo there would have served us far better than an invasion.

bin Laden and al qaida had no love for Saddam or his secular regime. But our invasion of supposed "holy" muslim land played right into bin Laden's hands. It provided them with a cause celebre to rally the troops, as it were, against the evil infidel.

"Do you ever consider that those allies, rather than the US might be the ones displaying a certain amount of short-sighted and self-serving arrogance? Did you consider any other possibilities before deciding that America was solely at fault?"

Yes I have, Dave. Is it wrong for Germany or France to consider what is in their best interests? Should they just cast aside any obligations they have to their constituencies and kiss our red, white and blue asses? Do you always assume that we're the righteous ones, and the rest of the world has their thumbs up their butts?

Could it be that the Germans and French understood the lay of the land in the middle east at least as well, if not better than we? Could it be that they understood how destablizing the overthrow of Saddam could become? Could it be that they rightly feared the spread of terrorism that would likely ensue with the fall of Saddam? Weren't those fears realized with the bombings in Spain and London? Don't they have a perfect right to be really pissed at us for taking what was, in effect, unilateral action (don't give me any crap about "the coalition of the willing") against Iraq to the endangerment of their countries?

B-tone

troll, the economies of Israel and Palestine are still dependent on generous subsidies from Europe and the USA.

The decisive deployment of a combination of economic carrot and military border management stick would have an almost immediate effect.

Furthermore, simply allowing the world to see that the whole situation was being dealt with in an even-handed non-partisan way would immediately remove almost all of the justification that other external extremist elements draw upon to propagate their messages of hatred towards the West.

If we are such powerful political and military forces as some would have us believe, the only justification for their deployment would be to do something that is undeniably positive.

The question is why we don't have sufficient political balls to actually go ahead and do it. Hell, I'd even re-enlist in service to such an obviously righteous thing to do.

hmmm...economic sanctions and invasion

that's the plan - ?

troll, I would call it acknowledging that he who pays the piper calls the tune coupled with a little effective border management to ensure both sides play nice. It's pretty obvious neither country is capable of handling the situation on their own.

Ah, the comments editor is now an expert on geopolitics.

Who will wear that hat next?

Much too ingenuous. It is the US who CREATES and SUPPORTS the most repressive and oppressive regimes on the planet.

Here in Latin America, for example, there is a long shameful history of creating and propping up dictatorships in order to grab resources of the region. A history that is still going on, as the US foments the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador--and that's only the ones visible as the tip of the iceberg.

But what is REALLY shameful is that someone felt that he could write this 100% offensive Ugly American piece celebrating US genocide and try to PRETEND that it is humorous.

Nalle is about as funny as a noose in the house of the recently hanged man (as we say here in Latin America).

He, and others like him, are the reason why I will personally cheer when the US goes into the toilet of history with the rest of the Bully Nations.

Moon,

If and when the U.S. goes into the toilet, you should be prepared to live underground - literally - for a few hundred years. We won't likely go quietly.

Just curious. What do you believe would be the outcome of such a change? Do you have some starry eyed vision that love, peace and tranquility will envelope the earth and all men and women will come together in harmony and celebration of the demise of the evil American empire? Do you believe that the world will be a better and happier place living under, say islamic sharia law? Better break out your burkah, baby.

I think it's safe to say, though, that you will not live to see it happen. Chagrin, chagrin, chagrin!

B-tone

My spirit may well very well live to see it happen.

Your attitude, saying, "We will not go quietly" is precidely that of George W. Bush--who prefers to bomb IRan and go out with a nuclear holocaust.

And it is precisely THAT ATTITUDE, the gringo who takes everybody else down with him, that has created the now extremelt precarious conditions on this planet.

You have nothing but my contempt.

B-tone has joined the ranks of those for whom the carrion eater has contempt...

Props, B-tone!

O frabjous day!

Wrong again, swamprat.

I wouldn't be caught dead eating turkey.

Or being one, either.

Moon,

No, no spirit will survive you. When you die, you're dead.

Your supposition regarding the proclivities of the U.S. as regards our bellicose nature is presidely (your word) without significance.

