tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post1210064391968837588..comments2023-12-19T04:24:35.912+02:00Comments on Daily Hitchens: Simply EvilUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-14267461596418744752012-08-07T04:29:39.388+03:002012-08-07T04:29:39.388+03:00Good replies in return of this query wіth fіrm aгg...Good replies in return of this query wіth fіrm aгguments аnd ԁescribing eveгything on thе topic of that.<br /><i>Also visit my website</i> : <b><a href="http://www.ps3headset.net/" rel="nofollow">PS3 Headset</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-85795306681137465462011-09-17T04:27:54.482+03:002011-09-17T04:27:54.482+03:00michael dawson said:
"So who here hates Amer...michael dawson said:<br /><br />"So who here hates America?"<br /><br />I think the real question is who started with the hurling of the insults. That was clearly you. I guess you're so convinced of your righteousness you just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, ha, guilty as charged. It is I, dawson, the moron hunter." The fact remains, that was you.<br /><br />And I guess that wouldn't be such an important point that I make were it not for the fact that you didn't seriously engage me on any issue. Is anyone contending that the Taliban wasn't in power when Afghanistan was invade? No. So I don't see how you've gotten me on anything there. <br /><br />Now we get it. You are so committed to the overthrow of the capitalist death cult that there's no way that anything significant (of a positive nature) has been achieved in Iraq. Furthermore, my assertion that Kerry administration could've gotten the job done with less headache, is, in your mind, not worth considering. I guess you by in to the hard right/hard left rhetoric that he was a spineless flip flopper. Did you want to discuss points I made about WMD? About death tolls? About liberties and civilian control of the military? Or anything else? No, no, no and no. You're comfort zone is left wing talking points and name calling. It comes as even less of a surprise that you don't want to face the disgusting things preached on the left concerning Bush, the US, history and so many other things. That's coming from someone who doesn't think he should've been re-elected. <br /><br />But I'm sure that the ridiculous sophomoric readings of history and global politics which is taught to our young people is really just a right-wing fantasy that doesn't actually happen. Perpetuated by right wing assholes such as myself, who voted for John Kerry.<br /><br />Equally fantastic are the reports of brutal life under Islam and how such cruelty has now infiltrated the western world via the decriminalization of barbarism in the name of "Tolerating the intolerant". This whole discussion has become incomprehensible. If I'm not getting hammered by some right wing idiot claiming "Bush was the only way to go" or "there's no way you could be for iraq and for Kerry", then I'm getting it from dawson, who claims that because I don't share his views on the issue of imperial capitalism vs. islam that I am therefore too stupid to participate. Meanwhile intelligent folks such as himself don't have to engage in issues. They can just boorishly type 3 or 4 lines of unfounded factually suspect talking points. How's that for the audacity of hope? Is that change you can believe in dawson? Oh, no wait, I'm sure you're one of those liberals who wants to have it both ways; pretending they didn't cheer on Obama. <br /><br />No, you just criticized Bush and acted like Obama would be so much better and then when things didn't go the way you wanted (this part is ironic because it reads just like the left narrative against conservatives), then you claimed you knew it was a sham and had been against Obama all along. Pretty much right out of the Chomsky handbook. He was, of course another one of the gifted ones who could see the truth because he was so intellectually evolved. I've had just about enough of this. Oh, and by the way, treaties don't really mean anything when you only expect the US to honor them okay? No matter what the spoiled younger child does the parent always blames the older sibling. "Well, I expect you to know better" and the like. Well, Dawson, you're not America's parent. So why don't you whinge on like a mother hen about ethics to some of these other countries? I'm sure they'd appreciate your candor.civil libertarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-27474861700783707382011-09-16T05:27:06.634+03:002011-09-16T05:27:06.634+03:00Saddam honored treaties? Forget about me, lets wat...Saddam honored treaties? Forget about me, lets watch you eviscerate yourself<br /><br />moron<br /><br />apologist<br /><br />mindless<br /><br />masturbator<br /><br />idiot<br /><br />hateful <br /><br />socially irresponsible<br /><br />who started the insulting? Treaties mean nothing if they aren't enforced. <br /><br />ALL HAIL KING DAWSON. LORD OF THE MORONS!!! CL outcivil libertarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-65407476296281627312011-09-15T20:32:56.557+03:002011-09-15T20:32:56.557+03:00Well, CL, you're right about one thing: You&#...Well, CL, you're right about one thing: You've been eviscerated.