This guy is a joke. He has opposed the iraq war from it was first proposed, which means he's not a very good source on the issue- the guy wanted to do nothing to remove a brutal despot from that country...and still feels that way today, that tells you something about the guy- maybe that's here not all there to begin with.
He starts out his article by mentioning militiamen killed, then he talks about so many innocent deaths...which seems to me he's claiming these people are part of the innocents as well- we all know innocent people get caught up in war and lose their lives...just as a million or so were SLAUGHTERED by Saddam Hussein- he makes no mention of these people. Well, he does- but he merely uses the quick brush over on the subject to call Americans murderers- "participating" in the deaths of so many innocent people, as if we are deliberately letting them die- never mentioning the fact that many died because Hussein is a psychopath who always placed military targets right on top of civilians to cause more death and carnage. Go figure.
He then talks about how Bush has done basically everything wrong for 4 years- which shows this guy is clearly a Bush-hater, which means his opinion about the subject is shoddy at best, wholly invalidated at worst. He claims Bush gave the middle finger to our allies- which we all know is bunk...the German PM who ran on an anti-American platform to win election, the French who stabbed Powell in the back with the UN resolution they said they would veto no matter what it said (the French have been implicated in the oil for food scandal, they were almost surely on the take with Hussein for millions of dollars, perhaps even more), the Russians- come on! Vladimir 'I will make all my opponents disappear' Putin? Russia isn't a happy place to be, and Putin isn't a good guy...never has been, never will be. We never gave the finger to any of these backstabbers. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Europeans, if they had to choose right now, would do very little to fight radical islamic terrorism- they won't step up to the plate...the same thing happened during WWII. Europe refused to stand up to Hitler, and we came in and saved the day. We will most likely have to do the same thing today with terrorism. Big deal- we don't need the weasels with their funny hats and cheese, and we don't need the thug-like Russians, and we surely don't need the anti-American Germans.
As for Christianity- this guy must be very adept on the Bible. I really don't believe that God would say to America- "hey guys, get yourself killed...don't defend yourselves, let the world's people stay oppressed by brutal sociopaths like Saddam Hussein- see if I care." Highly doubtful. If God took action himself, he would annihilate Hussein and all men like him- one day, in the future, he will do JUST that, so let's not try to claim that removing despots thru force is at complete odds with Christianity.
He calls Iraq a fiasco- which is just stupid. Tens of millions of people FREED, no more murder rooms, no more rape rooms, no more torture chambers- a free nation in the heart of the middle east! No more threat to Kuwait, Iran, the US, any other nation from crazy Hussein. He talks about how we should have respect for human rights- as if freeing millions isn't respecting human rights. He also talks about a thirst for empire- which is absurd, since the US has added not one single inch of territory from any other nation since- hell, I don't even know when we took land from military action. So, a thirst for empire is just a blatant lie.
As I have shown- this piece is nonsense, and honesty is clearly not part of this guy's vocabulary.
Posted by Josh at August 12, 2004 02:29 PM | TrackBack"Europe refused to stand up to Hitler, and we came in and saved the day"
- This is not accurate. Europe was reluctant but did ultimately declare war on Hitler after he invaded France. The US did not. They only entered the war 2 years in, and even then it was to protect their interests (see "Pearl Harbor") not to "save the day".
- Their motives notwithstanding, it's hard to credit the US with the victory of WW2. If anybody "saved" Europe, it was Russia. They had more divisions in the war than anybody else (safe for Germany). They also lost over 13 million soldiers (plus another 8 or 9 million civilians), compared to USA's 500,000.
Posted by: lowdown at August 12, 2004 05:05 PMthey refused to stand up to hitler...you said so yourself by saying they reluctantly entered the war. and you dont think the US saved europe during and after WWII? thats just crazy. of course the US saved europe and without us, hitler probably would have not been defeated. not to mention- it was japan who attacked us, so we didnt need to ultimately take down hitler if our motives were so selfish as you say.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 12, 2004 10:02 PMWow. You out did yourself this time Josh.
