Today on Blogcritics
Home » Lowering expectations for democracy… aka we have no idea what we’re doing

Lowering expectations for democracy… aka we have no idea what we’re doing

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

First it was WMD’s. Then links to 9/11. Then just because he was a terrible human being and oppressed his own people and used WMD’s in the past (of course no mention of the US’ support for him while he was doing so). Then it was bringing democracy to the Middle East. And now…

It’s the political process that will eventually bring democracy to Iraq.

When exactly does the US admit they made a horrible, disgusting, immoral “mistake”?

Yes folks, the US government is finally admitting the vote on January 30th won’t mean anything because half the country won’t get to vote.

This would be funny if it weren’t so utterly tragic and if 100k Iraqi civilians had not already lost their lives, let alone their right to vote.

“I think a successful election will be an election where most of the population has gotten a chance to vote, and even though we may not get the same kind of numbers in the Sunni area, we’re going to have to go forward and use the results of this election to build on,” Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Would that be considered a successful election in the US or any other democracy? Isn’t democracy predicated on “one person, one vote” and “equal opportunity”? (Btw – one of the areas to which Powell refers is Baghdad… you know, the Capital of the country…)

Many experts feel this will only continue to inflame the already volatile region and risk damaging the opinion of democracy in the Middle East. Not to mention continue to call into question the motivations of the US.

But don’t worry good citizens, Bush thinks it’s all hunky-dory and it’s really your fault anyway… facts don’t matter, the fact that you elected him is the only ‘truth’ that’s necessary.

“President Bush said that the public’s decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.”

Quick question — isn’t it the Constitution and the International laws and treaties of which the US is party that decides who should be held accountable?

Powered by

About spiderleaf

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    The cold, hard truth is that Bush is absolutely correct in one respect: he pretty much laid out what he wanted to do, as did Kerry, and more people voted for Dubya II: The Sequel. While I’m a bit stunned by this fact, a slim majority of the voting US public want Bush to see his policies through.

    I think, at this point, the only thing for people who don’t support these policies can do is to bust ass for ’06 and beyond. 48 months and counting…

    Eric Berlin
    Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    True enough, but the law is the law and just because the guy was elected does not give him (or members of his admin) carte blanche to torture or subvert human rights and democracy.

    And Iraq is crucial because we are breeding more terrorists and making ourselves less safe… this will have far reaching implications beyond ’06 or ’08.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You linked to a Noam Chomsky book. Bingo. All credibility lost. Better luck next time.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    yup, can’t attack the argument (or the actual sources for the story), so attack a choice of book from amazon.

    and btw – I’d take a world renowned author and MIT professor over a guy with a website called elitistpig anyday.

    Sorry, try again.

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple Stark

    Dave you commented. Bingo. All credibility lost. Better luck next time.

    I kid … I’ve been called a smart-ass.

  • Rev Nick

    FYI if the Sunnis don’t vote, it’s not because they aren’t allowed to, it’s because they are pissed that they will now have to share power with the two groups of people they spent years pushing around: Shiites and the Kurds. So y’know what? If they remove themselves from the process in “protest” it’s a lot like going on a hunger strike- you really only screw yourself. Oh, as for the “100k Iraqi civilians” that have died, why don’t you try putting the blame where that belongs- on the insurgents and terrorists. Of course I understand that by doing so you would completely undermine the whole “blame America first” angle you’ve got going on there. I also have to wonder how the insurgency is going to “breed more terrorists” in Iraq when Iraqis themselves are the favored targets? “Y’know, Mohammad, the insurgents murdered half my familiy the other day. I think I’ll join up, ’cause, y’know, it’s the Infidels fault.” Then again, I could see someone following that line of reasoning (you obviously do). And finally, according to insane liberal logic, if at any point in America’s past we (for whatever reason) gave any kind of support to a leader or regime that turns out to be a scumbag of epic proportions, than we have to just sit there and continue to let them run roughshod over their own people, and all we can do is say, “Oh well, because we made a mistake once we shouldn’t rectify it at all. Besides, its not like we have to live with the dude…”

  • Rob Read

    The party that hates the people will keep losing elections.

    Roll on 2006.

    Quoting Chumpsky! I might as well quote my senile gran.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    I also have to wonder how the insurgency is going to “breed more terrorists” in Iraq when Iraqis themselves are the favored targets?

    Perhaps reading the National Intelligence Council report will enlighten you.

    The report says “experienced survivors of the war in Iraq” may supersede current leaders of Al Qaeda to become major players in international terrorism, a possibility neither Mr. Bush nor his top advisers have given prominence to.

    and in terms of:
    Oh, as for the “100k Iraqi civilians” that have died, why don’t you try putting the blame where that belongs- on the insurgents and terrorists.

    Because that is not who is responsible. The civilians died in the US bombing campaign and from diseases and malnutrition following the war.

    For a ‘Rev’ you certainly don’t seem to have much compassion.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Quoting Chumpsky! I might as well quote my senile gran.

    Jeez.. do you rightwingers not actually read anymore? I didn’t quote Chomsky, I provided a link to his book.

    I quoted Colin Powell and President Bush.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>and btw – I’d take a world renowned author and MIT professor over a guy with a website called elitistpig anyday.<<

    Sounds like someone who hasn’t read a Chomsky book and who has an unrealistic reverence for professors. Having read Chomsky’s loony rants and having been a professor I have a more jaundiced view.

    Plus, the think you should know about a guy with a website called elitistpig.com is that he’s got a sense of humor – unlike Chomsky.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Having been a professor I would assume you would choose a more appropriate term than “jaundiced” which means you are affected by or exhibiting envy, prejudice, or hostility….. unless that is exactly what you were trying to get across… in which case I’m sorry you are envious of the renown Chomsky has.