<br /><br />And it's quite rich to be taken to task for calling you a moron, when you call me:<br /><br />moron<br /><br />apologist<br /><br />mindless<br /><br />masturbator<br /><br />idiot<br /><br />hateful<br /><br />socially irresponsible<br /><br />Meanwhile, do you know the document known as the United States Constitution? Are you aware that it says treaties are the highest law of the land? The United Nations Charter, meanwhile, was not only largely written by Americans, but the United States is a signatory to it.<br /><br />So who here hates America?Michael Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353560855423670828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-71852330490411708662011-09-14T20:29:29.313+03:002011-09-14T20:29:29.313+03:00There was a Taliban upsurge when that conflict was...There was a Taliban upsurge when that conflict was neglected. Don't call people moron's unless you actually know what they're saying, MORON!!! ROTFLMFAO x 1000!!! It's especially ridiculous to criticize someone who actually agrees with you on some points; but its like a lot of people have already said. You're apologists for anyone who isn't a capitalist; just another mindless pacifist tool. What made me think I could have a discussion with an ounce of consensus when the great and all knowing dawson was on the other end; eviscerating anyone who doesn't tow his own deranged party line on every single point, mentally masturbating himself silly, needing a proctologist to find his head and a microscope to find his brain. A machine has yet to be invented which could accurately measure the size of his ego. <br /><br />My point was that Hitchens, while certainly having a legitimate point with Saddam's crimes against humanity, still fails to address the ambiguity of Saddam's threat. Moreover, I don't think Hitchens was being intellectually honest when he acted as though Kerry couldn't/wouldn't handle the job of policing Iraq. <br /><br />But instead of listening to and appreciating that point, inspector dawson decides to tear me a new one and make himself look like an idiot in the process. You must be so proud of yourself, D. I guess it's my fault. I should've known there would be trouble when I didn't write I LOVE MICHAEL MOORE 100 times. <br /><br />PS I would absolutely love it if you could go back in a time machine, go to Iraq, learn things (that would be the most difficult part), and then tell me it wasn't a terrorist hang out. However, you are so utterly arrogant and delusional (see above statements concerning proctology) that you would probably attribute the loss of a limb during some crazy pro Saddam demonstration/riot to UN sanctions. Oh, no wait, you like the UN, right? After all, anyone whose willing to behave in a socially irresponsible way in order to discredit the US is a friend. <br /><br />To paraphrase mission impossible, maybe Ban Ki-moon could get you a job "manning a radar tower in Alaska". Oh, no I forgot. You only like the UN when the members are bantering hateful rhetoric, hanging out with mullahs, and trying to bone the US. Sorry; but after all, who can keep track with you at this point, dawson? I think even some of your moveon friends might be at a loss here. Where's Cenk Booger from the young turks when you need him, huh? What a pity there isn't a hell for you to go to.civil libertarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-69102284305686339762011-09-14T20:13:11.352+03:002011-09-14T20:13:11.352+03:00Tiglath, Hitchens agrees with Bin Laden, and wants...Tiglath, Hitchens agrees with Bin Laden, and wants what Bin Laden wanted. He thinks it's a war between two cultures, and favors pursuing it in exactly those terms.<br /><br />Hence, for Hitchens, there is no contradiction. Removing Hussein was merely the first step. Making war on Iran is next on the agenda. Hitchens interprets the entirely inevitable surge of Shia power in Iraq as merely another reason to attack Iran.Michael Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353560855423670828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-60667236791343495712011-09-14T01:23:32.095+03:002011-09-14T01:23:32.095+03:00Some data for those skeptics that Bush's War h...Some data for those skeptics that Bush's War has not benefited Iran <br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/09/12/9.11.iran/index.html?hpt=hp_c2<br /><br />Hitchens still has to address this contradiction of his. <br /><br />He denounces Iran as a great peril and as the closest an apocalyptic regime is getting to get its hands on apocalyptic weapons, and yet at the same time he rejoices removing Saddam, which has boosted Irans power a great deal. <br /><br />Is he coming or going?Tiglathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026547030769758888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-79249425347537657552011-09-14T00:29:31.320+03:002011-09-14T00:29:31.320+03:00CHOMSKY AND HITCHENS: TWO AUTHORS WITH MUCH MORE T...CHOMSKY AND HITCHENS: TWO AUTHORS WITH MUCH MORE TO SAY TO EACH OTHER.<br />Article about Chomsky-Hitchens controversy http://www.zcommunications.org/chomsky-and-hitchens-two-authors-with-much-more-to-say-to-each-other-by-pepe-crespo<br /><br />And video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJYENfcsL3YAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-67016382289132905352011-09-13T19:57:28.447+03:002011-09-13T19:57:28.447+03:00"Somehow when Iraq was invaded the taliban re..."Somehow when Iraq was invaded the taliban returned to Afghanistan. Go figure."