Any country that is being 'taken down' will fight. Wouldn't Mexico? Wouldn't your beloved Venezuela?
Do you imagine that any nation would simply just sit quietly, hands neatly folded in laps allowing others to walk in and take over?

I imagine an actual battle for the U.S. - which I don't really see looming on the horizon, by the way - would be about as close to Armageddon as even the most violent of folk could ever wish for. It would be ugly. Canada and Mexico would likely fall back into the sea along with us. The cataclysm would be complete. And if your spirit was in fact hovering over watching it all, it would wither and die of profound and abject sorrow. We ain't fightin with clubs and spears anymore.

B-tone

Baritone:

Hoisted yoursdelf nicely on your own petard.

When did Afghanistan attack the US?

When did Iraq attack the US?

When did Mexico attack the US? (Only Pancho Villa and a handful of cowboys in 1916.)

When did Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, Haiti, Guatemala, Chile and a long list of other countries all over the planet attack the US.

YOU are the problem, gringos.

CR: I am perfectly aware of how some extremists are exploiting the Israel/Palestine situation. My point, which you either missed or ignored, is that resolving it is something that actually IS within the power of the Western allies to achieve and doing so would absolutely cast us as the good guys.

And my point, made earlier in response to baritone if I recall correctly, is that the forces which create the tension there will never allow the situation to be resolved, and the US can't impose peace because we don't even live there - at least short of a fullscale military occupation, which is vanishingly unlikely.

Baritone: We might well have stifled al qaida's existence and caught bin Laden had we not taken the bulk of our military and turned our attentions onto Iraq.

Except that everything we know now suggests that this isn't true. al Qaeda is and was too dispersed and decentralized for a single powerful and well aimed strike to take it out, and bin Laden had other places to hide. The potential success in Afghanistan was, IMO, always an illusion.

Baritone: Al qaida had no presence in Iraq prior to our invasion.

The left likes to promote this myth, but it's just not true. They had people in Iraq and a cooperative relationship with the government. They weren't friends, but they shared intelligence and had common interests.

Baritone: Our incursion into Iraq only fed the flames of hatred against the U.S. and probably did more to bolster the ranks of all islamic terrorist organizations.

And also got an awful lot of terrorists dead, including some who hadn't been recruited when the campaign started. There's no question today that Iraq was as much of a mistake for al Qaeda as it was for the US. Terrorist organizations are not well suited to fighting ground wars or even guerilla wars and they can't afford the cost in manpower and godwill they've paid.

Baritone: Iraq was, perhaps, a thorn in our side with Saddam in power, but, in reality, it was not a significant threat to us, or anyone. Saddam's regime was a house of cards. Maintaining the status quo there would have served us far better than an invasion.

As I've said from the very beginning of the war, invading Iraq was NEVER about any threat it posed. It was always a target primarily because of its strategic position.

Baritone: bin Laden and al qaida had no love for Saddam or his secular regime. But our invasion of supposed "holy" muslim land played right into bin Laden's hands. It provided them with a cause celebre to rally the troops, as it were, against the evil infidel.

Like kicking an ant mound. And then the ants come out and you spray them with poison and they die.

Baritonr: Is it wrong for Germany or France to consider what is in their best interests? Should they just cast aside any obligations they have to their constituencies and kiss our red, white and blue asses?

Perfectly reasonable of them. But it doesn't mean they're taking the high road, and we shouldn't let them get away with pretending they're doing anything but looking out for their own self interest, especially in the case of France which was so economically invested in the Saddam regime.

Baritone: Do you always assume that we're the righteous ones, and the rest of the world has their thumbs up their butts?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, yes. And most of the time the evidence reinforces the validity of that approach.

Baritone: Could it be that the Germans and French understood the lay of the land in the middle east at least as well, if not better than we? Could it be that they understood how destablizing the overthrow of Saddam could become? Could it be that they rightly feared the spread of terrorism that would likely ensue with the fall of Saddam? Weren't those fears realized with the bombings in Spain and London? Don't they have a perfect right to be really pissed at us for taking what was, in effect, unilateral action (don't give me any crap about "the coalition of the willing") against Iraq to the endangerment of their countries?

So you're basically arguing that capitulation is the best response in the face of terrorism? We should all be like Spain and just give the terrorists whatever they demand?