    His books are incredibly well documented and he relies primarily on official government documents, so perhaps your distaste has more to do with his bringing certain uncomfortable facts to light.

    As far as your sense of humour goes, I certainly didn’t detect that in your rant about providing fellow citizens with a living wage.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    all this name-calling like “insane liberal” or “elitist pig” (irony or not, certainly not funny) is one of our real enemies.

    if we spend all our time at the back-and-forth, how are we going to have enough time or intelligence left to notice what is actually going on?

    Come on, let’s strive for a little more honest enquiry in this forum and not retarded turf wars…

  • http://iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    that would be like asking politicians to be honest…
    …wasted breath

  • Shark

    Spiderleaf, you’ll notice that Bush supporters don’t really wanna talk about Iraq — Despite the fact that the first news each morning is about how many deaths and explosions occurred in Iraq on the previous day.

    Iraq is Bush’s blunder, and we’ll be paying for it for years to come. But still — Iraq is old news, and the next horrible evil we need to fear is…. (drum roll)… Social Security!

    “…vietnam… disaster… no exit strategy… terrorist breeding ground…”

    “…Chompsky sucks… and how ’bout that new “ownership” society?!”

  • http://enrevanche.blogspot.com Barry

    First of all, though the “100,000 dead” figure gets bandied about a lot, no one really knows how many dead Iraqis there have been since the start of the Iraq War. Estimates on the high side (100,000+) tend to come from groups opposed to the war; estimates on the low side tend to come from Western combatants and those who back the war. Take them all with a sandpile-sized aliquot of salt.

    Second, given the demographics of Iraq, we should let the Sunnis vote! Assuming that the elections are fair, we need not fear the Sunnis regaining power: the Shi’ites and the Kurds, whom the Sunni/Baathist thugs oppressed for years, combine to make an overwhelming majority. Payback’s a bitch.

    Third, for the fraction of the X number of dead in Iraq are innocent civilians, that is indeed a tragedy of war and to be deplored. For the fraction of them that are jihadists, e.g. the human trash we recently cleared out of Fallujah, I’d say that (Y% of X dead) represents a hell of a good start.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Spiderleaf wrote:

    >>Having been a professor I would assume you would choose a more appropriate term than “jaundiced” which means you are affected by or exhibiting envy, prejudice, or hostility….. < <

    Not sure where you got your definition, but the onw I have is that it means embittered, bored or world-weary. As in so worn out by leftist scaremongering and negativity that my eyes glaze over when I see more of it coming.

    >>His books are incredibly< <

    Wow, you MUST have a different dictionary. Mine doesn't note that 'incredibly' and 'selectively' are synonyms.

    >>well documented and he relies primarily on official government documents, so perhaps your distaste has more to do with his bringing certain uncomfortable facts to light.< <

    These must be different Chomsky books than I've seen. My observation has been that he selects only very limited documents that support his position and overlooks vast reams of material which contradict it.

    >>As far as your sense of humour goes, I certainly didn’t detect that in your rant about providing fellow citizens with a living wage.< <

    Interestingly I can tell when it's appropriate to be humorous and when it isn't. But if you can't tell the difference between humor and seriousness I can see how it would all be confusing to you.

    Barry wrote:

    >>Second, given the demographics of Iraq, we should let the Sunnis vote! < <

    We're not stopping Sunnis from voting. If they choose not to vote to make a political point all they are doing is hurting themselves.

    Shark wrote:

    >>and how ’bout that new “ownership” society?!”<<

    So you’d prefer a society without property ownerships then?

    Dave

  • Nick Jones

    “Sounds like someone who hasn’t read a Chomsky book and who has an unrealistic reverence for professors.

    I knew the Anti-intellectual card would be played sooner or later. If only Richard Hofstadter had lived long enough to surf Blogcritics!

  • Rev Nick

    “When exactly does the US admit they made a horrible, disgusting, immoral “mistake”?”

    I thought we were doing just that, by removing Saddam from power, like we should have in ’91.

    “Yes folks, the US government is finally admitting the vote on January 30th won’t mean anything because half the country won’t get to vote.”

    Funny, considering 13 of Iraq’s 16 provinces are fairing quite well, with little violence occuring (hint: it’s ’cause they’re Shiites and Kurds!) and that the Sunnis make up less than 30% of the population. Lets see: 30% = half? Hmm…must be the new math….

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    I don’t know if Rev Nick’s gung-ho delusionalism is brought about by an overactive patriot gland (a new DNA evolutionary element prevalent in the usa) or it is just some automatic reflex, but i do understand that there is no talking to people with closed minds.

    To grant more than provisional support to any government is always a big mistake.

    In Iraq we see a fascinating conflict between hi-tech versus home advantage. The USA hasn’t won an away battle for quite some time (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) but you have to admire it’s plucky determination to keep trying, a bit like a boxer who doesn’t know when to quit.

    shame that.

    it is deeply nauseating to have to endure the presumption by some people that there is a “holy” mission here.

    If the beligerent governments truly had a deep commitment to prevent tyranny and human rights abuses, there would be american holy wars going on all over the planet, but there is not…

    It’s still disturbing that many people here are so dogmatic they can’t see the facts for the data, aight?

  • Eric Olsen

    I find the “if you are so committed to democracy, human rights, etc, then why aren’t you making changes everywhere” argument fascinating: “if you don’t do it everywhere, you can’t do it anywhere.”

    All or nothing very rarely applies in the real world where since neither our military nor our resources are infinite, we are forced to make priorities and act accordingly.

    One can certainly debate the priorities themselves, but saying either you make the whole world perfect or you do nothing at all would seem to indicate a permanent preference for “nothing at all.”

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    Eric Olsen seems to think this is an argument about ideaas, but real lives are at stake here.