First of all, the US didn't "save" Europe. The US was drawn into Europe after declaring war on Japan (which ultimately meant war with Germany as well)
Had Pearl Harbor not happened, who knows how the war would have went.
The US alone could NOT have beaten Germany. It was a combined (allied) effort. Countries from all over the globe stood up to Nazi Germany and the Axis. To say the US "saved the day" is not only ignorant, but also an insult to every non US allied soldier who fought and died during World War 2.
Obviously you live in a bubble, unable to understand the concept of allied teamwork during the war, so spare me the "God Bless America" bullshit.
Had the US acted alone, they would have been slaughtered. The US needed the UK/Russia/Canada/Australia (etc etc) as much as they needed the US.
The ALLIES saved the day, not the USA.
"and you dont think the US saved europe during and after WWII? thats just crazy"
- If it's so crazy why don't you try refuting the evidence that pointed more to Russia, if anybody, being the "savior" of Europe? Personally, I always considered the US's largest contribution to be the fact that they funneled a lot of money to Russia so they could take on the majority of Germany's soldiers. I don't know how much further I'd go than that...
"of course the US saved europe and without us, hitler probably would have not been defeated"
- That's hard to say. Of course, if it wasn't for the American corporations that helped finance the National Socialist party (like Standard Oil, Rockefeller’s Chase Bank, Morgan Bank, as well as Du Pont/General Motors) you could also speculate that Hitler might have never become as powerful as he did.
"it was japan who attacked us, so we didnt need to ultimately take down hitler if our motives were so selfish as you say"
- Actually, Hitler declared war on the United States before they had commited any troops to an invasion of Europe. You sound a little uninformed on the subject Josh, anybody with a high school level history education should know this.
Posted by: lowdown at August 14, 2004 09:27 PMyes, im uninformed. hitler never directly attacked us, did he? we didnt, ultimately, HAVE to take out hitler, did we? we didnt take out hitler, simply because he "declared war" on us and japan attacked us. we didnt do it out of selfish reasons.
im uninformed, but youre blaming US companies for the rise of hitler, which is just laugh out loud funny...and the russians, who never would have ultimately been able to fight the nazis as they did without US help, were the saviors. without the US entering and fighting the nazis- the war would have been drug out no telling how long...many more casualties, etc. and in the end, if russia would have defeated them without US intervention- we would, today, be looking at an entirely different (SCARY AS HELL) europe. not that you even know the point- which is, europeans are VERY VERY weak on defense and will do very little to combat intl. terrorism. they refused to even help oust the brutal regime of hussein. france was in bed with the guy- as prob was germany and russia. russia is a brutal place where youre more likely to find a dead body buried by putins thugs than a political opponent. germany is an anti-american paradise. the rest of europe- heck, when it comes to forces, besides the UK, they have none.
face it- europe is weak, theyve always been weak, they will almost surely ALWAYS be weak.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 14, 2004 09:44 PMJosh, how come you deleted my comment?
Dont tell me there was a problem with it being posted. It posted fine, I closed my browser, and later used a different computer and it was there...now it's "gone"
Good god. And you claim Moore hates america? You can't even give someone the basic freedom of speech...
Freedom hater...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 15, 2004 11:43 AM"hitler never directly attacked us, did he? we didnt, ultimately, HAVE to take out hitler, did we?"
- Josh, he DECLARED WAR on the United States of America. What other option was there?
"im uninformed, but youre blaming US companies for the rise of hitler, which is just laugh out loud funny"
"france was in bed with the guy"
- More or less. It's hard to say for sure what their true motivations were for opposing the war, but since there's no shortage of good reasons to oppose an unlawful invasion, they might of been sincere in their opposition.
- They are partially to blame. I'm sorry but that's simply a matter of fact. If you believe I'm being dishonest, just say so and I'll provide you with a few links.
"as prob was germany and russia"
- There's a serious lack of evidence supporting that assertion. I'm afraid no reasonable person would really take it seriously.