Dave

Dave - *As I've said from the very beginning of the war, invading Iraq was NEVER about any threat it posed. It was always a target primarily because of its strategic position.*

gee Dave - you should keep your piehole shut about this...what you've done is implicate the US government as the perp in a war of aggression - breach of international law - crimes against humanity and all

Let Nalle flap his keyboard long enough and he ALWAYS digs gimself into a hole. And then he just keeps digging--the fucking Gene Krupa of Blogcritics.

Please also note that Nalle did not refute with facts or even links to POTENTIAL facts a single claim that he objected to made by Baritone.

He would now have us believe that HE, Dave Nalle, had spies on the ground in Iraq--little birds who told him that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda.

Maybe Nalle is given to hopping in the sack with folks that he hates--stay the fuck away from ME, Nalle--but Saddam and Al Qaeda definitely had a hate relationship. Bin Laden even labeled Saddam an INFIDEL, for Christ's sake. They had a relationship....right, pull the other one.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

As for answering Nalle's rhetorical question:

Since the US is the Number One Terrorist on the planet, my answer is NO--capitulation is NOT the way to deal with the terrorist US.

gee Dave - you should keep your piehole shut about this...what you've done is implicate the US government as the perp in a war of aggression - breach of international law - crimes against humanity and all

It is what it is, troll. I wouldn't interpret it exactly the way you do, though. Certainly there was more than ample justification for going into Iraq, even if the ultimate objective is exactly what I've said it is.

I'll just ignore MR's usual uninformed bleating. The fact that one of the most aggressively ignorant people on earth is unaware of facts about the Iraq War doesn't mean that I have to hold a remedial history class in this comments thread.

Dave

"Certainly there was more than ample justification for going into Iraq,..."

Come now, ample doesn't begin to describe Iraq's oil reserves.

Someone's bound to correct me by pointing out that the oil in Iraq belongs to the US now.

It's got the clean drinking water too.

Dave,

Your response to me amounts to nothing more than American jingoism. In your eyes, the U.S. is always wearing the White Hat and the rest of the world the nasty black and brown ones, that always come off in a fight.

Moon is correct about bin Laden and his relationship with Saddam. There is no reliable evidence that al qaida had any connection with Saddam's regime or other elements in Iraq prior to our incursion there.

Had a concerted effort been continued in Afghanistan, the Talaban would have been weakened far more than it was after we more or less abandoned the effort. As to whether we would have captured bin Laden is anybody's guess. But with our lack of serious engagement there, it was pretty much assured that we would not, in fact, capture or kill him.

I find it disingenuous of you to still attempt to find an acceptable reason for our invasion of Iraq. Just what is Iraq's strategic position? Do you mean geographically, militarily, politically, or perhaps just the strategic location of its oil reserves? Even if that were found to be true, it just points up how we and the rest of the world were being lied to by Bush and his gang. Never about a threat? Never about spreading democracy? Never about ridding the world of a despicable and despotic dictator? Rather, just about Iraq's strategic location. I'd feel much better about dying for somebody's notion of how to gain a strategic advantage.

So the Germans and French were merely being self serving? But we weren't. No. Once again, we had our big white Stetsons perched upon our swelled heads, mounted on our great white stallions primed at the ready to save the world. Altruistic to the core.

Do you contend that the numbers of terrorists have diminished? Do you have a terrorist head count to lay on us? Sure, we've killed a bunch of terrorists - most of them abjectly poor and poorly educated young men brought in from all around the middle east, perhaps given some training and indoctrinated into the belief that they, too, will have their 72 virgins waiting to welcome them to paradise upon their earthly demise ready to give them heavenly head and divine diddles. They die in droves. So do a great many others, some at the hands of the terrorists, some at ours, much like those ants you alluded to.

But unlike the problems facing U.S. military recruiters, who are having serious difficulties in fulfilling their quotas, the terrorist recruiters are having a field day.