    I certainly didn’t suggest, nor believe, that nothing at all should be done? I simply made the point that the warmongers (latest) excuse for their highly debatable actions doesn’t make sense.

    I wonder what a Top 20 Most-abusive governments chart would look like? And what rankings would america’s friends in the middle east and latin america be given? To say nothing of the USA itself…

  • Eric Olsen

    Who would argue that “being America’s friend” wouldn’t enter into the equation?

    Bush has made it clear that our policy of supporting authoritarians out of convenience is wrong and is no longer our position – I think this is absolutely the right move and removes a layer of hypocrisy from our stated goals and actions.

  • http://enrevanche.blogspot.com Barry

    Alienboy writes:

    I wonder what a Top 20 Most-abusive governments chart would look like? And what rankings would america’s friends in the middle east and latin america be given? To say nothing of the USA itself…

    It would probably look something like the reports that Freedom House (http://freedomhouse.org) generates.

    For example, here’s the combined report for independent countries in 2003 (PDF file):

    http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/averages.pdf

    The dishonor roll, in alphabetical order by rating (1=free; 7=complete tyrannical shithole; “Not free” starts at 5.5)

    NOT FREE
    5.5
    Algeria
    Angola
    Bhutan
    Brunei
    Burundi
    Cambodia
    Chad
    Guinea
    Kazakhstan
    Kyrgyzstan
    Lebanon
    Maldives
    Oman
    Pakistan
    Swaziland
    Tajikistan
    Togo
    Tunisia
    United Arab Emirates
    Yemen

    6.0
    Afghanistan
    Belarus
    Cameroon
    Congo (Kinshasa)
    Egypt
    Haiti
    Iran
    Liberia
    Qatar
    Rwanda
    Zimbabwe

    6.5
    China (PRC)
    Equatorial Guinea
    Eritrea
    Laos
    Somalia
    Uzbekistan
    Vietnam

    7.0
    Burma
    Cuba
    Iraq
    Korea, North
    Libya
    Saudi Arabia
    Sudan
    Syria
    Turkmenistan

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    well, if we’re gonna be putting out lists… here’s one for ya…

    (the links to the evidence are on the following site – http://www.weblog.ro/soj)

    Dictators and butchers who have been financed and supported by the United States in the last 60 years:

    ‡ = documentary evidence

    Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan)
    Mullah Omar/Taliban (Afghanistan)
    General Jorge Videla (Argentina)
    Heydar Aliyev (Azerbaijan)
    Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan)
    Colonel Hugo Banzer (Bolivia)
    Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada (Bolivia)
    General Humberto Branco (Brazil)
    General Arthur da Costa e Silva (Brazil)
    General Emilio Garrastazu Médici (Brazil)
    General Ernesto Geisel (Brazil)
    General João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo (Brazil)
    Hassanal Bolkiah (Brunei)
    Lon Nol (Cambodia)
    Pol Pot (Cambodia)
    Jean-Bedel Bokassa (CAR)
    Hissene Habre (Chad)
    Augusto Pinochet (Chile)
    Chiang Kai-Shek (China/Taiwan)
    Gustavo Pinilla (Colombia)
    Laurent Kabila (Congo DR)
    Fulgencio Batista (Cuba)
    Garardo Machado (Cuba)
    General Rafael Trujillo (Dom. Republic)
    Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)
    Isaias Afewerki (Eritrea)
    Haile Selassie (Ethiopia)
    Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia)
    General Sitiveni Rabuka (Fiji)
    George Papadopoulos (Greece)
    Jorge Ubico (Guatemala)
    Marco Arevalo (Guatemala)
    Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala)
    Gerard Latortue (Haiti)
    Raoul Cedras (Haiti)
    “Baby Doc” Duvalier (Haiti)
    “Papa Doc” Duvalier (Haiti)
    Roberto Suazo Cordova‡ (Honduras)
    General Suharto‡ (Indonesia)
    Shah Reza Pahlavi‡ (Iran)
    Ahmad Bakr (Iraq)
    Nuri as-Said (Iraq)
    Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
    Ariel Sharon (Israel)
    Edward Seaga (Jamaica)
    Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan)
    Daniel arap-Moi (Kenya)
    Emir Jabir Al-Sabah (Kuwait)
    Askar Akayevich Akayev (Kyrgyzstan)
    Camille Chamoun (Lebanon)
    General Samuel Doe (Liberia)
    William Tolbert Jr. (Liberia)
    William Tubman (Liberia)
    Moammar Abu Minyar al-Qaddafi (Libya)
    King Hassan II (Morocco)
    Mohammed VI (Morocco)
    King Gyanendra (Nepal)
    Anastasio Somoza Jr.‡ (Nicaragua)
    General Sani Abacha (Nigeria)
    Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq‡ (Pakistan)
    Benazir Bhutto‡ (Pakistan)
    Pervez Musharraf‡ (Pakistan)
    Manuel Noriega‡ (Panama)
    Alfredo Stroessner‡ (Paraguay)
    Fujimori/Montesinos (Peru)
    Manuel Odria (Peru)
    Ferdinand Marcos‡ (Phillipines)
    Antonio Salazar‡ (Portugal)
    Ian Smith‡ (Rhodesia)
    Nicolae Ceausescu‡ (Romania)
    Chun Doo-Hwan‡ (S. Korea)
    Park Chung-Hee‡ (S. Korea)
    Syngman Rhee‡ (S. Korea)
    King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
    Crown Prince Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
    Siad Barre‡ (Somalia)
    P.W. Botha‡ (South Africa)
    Josef Stalin‡ (Soviet Union)
    Generalissimo Francisco Franco‡ (Spain)
    Hosni Zaim (Syria)
    Enomali Rahmonov (Tajikistan)
    Turgut Ozal‡ (Turkey)
    Idi Amin‡ (Uganda)
    Yoweri Museveni‡ (Uganda)
    Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan)
    Marcos Perez Jimenez‡ (Venezuela)
    Bao Dai (Vietnam)
    Ngo Dinh Diem‡ (Vietnam)
    Mobutu Sese Seko‡ (Zaire)

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Spider – nice link to a pretty sharp looking blog, but I never found this list that you printed here…but I really have a problem with this list anyway…the US supported Stalin? maybe against Hitler…the lesser of 2 evils kinda thing…I would bet that a lot of those names are like that…that or the fact that they weren’t always tyrants and despots and once they got out of control, we took care of them!