"without the US entering and fighting the nazis- the war would have been drug out no telling how long...many more casualties"
- This much is very true. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the U.S. their would have been far more Allied casualties. That's hardly the equivalent of "saving europe" though.
"if russia would have defeated them without US intervention- we would, today, be looking at an entirely different (SCARY AS HELL) europe"
- No, we would be looking at a slightly different looking Europe as Stalin would not have had enough military might, after suffering so many casualties, to annex any single member of the Allied forces. He would have, however, taken a significantly larger chunk of Germany.
"europeans are VERY VERY weak on defense and will do very little to combat intl. terrorism. they refused to even help oust the brutal regime of hussein"
- This again? First, there is still no evidence that conclusively links Iraq to Al Queda. So, whatever you think of the war with Iraq, it was not a terrorism related issue. Second, yes Europe was against the war. So was Canada, most of the Middle East, and the majority of the people of Britain, Spain, Australia, and every other member of the "coalition of the willing". In short, the only country that had the majority of the people in favor of the war with Iraq was the U.S. (and maybe Isreal, I'm not sure of that).
"russia is a brutal place where youre more likely to find a dead body buried by putins thugs than a political opponent"
- What's your point?
"face it- europe is weak, theyve always been weak, they will almost surely ALWAYS be weak"
- I don't have time to go over the entire history of Europe to prove how ignorant you are, but hopefully I'll be able to come back to this later..
Posted by: lowdown at August 15, 2004 03:03 PMFunny. you say hitler declared war on the US, which means we HAD to attack on that front...yet, hussein has, many times, declared war on the US and attempted to assissinate a sitting us pres. but you call THAT an "unlawful invasion" hilarious. like some, mostly on the left, you seem to want to have it both ways.
no evidence germany and russia were in bed with the regime in regards to oil for food? google it, pal...theres evidence all over the place.
lol. there is no evidence to link iraq to al qaeda? and the war in iraq wasnt terrorism related? thats hilarious.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/
good thing they had no ties! i believe it was also the dutch who noted meetings between 911 ringleader attah and iraqi secret police. we know that he harbored terrorists in his country and funded terrorism in israel- money and training and support.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118339,00.html
http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=23930
http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/000097.html
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php
- - - - - - - - -
and some facts about iraqs funding, supporting, carrying out of terrorist acts (since the war in iraq is in no way linked to terrorism, as you say)
*Since 1995, Iraq has been training terrorists at the Salman Pak facility
*Iraq and Palestinian Terrorists
Iraq's connection with terrorism among Palestinians is well-documented. Most notable, of course, are its payments to the families of suicide bombers. To date, he has provided nearly $35 million to the families of suicide bombers. According to the State Department, Iraq has actively sponsored and trained terrorists from several different Palestinian groups. Israeli intelligence has a significant amount of information on this issue, as well.
*Iraq and Hamas
In particular, Iraq has provided sponsorship to the Palestinian terror group Hamas. Hamas is one of the most deadly and effective Palestinian terror groups.
*Iraq and Hezbollah
Hezbollah is one of the most notorious Islamofascist terrorist groups. It has cells all over the world, including suspected cells in the United States and committed numerous attacks all around the world during the 80's and 90's. Most notorious were two attacks in Argentina during the 90's the specifically targeted the Jewish community there. Hezbollah is also known to have some ties to al-Qaeda, and it's now known that bin laden traveled to Brazil in the mid-1990's, which indicates that he may have met with Hezbollah members there, although there's nothing concrete on that.
What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists“ list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet announced that the CIA had received uncorroborated reports that:
Senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda stretch back a decade.
Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed the provision of safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression.
Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in chemical weapons and conventional explosives.
Al-Qaeda leaders have tried to cultivate contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Some al-Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan took refuge in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
-=--------
BUT...i am SO SO glad that this war was "unlawful", that it was in no way related to the war on terrorism (since hussein was in no way involved in terrorism i guess?!)...and that europe has no ulterior motives in not taking out the regime and protecting the world from thugs like hussein. not oil scandals...not weakness...nothing.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 15, 2004 05:30 PMWait....this was was on terrorism? I thought it was to rid Iraq of their obvious WMD's....or freeing the Iraqi people??