<br /><br />ROFLMFAO x 100. The Taliban was in power when _Afghanistan_ was invaded, moron. Where do you think they all went? Saddam's bathroom?<br /><br />Meanwhile, if you're "thinking" about the actual friends and sponsors of the Taliban, you might go back and take a look at Carter and Reagan.Michael Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353560855423670828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-64389134604664041242011-09-12T22:47:53.480+03:002011-09-12T22:47:53.480+03:00Anonymous said: "Also, your conviction that t...Anonymous said: "Also, your conviction that the U.S. should have waited for Arab Spring (that thing it didn't know would happen) is yet another example of the pitfalls of what-ifism."<br /><br />Let me first remind myself that you are the guy who posts using a name used by several other people, knowingly, and then bristles at misattributions. <br /><br />How can you possibly know that I am attributing anything to you or to a some other 'Anonymous,' unless I precede my comment with your words? which I do only in the beginning of the post? <br /><br />Man, oh man! <br /><br />I never said that the U.S. should have waited for the Arab Spring. Stop putting words into my mouth, You need not add dishonesty to your already too many manifest vices.<br /><br />What I said quite clearly is that the Arab Spring confirms what clear-thinking people knew all along. And which I, and many others, have been claiming since Bush fired the first shot in Iraq. That pushing democracy on a people who aren't mature and hungry for it, is like casting pearls to the swine. It won't take. Maliki's government is rotten to the core, uses torture, and it's Saddam light under the cloak of democracy. And with him we've lost all the counterweight Saddam was to Iran. <br /><br />Sterling! <br /><br />That is the result of establishing democracy by compelling the objectors at bayonet point, and bribing the indifferent with pallets of cash. <br /><br />The Arab Spring did not teach us that the best political changes come from within the people wanting a better system. The Arab Spring has illustrated it beautifully so that people like Hitchens can see that Bush's War was unnecessary. It has caused death and suffering to warrant saying that the cure has been as bad if not worse than the disease. And those who said that there had to be a better way now have a shining example in the Arab Spring. Yes, Iraq would not go easy like Egypt, but whatever the cost the point is that it would be a change desired by the Iraqi people, and as the Arab Spring shows us it makes all the difference.Tiglathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026547030769758888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-19778579612658644292011-09-12T21:33:32.295+03:002011-09-12T21:33:32.295+03:00| I assume you are unaware that the designation
|...| I assume you are unaware that the designation <br />| “Anonymous”'<br /><br />I don't care if you are a comitte of just a guy, I respond to arguments, and when I see insults return fire as warranted. If you want to be identified better use a name. <br /><br />| '“At no time he caused to his own people (sic) the NUMBER <br />| OF CASUALTIES and suffering that Bush's War has. <br /><br />The War the Bush Started is still causing casualties, for one. It is still not clear to you that my argument refers to the proposition of whether it was wise to remove Saddam from power the way Bush did it. That is the CONTEXT. It means that the TIME is 2003 and the short years prior. I started my phrase with "at no time" meaning that period. It is disingenuous to interpret that to mean all casualties in his 23 years in power. If he was to be punished for that why did a Republican president leave him in power after the Gulf War? <br /><br />Feel free to ignore the context so that we can distance our views even more. <br /><br /><br />| He never won a battle, <br />| had no air force, and AT NO TIME POSED ANY THREAT TO ANYONE <br />| OTHER THAN THOSE IN HIS JURISDICTION." – Tiglath (Emphasis mine again)<br /><br />All well in the context, you keep ignoring. He had no air force in <br />2003. He lost it in the Gulf War. And he posed no longer a threat to <br />anyone but his own people at that time. It's funny how you want to count <br />as Saddam's victims the soldiers killed by Iran, in a war WE supported Saddam. Pretzel logic. <br /><br />| I’m sorry; I suppose I must have wrongly taken your use of “at no time,” > | to mean “never,” when you so transparently meant it to refer to “2003, the | specific year.”