    Your list…or whoevers’ list is pretty extensive, but less than half have any evidence to back them up? I’d bet that if some neocon put that list up like that, you and all the other “progressives” would be hammering the hell out of it!

  • Sgt Rock

    Heavens to Betsy, when are you chicken livers gonna get it right.

    Democracy is messy. But it’s still better than dictatorship.

    Sgt Rock

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    The list is on the right hand side of the site and contains links to further information. The ones with the “doc evidence” tags have further links to articles within wikipedia… the other links are contained within gov’t docs and are historically documented in numerous sources (this was just the quickest link/ list I could find… wasn’t prepared to have to start printing lists!)

    In terms of Stalin — my family is Ukrainian so I have quite a vested interest in this one. If you read up on the Malta conference where Churchill and FDR said (paraphrasing) “yeah we know he’s a brutal dictator and is in the process of starving 30mm Ukrainians, but sometimes you gotta make a deal with the devil…”

    Henry Ford was allowed to sell Stalin the tractors he then used to force the ‘collectivisation” of farms in Ukraine.

    not very much comfort to my grandmother who watched her entire family starve to death in front of her (9 people) that “hey, he was better than Hitler”.

  • Sgt Rock

    He most certainly was.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Really? what’s your definition or body count?

    30 MILLION UKRAINIANS DEAD.

    The KGB
    Gulags
    Eastern Europe subjegated
    A nuclear arms race

    you can say they were just as bad, but don’t you fucking dare discount how bad Stalin was.

  • Sgt Rock

    Perhaps you missed it….I already have!

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    beautiful… when are you shipping out to Iraq?

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    btw – you are the reason the world hates America in case you missed it.

    but go on with your bad self, must make you feel like a real man.

  • Sgt Rock

    I’m waiting for the Iran front to open up. How about you?

  • Sgt Rock

    So you think I am the sole reason. You are a joke! I am the reason why Syria has closed its borders to insurgents. I am the reason why Iran is trying to find a diplomatic answer to their situation. I am also the reason why Saudis have begun to crack down on terorism.

    I seriously doubt that anybody has changed their thinking because of you and your cowardly comments.

    As far as being a real man is concern, I seriously doubt that you would know anything about that.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    you’re right, because I’m a woman meathead.

    no, it’s your fucking stupid “I don’t care that 30 million people were starved to death while we sold tractors and said he was a good guy” type of attitude that generates the hatred my friend. Most people can actually separate and distinguish between reasonable arguments and nuances in the world and jingoism… but not you.

  • Sgt Rock

    Well I was right: you don’t know anything about being a real man.

    Try to get your mind around this….The military policy in Iraq is better left in the hands of professionals than chicken livers.

    So sorry Stalin decided to starve all those people. It’s still doesn’t change a thing. But nice try!

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    You gotta love the anti-intellectual talking points ‘nice try’ and ‘better luck next time’.. have no actual arguments so just spout stupid phrases and expect that proves your point.

    I’m done with you my friend, you ain’t worth the time it takes to type.

  • Sgt Rock

    Good bye…don’t let the door knob hit you in the ass on the way out!!!!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The military policy in Iraq is better left in the hands of professionals

    Unfortunately, we are stuck with Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice.

  • Sgt Rock

    Much better them than you or that goofball spierleaf

  • Shark

    *Sgt. Rock, we won’t ask if you don’t tell.

    xxoo
    S

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    spiderleaf – you’re under some kind of misconception if you think most Americans really care if the rest of the world hates us or not. We know, whether they like us or not, who they’ll call when they get in a jam!

    I personally love being an UGLY AMERICAN!

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    and you andy, are operating under the misconception that the rest of the world’s opinion about the united states has no impact on our safety, past or present.

    and you would be wrong.

    we don’t live in a vacuum, and until we realize that we’ll never be close to ‘safe’.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I think they do the things they do to us BECAUSE in the past (clinton) we never did a damn thing about it!

    You remember, Somolia, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers…shoud I go on?

    They’ve blown us to hell and back and we never did a damn thing to retaliate. Well, in the immortal words of Reggie Hammond, “There’s a new sheriff in town!”

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    you should blame the Republican Congress for that one… remember… Clinton, don’t “wag the dog”, Osama’s not a real threat… the fact you got a bj was much more important to national security…

    how short our memories are.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    ah, right…i forgot.

    everything is still clinton’s fault.

    excuse me.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Why not, if Bush can be responsible for the tsunamis and every other damn thing on the planet. Why shouldn’t the guy who was in charge, the guy who was offered bin laden, the guy who’s watch all this shit started on take some of the heat?

    He was there for 8 years and didn’t do a fucking thing to make this country any safer. He was worse than Carter!

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    hey andy, history lesson:

    check out these 3 links from “conservatives” at the time and get back to me about how Clinton just ‘didn’t want to do anything’…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm
    http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/27/184031
    http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    the guy who’s watch all this shit started on take some of the heat?