The French and Germans were not arguing for capitulation. They were arguing for an intelligent response and patience rather than Bush's cowboy gunslinger "bring it on" mentality, a man who basically looks upon the Iraq war as a pissing contest. They understood, obviously better than we, that Saddam's regime was severely weakened by the ongoing sanctions. The country was falling apart. It's infrastructure was disintegrating. His military - the regular army was a cipher. Neither the Germans nor the French believed that Saddam had any significant stockpiles of WMDs, nor the means to deliver them in battle. They also understood that bringing down Saddam would not further the supposed 'war on terror.' That, just as with the U.S. ludicrous 'war on drugs' it was all smoke and mirrors. We are no further along the path of defeating islamic terrorism than we are at winning the drug war.

And yes, France was concerned with their economic well being as they should have been. They were invested in Iraq. We had also been so invested at one time. We befriended Saddam and provided him with money and weapons to defeat the evil Iranians. We didn't give a shit about Saddam or Iraq. We just wanted to get a measure of revenge against Iran. All self serving.

We provided money and weapons to the Afghans - including bin Laden in their war against the Soviets. We support the Saudis who are nearly as despotic as Saddam - just not so crassly or openly. We don't get to take the high ground in the case of Iraq when our hands are covered with the blood of millions of others in other countries around the world.

Again, Dave, your jingoism is showing and it's not pretty.

B-tone

Mr Nalle says "And my point, made earlier in response to baritone if I recall correctly, is that the forces which create the tension there will never allow the situation to be resolved, and the US can't impose peace because we don't even live there - at least short of a fullscale military occupation, which is vanishingly unlikely."

So your contention is that the combined might of Europe and the USA is powerless to work for a better Middle East against a small handful of extremist governments that don't even have the full support of their own people?

And that we couldn't put in a combined military force to ensure the integrity of the Palestinian/Israeli border?

Funny how not living there didn't prevent the long term military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that the invasion of these countries appears to have done precious little to improve the global situation.

The fact that it is unlikely says more about the weakness of the West to act with honour than anything else. Our effective endorsement of the current extremely difficult situations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians is doing little but inflame tension.

Your response to me amounts to nothing more than American jingoism. In your eyes, the U.S. is always wearing the White Hat and the rest of the world the nasty black and brown ones, that always come off in a fight.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was more to the effect that in the absence of evidence to the contrary my default position is that the US is likely to be doing the right thing. I would hope that everyone takes that position, because the alternative is very unappealing.

Moon is correct about bin Laden and his relationship with Saddam. There is no reliable evidence that al qaida had any connection with Saddam's regime or other elements in Iraq prior to our incursion there.

You say this, and yet the evidence does exist and it's quite substantial. No question al Qaeda was not marching hand in hand with Saddam and they certainly had major differences, but during his time in power al Qaeda shared some interests and there's clear evidence that they worked together in some circumstances and had ongoing contact at a fairly high level. Wikipedia has an atypically thoroughly sourced article on the subject.

Had a concerted effort been continued in Afghanistan, the Talaban would have been weakened far more than it was after we more or less abandoned the effort. As to whether we would have captured bin Laden is anybody's guess. But with our lack of serious engagement there, it was pretty much assured that we would not, in fact, capture or kill him.

If you remember the actual Afghanistan invasion, we had the kind of serious commitment you talk about and followed it through to the point where the country really was thoroughly dominated, the Taliban were dispersed and in disarray and we came as close as we ever would to catching bin Laden, but we failed in that mission before we ever began pulling troops out to go to Iraq. When our strongest efforts failed, then we began to back off in Afghanistan and let the situation degenerate.

I find it disingenuous of you to still attempt to find an acceptable reason for our invasion of Iraq.

Don't misrepresent my position here. I never said it was an acceptable reason for invading Iraq. I just said it was the REAL reason for doing it. Doesn't mean I believe it was a good idea.

Just what is Iraq's strategic position? Do you mean geographically, militarily, politically, or perhaps just the strategic location of its oil reserves?

All of the above, but most especially its central location bordering most of the problem countries in the region. You can't launch invasions of Syria or Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan.

Even if that were found to be true,

It doesn't need to be found to be true. It unquestionably IS true, whether it's admitted or not, and whether it was as large a consideration in the decision to attack Iraq as I think that it was.

it just points up how we and the rest of the world were being lied to by Bush and his gang.