If the US wanted to really take a bite into terrorism, they would stomp on Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 15, 2004 06:57 PM"yet, hussein has, many times, declared war on the US"
- This is, as far as I know, untrue. Saddam did not declare war with the US. I've researched the subject and haven't found anything. Perhaps you could give a link to support such a bold declaration.
"but you call THAT an "unlawful invasion" hilarious"
- According to the UN it was. I'm sorry but that's a fact.
(http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=498039)
"no evidence germany and russia were in bed with the regime in regards to oil for food"
- I didn't say there was "no evidence".
"lol. there is no evidence to link iraq to al qaeda?"
- None that conclusively does. None of your links did either. Of course, I suppose everyone has their own idea of what "link" means.
"and the war in iraq wasnt terrorism related? thats hilarious"
- If the Bush administration's war with Iraq was a sincere effort to stop terrorism, they would also go to war Saudi Arabia, regardless of their economic clout.
"europe has no ulterior motives in not taking out the regime and protecting the world from thugs like hussein"
- Europe might have ulterior motives, neither of us know for sure. What we do know is there are plenty of good reasons to oppose an invasion without "ulterior motives".
Posted by: lowdown at August 15, 2004 09:22 PMnothing in the links showed a link between iraq and al qaeda? wow. you just officially became an even bigger joke than you were before you said that! saddam hussein, who actually FOUGHT a war with us, has never declared war on us? whew. that almost made you yet an even bigger joke! greatest comedy around, your stuff is!
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 15, 2004 09:46 PMbtw. i love the source for your claim that the invasion was illegal. hans blix who said in front of the sec council that iraq HAD NOT full complied with res 1441 and had given no new info and had not fully explained how it destroyed large quantities of chem and bio weapons...THEN, to extend his 15 mins of fame, he attacks bush and blair for going along with what he said before the council. res 1441 called for...slowly for ya- s e r i o u s c o n s e q u e n c e s
if full compliance was not given. blix said it was NOT given, then when we go thru with the consequences, he flips? funny. GREAT source. really.
almost as funny as saying- top al qaeda officials met with top iraqi officials numerous times...iraq had training camps where al qaeda members trained- but there is absolutely no tie between the two groups. nope, no way, no how.
really, you should read the bologna you write before you hit post. i say that as a nice person trying to save you some embarassment.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 15, 2004 09:51 PM"nothing in the links showed a link between iraq and al qaeda"
- Nothing showed a conclusive link. For example, you said:
"Senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda stretch back a decade."
-But so does the US's. So do other countries. By that definiton the US should be invading quite a few countries including their own.
"Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed the provision of safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression"
- Non-agression? Not exactly a smoking gun is it?
"which indicates that he may have met with Hezbollah members there, although there's nothing concrete on that."
- Still nothing "concrete". See what I mean?
I could go through all the others but I'm not sure if I need to. None of your examples are very convincing.
"saddam hussein, who actually FOUGHT a war with
us, has never declared war on us"
- Where did I say he NEVER declared war on the U.S.? I said he didn't declare war "many times" like you alleged. Unless I'm mistaken, the only time he declared war on the U.S. was after they declared war on him.
"res 1441 called for...slowly for ya- s e r i o u s c o n s e q u e n c e s "
- "Serious consequences" is not the traditional equivalent of internationally sanctioned use of force. "All necessary means" are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.
"top al qaeda officials met with top iraqi officials numerous times...iraq had training camps where al qaeda members trained"
- This is all true of the U.S. as well. Please don't get too upset, these are simply the facts.
"really, you should read the bologna you write before you hit post. i say that as a nice person trying to save you some embarassment."
- Thanks for the concern, but you can keep those types of personal assumptions to yourself as I'm really only interested in having a polite debate.