    Sorry, but the terrorist attacks against Americans by radical Muslims started BEFORE Clinton took office. Saint Ronnie was there first.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    try again…1979 Iran…that would be the peanut farmer.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    right thread now…

    great! you’ve proved nothing other than the Repubs had 12 years before Clinton to “do something about it” and didn’t. Bravo.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Andy, your argument is that the radical Muslims attack us because when they attacked us under Clinton, we didn’t fight back. [You skipped right over the reason for the very first attack, whenever it occured.] But they started attacking us BEFORE Clinton took office, including when St. Ronnie was in office. The attacks haven’t stopped, no matter which party was/is in the White House.

    You still haven’t addressed WHY they started attacking us in the first place. You tried to pin that on Clinton somehow. Doesn’t wash.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Oh, and btw, your argument also doesn’t wash if we use Israel/Palestine as an example of what happens when you retaliate against terrorists.

    Newsflash: it doesn’t end the terrorism.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    SO then tell me bhw, in your infinite wisdom of muslim theology…exactly why did they attack us?

    Tell me, were you “progressives” screaming when my ship fired 21 Tomahawks into Iraq in 83? Were you “progressives” screaming when Clinton pulled his little wag the dog trick to try to hide his fling with the little fat girl???

    What I’m asking is, are you really anti-war? Or are you just anti-republican president? Or is it anti anything that doesn’t SCREAM liberal, I mean progressive?

    And you can claim to support the troops by badmouthing the people in charge all you want, but it don’t cut the mustard. It’s like when you’re trying to discipline a child (yes the muslim fanatics act like children) and while you’re trying to get something through that kids head your significant other is undermining what you’re doing by taking the opposite side of the argument. The kid doesn’t learn. And with all this BULLSHIT radical muslims don’t learn either.

    What YOU people do, undermines the war effort. Period!

    I’m done. you people are way to thick headed for me! Or I’m way to thick headed for you, one or the other! But I’m right and you’re not! HA!

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    And here’s some history of what happened while Reagan and Bush I were in office.


    1982–1991
    Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

    1983
    April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

    Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

    Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

    1984
    Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

    Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. Two Americans killed.

    1985
    April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

    June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

    Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

    Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

    1986
    April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

    April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

    1988
    Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.

    … should I go on?

    People could argue that the radical Islamic terrorism against America under Clinton was a direct continuation of what happened under Reagan and Bush I, couldn’t they?

    The point is that these people don’t hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our pro-Israeli policies, our past interference in their countries’ politics, other policy-related issues, and by correlating our behavior with their own collective sense of cultural oppression/helplessness that their leaders have tapped into and marketed brilliantly.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Tell me, were you “progressives” screaming when my ship fired 21 Tomahawks into Iraq in 83?

    I was in h.s. and as involved in global politics as any other teenager.

    Were you “progressives” screaming when Clinton pulled his little wag the dog trick to try to hide his fling with the little fat girl???

    Not even worthy of a reply.

    What I’m asking is, are you really anti-war?

    Nope.

    Or are you just anti-republican president?

    I don’t like this Republican president.

    Or is it anti anything that doesn’t SCREAM liberal, I mean progressive?

    Um, since I am a liberal, yes, I am usually “anti” things that don’t fit my political world view.

    And you can claim to support the troops by badmouthing the people in charge all you want, but it don’t cut the mustard.

    Who did I badmouth on this thread? Quote me. I can show where you badmouth someone, though.

    That said, you’re wrong about being able to criticize our country’s leaders while supporting the troops. The people who make the decisions are responsible for putting our military in the situations they put them into. The Army doesn’t just decide to invade a country. That was the president’s call, and Congress was in on it, too.

    What YOU people do, undermines the war effort. Period!

    Bullshit. And tired, old bullshit at that. What I personally do is try to hold our leaders’ feet to the fire when they’re sending our troops into a war and occupation. I happen to have a family member in the military — who is Stateside, but active duty — and it is for him and people like him that I demand that our government be prudent in its decisions to invade other countries.

    Andy, your pure hatred of liberals is tiring. Look at the assumptions you made about me simply because I called you on your attempt to blame Clinton for creating a reason for Muslim terrorists to attack us.

    Try to calm your temper, because what YOU do undermines any kind of real discussion whatsoever.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    go ahead…show me where I bad mouthed someone

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    and I don’t hate liberals..I hate their politics.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Comment #47, Clinton. “All this shit” did not start on his watch.

    Comment #54: “The fat girl.” Me and all liberals, who “undermine the war effort.” Also, the “thickheaded” bonus.

    Your turn.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    and I don’t hate liberals..I hate their politics.

    Sorry, doesn’t come across that way.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Let me tell you something bhw and you can ask your relative that’s on active duty.

    This is how it went…I mispoke earlier, it was 93 not 83. I was in the Red Sea. The ship I was stationed on fired 14 of the 21 Tomahawks that were fired into Iraq after Clinton found out about the plot to assinate Bush I. My family sent me newspaper clippings that showed pictures, supposedly taken inside Iraq of a blown up building with a sign next to it, written in english that said “baby milk factory”. My family asked me if I did this? The newspapers had the people in this country believing that we blew up a baby milk factory. It was the Iraqi intelligence center! I explained to my family that in most of the middle east there are no signs in english and then I asked them how many babies do you have to put in a press to get a gallon of baby milk?

    If you don’t think that things like that demoralize a fighting force, you’re dead wrong! If you don’t think that being in a war zone and reading about people in your own country calling what you’re doing wrong, you’re wrong again. And what makes it even worse, is that I had to explain that to you!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    In the same line that I called you thickheaded, I called myself thickheaded.

    I didn’t know that liberals related so much to monica…sorry?

    I guess it’s ok for you to badmouth a sitting president, but St. Bill is off limits?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    bhw – I’m sure if we could find ONE thing we could agree on, I’m sure you’d see, I don’t hate you. How about Jersey sweet corn…can we agree it’s the greatest corn on the planet? Come on…just one thing…

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    St. Bill is not off limits.