In politics it's not called lying, it's called 'making a case'.

Never about a threat? Never about spreading democracy? Never about ridding the world of a despicable and despotic dictator? Rather, just about Iraq's strategic location. I'd feel much better about dying for somebody's notion of how to gain a strategic advantage.

You would? I don't find it a terribly good reason for going to war unless that war is going to be prosecuted a hell of a lot more seriously than the War on Terror has been.

So the Germans and French were merely being self serving? But we weren't. No. Once again, we had our big white Stetsons perched upon our swelled heads, mounted on our great white stallions primed at the ready to save the world. Altruistic to the core.

Again, I never said any such thing. As I said before, my complaint is that while we've been called out repeatedly for our self-serving behavior, the French and Germans have never been held similarly accountable.

The truth is that in invading Iraq I'm sure the Bush administration thought it had a win-win situation. It was good for the US, good for the Iraqis and good for the War on Terror. We can argue about whether they were right, but I think it's very clear that they thought they were doing the right thing from more than just a selfish perspective.

Do you contend that the numbers of terrorists have diminished?

The number in Iraq has certainly diminished.

Do you have a terrorist head count to lay on us?

All I've got is the strategic assessments which show al Qaeda in Iraq virtually destroyed and their forces in the rest of the world in disarray. I doubt anyone has a truly accurate headcount.

Sure, we've killed a bunch of terrorists - most of them abjectly poor and poorly educated young men brought in from all around the middle east

A resource which I believe is inherently limited.

But unlike the problems facing U.S. military recruiters, who are having serious difficulties in fulfilling their quotas, the terrorist recruiters are having a field day.

For every report that the terrorists are having a great time recruiting you can find one which says that their traditional recruiting fields are drying up. I suspect that both are true. Al Qaeda is feeling pressure from other terrorist groups who are grabbing up their potential recruits, plus they are redirecting their efforts into the Islamic population of Europe as they give up on Iraq.

The French and Germans were not arguing for capitulation. They were arguing for an intelligent response and patience rather than Bush's cowboy gunslinger "bring it on" mentality, a man who basically looks upon the Iraq war as a pissing contest. They understood, obviously better than we, that Saddam's regime was severely weakened by the ongoing sanctions. The country was falling apart. It's infrastructure was disintegrating. His military - the regular army was a cipher. Neither the Germans nor the French believed that Saddam had any significant stockpiles of WMDs, nor the means to deliver them in battle. They also understood that bringing down Saddam would not further the supposed 'war on terror.'

That's certainly one interpretation of their behavior.

That, just as with the U.S. ludicrous 'war on drugs' it was all smoke and mirrors. We are no further along the path of defeating islamic terrorism than we are at winning the drug war.

I think I can agree with you there. But I do think we have been quite successful in raising awareness of the problem.

Again, Dave, your jingoism is showing and it's not pretty.

I'm not sure you really understand what jingoism is. You seem to think that the US government should not act in ways which serve US interests around the world, and that's something I find inexplicable.

Dave

So your contention is that the combined might of Europe and the USA is powerless to work for a better Middle East against a small handful of extremist governments that don't even have the full support of their own people?

The evidence seems to support that position. First off, the nations of the Western world are hardly unified on the Middle East. There's no agreement among them about what kind of peace settlement there should be, but more importantly most of the nations lack the will to do what's necessary to really enforce any peace agreement. And such an agreement would have to be enforced from outside, because the parties involved have demonstrated that they are incapable of abiding by agreements without being coerced. What's more, major players in the region were not invited to participate, so any agreement is likely already dead before it's signed.

And that we couldn't put in a combined military force to ensure the integrity of the Palestinian/Israeli border?

We could, but do you realistically think that we'd be able to get a sufficient commitment to provide the number of troops which would be required to really impose peace?

Funny how not living there didn't prevent the long term military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that the invasion of these countries appears to have done precious little to improve the global situation.

And, of course, the way those invasions have gone further reduces the likelihood of any serious further Western military commitment in the region, be it in Palestine or in Darfur.

The fact that it is unlikely says more about the weakness of the West to act with honour than anything else.

Exactly. We're talking a great game, but I just don't see the will there to follow through on it.