<br /><br />It's beginning to sink in, at long last. Yes. It's 2003 and discussing the Iran-Iraq war doesn't come into it. <br /><br /><br /> <br />| I used the obituary from the New York Times not <br />| as a citation source (which would have been patently <br />| obvious to anyone with their faculties about them), but <br />| as a succinct and eloquent conclusory description <br /><br />A distinction without difference. A citation of that sort IS a "conclusory description", or at least intende to be one, and viceversa. <br /><br />There is no shortage of historians to quote. If you look for objective reporting in obituaries then... no wonder... <br /><br />| All of the things claimed <br />| in that obituary are accurate, and can be substantiated <br />| via first-hand accounts, physical evidence and the <br />| most basic research <br /><br />Come on already. There is nothing more opaque that the crimes of a dictator with all the power to muddle the facts. To express such certainty reveals a very poor understanding of history. <br /><br />| I noticed your lack, by the way, of validation for your <br />| previous false and idiotic claim that the Iraqis had <br />| “no air force,” in the first Gulf War.<br /><br />I never said that. Run, don't walk to Lenscrafters. <br /><br />Try to debate what I actually write, no what you think I write. <br /><br /><br />| As for “invective,” I have not yet used any such <br />| thing in my posts, and anyway your constant beating <br />| away at that straw man is, quite frankly, pathetic. <br /><br />I see "Anonymous" using plenty of invective. If you don't want to be confused with "Anonymous" use a fucking name and stop whining.Tiglathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026547030769758888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-4182696985213996802011-09-12T20:38:12.762+03:002011-09-12T20:38:12.762+03:00C. P. Coleta said: "So we shouldn't judge...C. P. Coleta said: "So we shouldn't judge Saddam by what he did (which you stipulate), but by what he was capable of doing from 2003 forward. Is it me [...]"<br /><br />Yes, it is you. You can't read English to save your life, where are you from Kazakhstan? <br /><br />I said that to judge not Saddam, twit, but the wisdom of removing Saddam from power in 2003 the Bush way, we have to look at what would have been worse (a) leaving him in power, of (b) going into Iraq like bulls in a china shop, as Bush did. What part of that simple proposition do you find so hard to understand? <br /><br />Your posts are a fest of incomprehension and now I see why; you comprehend little of what you read and blame the writer for what you think you read. <br /><br />Hilarious! <br /><br />I expected to find better rhetorical opponents in a Hitchens page; this is appalling; between this guy, Chris, and Anonymous we have the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight. It's good comedy but a disservice to Daily Hitchens.Tiglathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026547030769758888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-61199706156133311262011-09-12T20:23:18.678+03:002011-09-12T20:23:18.678+03:00continuing after point 5 (see original post above ...continuing after point 5 (see original post above by civil libertarian)<br /><br />6. When one considers the fact that Saddam did not even get what he wanted from Kim Jong Ill in '01 or '03, the argument to take down Saddam exhibits a more ethical "shape" if you will; as opposed to purely pragmatic argument.<br /><br />7. The notion that Kerry, with all his military experience, would not be able to broker a workable solution in Iraq because he made a few attempts to cater to the far left, shows an ignorance of political history, Kerry's personal history, and seems the kind of intellectual error that ones such as Christopher Hitchens or Oliver Kamm would not usually make. What Hitchens and Kamm did was very disingenuous because they knew that Kerry was not a tool of the far left (he opposed gay marriage!) yet they pretended that we would have no way of knowing whether he was or was not such a person. This kind of fraud isn't all that high above the swift boat veterans.<br /><br />8. Somehow when Iraq was invaded the taliban returned to Afghanistan. Go figure.<br /><br />9. When one considers the fact that Kanan Makiya said the war death toll was "very close to Saddam" in 2008, consider if we haven't surpassed Hussein in sheer numbers from then until now. (note: Kanan Makiya is an Iraqi dissident and as much a victim of Saddam's cruelty as anyone. How deliciously ironic that bitchens touted him as a "brother in arms" for the great cause of chickenhawking.<br /><br />I don't happen to be a student of Edward Said so I'm not tainted by this "left disease" which has become epidemic according to Harris and Hitchens. I don't think palestine or Hamas is/are a legitimate party. I don't think what's going on can be chalked up to racist white men who don't "appreciate" Islam. I'm not one who thinks its time for islamosocialist revolution, the dismantling of the white power structure, and riots/assaults/unwelcome political reform visited upon those who don't have what the far left considers to be the right desires and interests. <br /><br />And I don't have any qualms about the fact that people who espouse such things have an undue influence over the labor movement, our universities and possibly even the young in general. At the same time, I have no qualms about saying that Israel does not have the right to establish its own country in a place against the will of citizens there. I do not believe the American imperial project (or at the very least this latest version of it) has been a