    I don’t relate to Monica as much as I just hate the fat comments. There is just so much more you could legitimately criticize her for than a weight problem.

    Jersey corn is the best, as are the tomatoes. My mother still buys me some of both every summer if she comes up for a visit in August.

    I have to start the story/bedtime routine with my kids. More later about the military thing.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Spiderleaf, when your definition of :dictators and butchers” IS ‘have been supported by the united states’ rather than actual oppression and butchery it’s easy to make a long list.

    Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan)

    Please, catalog his terrible crimes for us. Perhaps reopening the schools and letting women appear in public again?

    Mullah Omar/Taliban (Afghanistan)

    And Afghanistan was better off under Russian rule with endless rebellion and massacres? And did we not remove him when he became a problem? Sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils and then deal with it.

    General Humberto Branco (Brazil)
    General Arthur da Costa e Silva (Brazil)
    General Emilio Garrastazu Médici (Brazil)
    General Ernesto Geisel (Brazil)
    General João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo (Brazil)

    You know none of these Brazilian leaders is really known for their butchery unless you count killing trees and trying to forcibly modernize their country.

    Lon Nol (Cambodia)
    Pol Pot (Cambodia)

    My last recollection is of multiple attempts to assassinate Pol.

    Augusto Pinochet (Chile)

    Benevolent dictators who drag a country kicking and screaming into the 20th century and leave behind a positive legacy aren’t actually a bad thing.

    Chiang Kai-Shek (China/Taiwan)

    God forbid some of the Chinese should be allowed to live free of communism. How can you possibly suggest that he was worse for his people than Mao would have been?

    Fulgencio Batista (Cuba)

    Under whose dictatorship the country was prosperous, the people were free to travel anywhere in the world, and the overall standard of living was more than 5x what it is today.

    Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)

    Oh yeah, he’s known for his death chambers and massacres. Come on. The guy even allows a more or less free press in his country and his main sin against humanity is spending too much money on nice suits.

    Haile Selassie (Ethiopia)

    Again. Conditions in Ethiopia were about a zillion times better under his rule than they have been since. If a benevolent autocrat is what a country needs to function, why condemn that when the alternative is chaos and mass bloodshed. By rejecting Selassie you’re essentially endorsing every real murdering butcher who’s helped destroy the country since then.

    George Papadopoulos (Greece)

    Whose stabilization of the country and encouragement of economic growth led to a peaceful transition to a nice, functional democracy.

    Gerard Latortue (Haiti)
    Raoul Cedras (Haiti)
    “Baby Doc” Duvalier (Haiti)
    “Papa Doc” Duvalier (Haiti)

    When you meddle in Haitian affairs you’re basically playing ‘pick a butcher’. The problem there is less the leadership than the infrastructure of the Tonton Macute, which never goes away.

    Shah Reza Pahlavi‡ (Iran)

    Ok, tell me the Middle East and the world and Iran for that matter wouldn’t be better off if he’d stayed in power. He may have oppressed a few people, but the overall conditions in Iran were gloriously better under his reign than any time before and since. And unlike you, I lived there during his administration.

    Saddam Hussein (Iraq)

    Whose experiment in secularization of the country has laid the groundwork for a possible democratic future. Sure, he was out of control for a long time, but how was he any worse than the alternative. At least he permitted education and industry unlike whoever would have been there in his place.

    Ariel Sharon (Israel)

    A democratically elected leader in a country with a free press, a constitution and civil rights just like America. Anti-semite much?

    Moammar Abu Minyar al-Qaddafi (Libya)

    Whose family we killed and who we’ve tried to assassinate multiple times. Yep, he’s our buddy.

    King Hassan II (Morocco)
    Mohammed VI (Morocco)

    One of the few Islamic countries relatively free from problems and oppression.

    Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq‡ (Pakistan)
    Benazir Bhutto‡ (Pakistan)
    Pervez Musharraf‡ (Pakistan)

    Again, benevolent autocrats whose rule has been about a billion times better than what would have taken place there otherwise.

    Ferdinand Marcos‡ (Phillipines)

    Under whose rule the country modernized and became prosperous to the point where they were able to overthrow him in a bloodless democratic oup. What a tragedy.

    Antonio Salazar‡ (Portugal)

    Again, a benevolent dictator who ddn’t noticably oppress his people.

    King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
    Crown Prince Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)

    Cosider the alternatives for just ONE second.

    Josef Stalin‡ (Soviet Union)

    Ok, you’ve lost all credibility. The choice was supporting Stalin or Hitler. Presumably from this you’re saying you would have preferred Hitler?

    Generalissimo Francisco Franco‡ (Spain)

    See comments on the Shah of Iran above.

    Overwhelmingly these ‘dictators and butchers’, for all their flaws are improvements over the alternatives available at the time and led to modernizing and improving their countries, in many cases resultin in democracy in the long run.

    You may choose not to believe it, but most people would rather have functioning, autocratic government that doesn’t engage in excessive barbarity and violence to total anarchy, chaos and being murdered in the streets while their children starve to death in a mud hut. Which seems to be what you’d prefer.

    Dave

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Andy, I do realize that false claims about our military, as well as direct criticism of it, hurt soldier morale. Those of us not wearing a uniform always need to remember, particularly when we hear bad reports, who we’re talking about: our neighbors, and their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers.

    But we should still listen to all sides of a story to find out if it’s true — Abu Graib turned out to be true, didn’t it? That doesn’t mean that all our prison guards are abusing prisoners, but are you saying we should remain silent when a case of abuse is found out to be true? That the American public has to just be quiet and/or not ask for an investigation up the chain of command to see where the orders originated?

    Also, I do think that the American public has a duty to speak out against wars/military actions it doesn’t like. De-facto support shouldn’t be expected or required of the populace, either by silent assent or actual support, even if the morale of some soldiers is affected.