Dave

Dave, your statement that the Wikipedia article is well-sourced seems hopelessly naive at best when you fail to mention that the extremely tolerant folk at Wikipedia post the following caveats right at the top of it:- "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."

As to the Middle East, my original point was that we should solve the problem so as to reduce the suffering of the people there and remove the fundamental justification used by extremist elements in their ideological conflict with the West. All you are doing is running through the reasons behind the status quo, like we didn't know.

We have massive budgets invested in the region and it's a relatively small border. There's absolutely no question that we could bring about peace there given the political will to do so. The fact that we don't is a scandal and brings shame upon us all.

I'm going to ignore the silly gobbling going on about politics on this comment thread, and go straight for the drumstick.

Dave, you wrote a satire about genocide, a funny one (and I know how hard it is to write funny), but the whole point of a satire is to make you think. And you made me think.

The first thanksgiving holiday that the Europeans celebrated with the American Indians was because the Indians had taught the Europeans how to survive in their world, the North American continent.

And what was the result? The Indians on the east coast were largely driven from their homes and decimated by diseases brought from Europe, if not from basic disagreements over the nature of property (and the resulting bloody conflicts).

In the end, the vast majority of the American Indians living on the North American continent suffered decimation and genocide.

That bird flying up near the moon knows this and reminds you all of this - it was her people who died. And you resent it all. Heck, where I used to live in the States, there are still people who will say "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". The fights and enmities die hard. And the death the Europeans brought - either purposely or not - still amounted in the end to genocide. Americans have not yet paid the price for this.

They will.

On a lighter note, one of the American born residents organized a Thanksgiving-Sabbath communal meal for Americans in particular and English speakers generally where we live. There are about 500 people living in this village. About 60 of them showed up for dinner. If you subtract the eight South African English speakers, that is still over ten percent of Ma'ale Levona. And at least two or three of the people sitting at the table with us had American Indian blood in them.

It was a good feed - and good people were there. Bu in the end, all of us are thankful that we left America. It's just not home anymore.

It hasn't been home for several hundred years--except to thugs like Nalle who insist that lying is not lying when it's called "making a case".

"He is so full of shit that his eyes, which used to be blue, are now brown."

Just making a CASE for everyone to DISREGARD anything the LYING sack of shit writes.

And, to make sure there is NO confision: I do NOT consider LYING to be ANYTHING other than just that, LYING.

Which may indicate why I have never LIED on this site--or in any other venue.

Dave,

I'm not going to respond to you point by point as my time is limited.

But here's a couple of things:

You say "...my default position is that the US is likely to be doing the right thing. I would hope that everyone takes that position, because the alternative is very unappealing."

That's rather arbitrary, isn't it? Unappealing or not it is certainly far from a given that the U.S. is right in what it says and does. Many christians and, I presume, other believers say that god MUST exist because they couldn't go on if they believed otherwise. Wishing for it, wanting it hardly makes it so.

I agree with Christopher about your use of a Wikipedia reference. It seems at the least a bit ironic.

Jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy.

You may not feel that describes you, but your positions often have that "My country, right or wrong" ring to them. Many people around the world look upon us in just that way - that we display "extreme chauvinism" and maintain "a belligerent foreign policy."

So you believe that there is a shortage of poor, young males in the middle east? I guess most of them now sit at the foot of allah.

It's great to imagine that one of our primary goals in invading Iraq was to establish a launching site, if you will, for further invasions of Iran and/or Syria. That will certainly rack us up more points in the world of public opinion.

Politicians and others invariably sneer at the mention of "public opinion" and yet they go to extremes to garner favorable public opinion, especially when they want their votes. It is, of course, easy to thumb one's nose at the opinion of foreign interests. They don't vote - not in this country, at least.

But the more we separate ourselves from the rest of the world, the more dangerous and unstable our position becomes. Owing to the high level of current technologies, especially in communications, access to information, and, of course, in warfare, we can neither remain on the pedestal many have placed us upon, nor can we bury our heads in the sand in the belief that if we ignore it, the rest of the world will finally give up and go away. We are the big dog. We are the 500 pound gorilla, the elephant in the room. Neither can we be ignored nor taken for granted, but we are a far more visible and consequently a more vulnerable target than most of the smaller countries of the world.