    As citizens and taxpayers, we should all be making sure our governmental leaders are doing right by ALL of us, civilians and military personnel alike. I don’t want people like my family member put in harm’s way for a misguided war that was secretly in the plans long before 9/11 and that was opportunistically jumped into after 9/11.

    So I still don’t think we should have invaded Iraq. I don’t feel one bit safer. In fact, I feel less safe. We went after a guy who was essentially contained when the rest of our homeland security operations — from the office itself to the CIA and FBI — were clearly in need of serious reworking. That’s where our effort and money belonged.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    bhw – that’s where we differ. I don’t think Hussein was contained, I think Abu Ghraib was blown out of proportion and those that were involved are being dealt with as we speak. The American press would have you believe that our soldiers are over there beating on prisoners every minute and that just ain’t the case. The U.S. and the military in specific almost always deal with problems. I’d say always, but you and I both know that’s not the case. In my 20 years in the navy, issues that you never heard about were always dealt with properly. They weren’t swept under the rug.

    Those secret plans that you speak of I guess aren’t so secret, you seem to know about them. I don’t, but I imagine that we don’t read the same threads.

    I agree that the CIA and FBI need some work. Let’s include the NSA as well.

    I think the problem is that civilians don’t seem to understand that there are many things that you and I don’t know. There is a lot of intelligence that you and I aren’t privy to. Everyone on the planet said Iraq had WMD’s and believed they were an immediate threat. How were we supposed to know when Hussein wouldn’t let anyone in to find out?

    How many more UN sanctions should we have let Hussein ignore before it wasn’t a misguided war?

    You know what I remember about the night of 9/11? I remember those F-16’s from Luke AFB in Glendale, AZ flying laps around the valley of the sun, protecting me and my family.

    Now I live next to the largest military complex in the world and I personally do feel safer. I believe that those that would bring harm to these shores are over in Mosul and Bagdhad getting their heads blown off by coalition fighters or hiding in mosques.

    I do understand what you’re saying. We should always question authority. The problem seems to be the interpretation of the answers.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Those secret plans that you speak of I guess aren’t so secret, you seem to know about them. I don’t, but I imagine that we don’t read the same threads.

    It came out either after the war started or shortly before it, that the administration had an overthrow of Hussein in its sights from day one. Rummy was revealed as saying — on 9/12/ that the terrorist attacks gave us the excuse [my word] to invade Iraq. He looked at 3,000 dead Americans as his excuse to wage a war. Sick.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Dave, I’ll answer your points later, but question… was this not supposed to be a thread about the elections in Iraq and accountability??

  • Nick Jones

    Here’s a link to the story on our New Best Friend, Islam Karimov. To paraphrase what Jeanne Kirkpatrick once said when she was at the UN, Karimov’s regime must be one of those ‘authoritarian’ countries we’ve supported through most of the 20th century, rather than ‘totalitarian’.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Dave, I’ll answer your points later, but question… was this not supposed to be a thread about the elections in Iraq and accountability??<<

    Well, something like that, but you went off and decided to condemn the entirety of US foreign policy for the last 40 years, so that’s what I responded to.

    Dave

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    actually, you started by talking about my choice of books to link to and then alienboy and Barry started talking about support for dictators, so I threw in another list.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan)

    Please, catalog his terrible crimes for us. Perhaps reopening the schools and letting women appear in public again?

    Mullah Omar/Taliban (Afghanistan)

    And Afghanistan was better off under Russian rule with endless rebellion and massacres? And did we not remove him when he became a problem? Sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils and then deal with it.

    is Afghanistan better off now with warlords ruling the entire country except for Kabul and opium production back in business? Women are still oppressed and being raped, which, the rape part, was completely off-limits during the Taliban? If you read reports from Human Rights organizations in the country re: the US starting to eradicate the poppy fields using chemicals, there are an awful lot of kids being poisoned and the citizens basically saying “if my kid dies from this I’m joining the Taliban to kill Americans”.. doesn’t sound like the country is under control at all. If your goals are humanitarian, they aren’t being met. I’m thrilled Omar isn’t there now, but the support for him earlier was immoral… it’s not like he hid what his agenda was to begin with, you just chose to look the other way… morality is all relative it seems.

    General Humberto Branco (Brazil)
    General Arthur da Costa e Silva (Brazil)
    General Emilio Garrastazu Médici (Brazil)
    General Ernesto Geisel (Brazil)
    General João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo (Brazil)

    You know none of these Brazilian leaders is really known for their butchery unless you count killing trees and trying to forcibly modernize their country.

    really now? you haven’t heard of the death squads that kill kids in the slums of Rio? nice.

    Lon Nol (Cambodia)
    Pol Pot (Cambodia)

    My last recollection is of multiple attempts to assassinate Pol.

    The US supported Pol Pot until the Vietnamese went in to Cambodia to get him… at which point the US supported the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. After that Pol Pot became a bad guy in the US.

    Augusto Pinochet (Chile)

    Benevolent dictators who drag a country kicking and screaming into the 20th century and leave behind a positive legacy aren’t actually a bad thing.

    you just lost all credibility here… yeah, an overthrow supported by Kissinger of a democratically elected leader, Allende, which resulted in crimes against humanity for which Pinochet is now being charged…

    Chiang Kai-Shek (China/Taiwan)

    God forbid some of the Chinese should be allowed to live free of communism. How can you possibly suggest that he was worse for his people than Mao would have been?

    it’s not up to you or me to decide who would have been worse. If the guy commits crimes against his people, that really is just as bad. Morality is not relative based on political ideology.

    Fulgencio Batista (Cuba)

    Under whose dictatorship the country was prosperous, the people were free to travel anywhere in the world, and the overall standard of living was more than 5x what it is today.