As I've said a number of times, the problems with many of the islamic terrorists is that they have an eleventh century mind set but carry 21st century weaponry. They are a dangerous lot.

B-tone

That's rather arbitrary, isn't it? Unappealing or not it is certainly far from a given that the U.S. is right in what it says and does. Many christians and, I presume, other believers say that god MUST exist because they couldn't go on if they believed otherwise. Wishing for it, wanting it hardly makes it so.

That's not exactly what I'm suggesting here. I'm not talking about blind faith.

I'm talking about a starting point of expecting that the default position of the US is to do the right thing, and then holding it accountable when it doesn't live up to that standard.

Conversely, I think there are an awful lot of people who assume that if the US does something it must be for the wrong reasons or have an ulterior motive. I find that viewpoint unacceptable.

I agree with Christopher about your use of a Wikipedia reference. It seems at the least a bit ironic.

Someone did a hell of a lot of research on that entry. It's got almost 300 links in the footnotes. I could have gathered a smattering of those links and posted them, but why when they've done my work for me?

I've done a lot of editing on Wikipedia. Those non-neutral or debatable material headers can be slapped on an article by anyone who doesn't agree with it. I take the mass of links and specific information a lot more seriously than one person's pique at an article he's politically opposed to.

Jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy.

A terrible definition. All Jim Blaine wanted to do was bring American prosperity to the rest of the world and promote peace and capitalism.

You may not feel that describes you, but your positions often have that "My country, right or wrong" ring to them. Many people around the world look upon us in just that way - that we display "extreme chauvinism" and maintain "a belligerent foreign policy."

Sure they do, but they're wrong for the most part. The US has a history of taking military action reluctantly and at great expense to ourselves and to the benefit of the people where we took action. People tend to forget the overall positive impact of most of our foreign policy efforts because of a few excesses. Those who characterize us as belligerent won't hesitate to come crying to us when they need help and seem not to remember the times we've saved their asses in the past.

For me it's not 'America, right or wrong', it's more a case of being very skeptical about the countries and groups which like to criticize us.

So you believe that there is a shortage of poor, young males in the middle east?

Probably not, but eventually they WILL catch on to how they're being used, and I have to think that the subset dumb enough or brainwashed enough to be suicide bombers is a pretty finite group.

I guess most of them now sit at the foot of allah.

Or so they'd like to think. I think it's more likely that Iblis is reaming them out with a red hot poker somewhere in Jahannam.

It's great to imagine that one of our primary goals in invading Iraq was to establish a launching site, if you will, for further invasions of Iran and/or Syria. That will certainly rack us up more points in the world of public opinion.

I assume sarcasm is in play here. I don't think it's a wonderful thing, but it's certainly a realistic perspective if we really are fighting a global war on terror.

But the more we separate ourselves from the rest of the world, the more dangerous and unstable our position becomes. Owing to the high level of current technologies, especially in communications, access to information, and, of course, in warfare, we can neither remain on the pedestal many have placed us upon, nor can we bury our heads in the sand in the belief that if we ignore it, the rest of the world will finally give up and go away. We are the big dog. We are the 500 pound gorilla, the elephant in the room. Neither can we be ignored nor taken for granted, but we are a far more visible and consequently a more vulnerable target than most of the smaller countries of the world.

Putting aside the issue of terrorism and the war in Iraq and all that business, I'm firmly convinced that the rest of the world needs to change. They are on a course which is ultimately horribly destructive and inhumane and is going to produce disastrous results. The US needs to take the lead in guiding the world in a more positive direction, and one reason I think the war in iraq was a mistake is that it distracts from that mission, which is not going to be accomplished by force of arms. In the long run the terrorists are far less of a threat to us than many of our own allies.

Dave

As I've said a number of times, the problems with many of the islamic terrorists is that they have an eleventh century mind set but carry 21st century weaponry. They are a dangerous lot.

Actually, I believe that the martyrs are just dead. They are nothing. They went from being alive and human, to being a pink mist, and now, nothing more than rotted flesh and sinew and scattered dust.

A sad waste of humanity.

B-tone