    Cuba has the best health care system in the world and openly trades with every country except the US. Castro is not to be lauded, but Batista did just as much to oppress the Cuban people, except he let US casinos in, so he was okay.

    Hosni Mubarak (Egypt)

    Oh yeah, he’s known for his death chambers and massacres. Come on. The guy even allows a more or less free press in his country and his main sin against humanity is spending too much money on nice suits.

    Oh yeah, Egypt’s a paradise of human rights… get a clue.

    Haile Selassie (Ethiopia)

    Again. Conditions in Ethiopia were about a zillion times better under his rule than they have been since. If a benevolent autocrat is what a country needs to function, why condemn that when the alternative is chaos and mass bloodshed. By rejecting Selassie you’re essentially endorsing every real murdering butcher who’s helped destroy the country since then.

    You keep using the term ‘benevolent’… by whose estimation? The people who actually live in the country? Or yours and the State Departments? things are much more complex than — this guy was benevolent and the alternatives were worse… well, I’m sure the Iraqis who were told to put down their arms in ’91 and the US would protect them thought the US was benevolent… until they didn’t actually protect them and allowed Sadaam to slaughter them.

    George Papadopoulos (Greece)

    Whose stabilization of the country and encouragement of economic growth led to a peaceful transition to a nice, functional democracy.

    Just because the end outcome, years later, turned out okay does not mean that supporting someone who only killed certain people is a moral thing to do.

    Gerard Latortue (Haiti)
    Raoul Cedras (Haiti)
    “Baby Doc” Duvalier (Haiti)
    “Papa Doc” Duvalier (Haiti)

    When you meddle in Haitian affairs you’re basically playing ‘pick a butcher’. The problem there is less the leadership than the infrastructure of the Tonton Macute, which never goes away.

    Perhaps not meddling to begin with and allowing self-determination… ie. there is no moral ground to stand on when you say, my butcher is better than your butcher.

    Shah Reza Pahlavi‡ (Iran)

    Ok, tell me the Middle East and the world and Iran for that matter wouldn’t be better off if he’d stayed in power. He may have oppressed a few people, but the overall conditions in Iran were gloriously better under his reign than any time before and since. And unlike you, I lived there during his administration.

    The crimes of the Shah have been well documented Dave. You may have lived their during his reign, but have you been to Iran since? It’s terrible and horrific and I wish it would change, but there is just as much a case to be made for either one… and if the Shah was so wonderful why did the population overwhelmingly overthrow him for religious leadership?

    Saddam Hussein (Iraq)

    Whose experiment in secularization of the country has laid the groundwork for a possible democratic future. Sure, he was out of control for a long time, but how was he any worse than the alternative. At least he permitted education and industry unlike whoever would have been there in his place.

    Hmmm… interesting… so… Hussein wasn’t that bad in comparison to the rest of the middle east… but he just had to go in 2003? And when he was gassing the Kurds the US gave him approval to do so… he only became ‘out of control’ according to the US when he misunderstood his backing from Washington for the invasion of Kuwait.

    Ariel Sharon (Israel)

    A democratically elected leader in a country with a free press, a constitution and civil rights just like America. Anti-semite much?

    So calling the butcher of Lebanon a war criminal automatically makes one an anti-semite? really? so in order to not be labeled an anti-semite one must be anti-humanity? Please. Maybe I’m just a ‘self-hating’ Jew… god your morality is all relative and it’s sickening.

    Moammar Abu Minyar al-Qaddafi (Libya)

    Whose family we killed and who we’ve tried to assassinate multiple times. Yep, he’s our buddy.

    he was America’s buddy until it became more convenient for him not to be. That is the whole point Dave, the world sees America’s claims of the moral highground as ‘flexible’ when morality never is.

    King Hassan II (Morocco)
    Mohammed VI (Morocco)

    One of the few Islamic countries relatively free from problems and oppression.

    according to whom? have you interviewed human rights activists? or are you just following the State department talking points?

    Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq‡ (Pakistan)
    Benazir Bhutto‡ (Pakistan)
    Pervez Musharraf‡ (Pakistan)

    Again, benevolent autocrats whose rule has been about a billion times better than what would have taken place there otherwise.

    benevolent. you really are too much. Musharraf came to power in a bloody coup and his secret police are notorious for their human rights abuses. They sold nuclear tech to Iran and aided Al-Qaida… but right, now their your friends. get some perspective on what ‘humanitarian and consistent’ mean.

    Ferdinand Marcos‡ (Phillipines)

    Under whose rule the country modernized and became prosperous to the point where they were able to overthrow him in a bloodless democratic oup. What a tragedy.

    Antonio Salazar‡ (Portugal)

    Again, a benevolent dictator who ddn’t noticably oppress his people.

    King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
    Crown Prince Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)

    Cosider the alternatives for just ONE second.

    No Al-Qaida and rational for bin Laden… no Saudi highjackers on 9/11… I have my friend… seems like you haven’t.

    Josef Stalin‡ (Soviet Union)

    Ok, you’ve lost all credibility. The choice was supporting Stalin or Hitler. Presumably from this you’re saying you would have preferred Hitler?

    The support for Stalin came in 1931 (if not sooner). The Ukrainian hidden holocaust occurred in 1931-1933. Was Hitler a concern for the US then? Learn history and come back and talk to me.

  • Sgt Rock

    Spidey-I thought you left to bake some cookies.

  • http://jadedreality.blogspot.com spiderleaf

    It’s all coming together now…

    Sgt Rock, does Raytheon know that you’re surfing the net on company time?

  • Sgt Rock

    Spidey-have you had a chance to change out of your pajamas yet? You best get to cleaning the bathrooms instead of wasting your time blathering on the internet.

  • Nick Jones

    Spiderleaf, some advice – don’t feed the Trolls.