success. Though I tend to be of a left leaning war-skeptic mindset in general I would have and would still like to see a positive result in the middle east. Though I am a war skeptic I also distrust the left/right isolationists. Though the intervention in Libya was far from perfect, people should bear the above facts in mind when passionately considering to oust Obama in favor of Rick Perry or Michele Bachman. <br /><br />Regardless of what higher ethical position one might take concerning war in general, the fact remains that if Saddam had been taken out under Clinton's watch, whatever debates we would be having about Iraq would be largely academic. Think, it's still legal!!!civil libertarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-47461149974618667402011-09-12T19:35:48.450+03:002011-09-12T19:35:48.450+03:00Nice racism, Coleta. Hitch's new supporters a...Nice racism, Coleta. Hitch's new supporters are flashing their true colors here.Michael Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353560855423670828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-64438288467554389342011-09-12T19:34:37.504+03:002011-09-12T19:34:37.504+03:00Anon, you must not have read Chomsky quite as clos...Anon, you must not have read Chomsky quite as closely as you think. If you had, you'd know his points about removing Saddam:<br /><br />1. Criminals don't get to police their own disdeeds. (A point you'd surely see if you also understood Chomsky point about double-standards: Would you let the USSR decide what to do with Afghanistan or Romania circa 1988?)<br /><br />2. The United Nations is the proper forum for international policing/military action. The USA did not obtain authorization to remove Saddam, even though it tried hard to do so. It then invaded anyway.<br /><br />3. The proper US move, if our elite cared a whit about what you think it cares about, would be a regional ME peace conference at which Israel would be brought into control and WMD would be banned from the region. The USA is utterly opposed to that idea.<br /><br />4. What happens in Iraq, as in any country, is first and foremost the business of Iraqis.<br /><br />5. How in the world to you sustain the fantasy that Saddam was an imminent threat to anybody outside Iraq? That was a lie.Michael Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353560855423670828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-85367267530263668462011-09-12T05:04:27.873+03:002011-09-12T05:04:27.873+03:00Whether Saddam is more brutal or less brutal than ...Whether Saddam is more brutal or less brutal than hitler was is beside the point. Whether Saddam's military capability was at level x or 3 times level x is also an irrelevant question. If Saddam killed more people than the US invasion it does not matter. Whether the US has killed a higher number of people than the number of casualties under Saddam is again immaterial. Below you will find reasons why the above statements are true.<br /><br />1. There is much which contends that Saddam's threat was nebulous but even if he indeed was a true threat, a coherent resolution to Iraq could not have been achieved under Bush because everyone on his staff were either childish stubborn neocons (go in without thinking) or whackado paleocon nutjobs with their heads in the sand. Consequently, most of the key decisions made in Iraq directly sabotaged stability, law and order. <br /><br />2. As Hitchens often points out in a rather begrudging fashion, it was in fact the Clinton administration who wanted to do something about Iraq with the incoming Bush jr. administration initially in opposition. There's no doubt that under the Clinton administration less mistakes would have been made (and you can bitch about the Sudan bombing as long as you fucking want!). But whether it be under Clinton or Bush, going back into Iraq always looked a lot like Kosovo. In other words, it's too late if you wait until all the people are killed. <br /><br />3. Colossal strategic errors (disbanding trained Iraqi soldiers, lack of decentralized coordination in policing strategy ie how each patrol unit and area should be structured so that it corresponds with the natural and human boundaries/urban sprawl/resource needs of its own area as well as each corresponding area where corresponding equals how to distribute resources among patrol areas so that who has what can get that particular "what" to whomever needs it as fast as possible, no thought given to scarcity of resources, failure to heed warnings of ethno-sectarian conflict, failure to train for the inevitable urban warfare nature that the conflict would take on in later years, deliberately delaying the surge and then taking credit for it<br /><br />4. Violation of civilian controlled military and volunteer army principle through indefinite tours of duty, violation of civil liberties, illegal searching, wiretapping, waterboarding, etc. <br /><br />5. A failure to grasp the ironic (sometimes the best solution isn't the simplest one) and a complete inability to acknowledge past mistakes. Note: remember Einstein's definition of insanity.<br /><br />to be continued...civil libertarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-45648940540743270152011-09-12T01:31:28.927+03:002011-09-12T01:31:28.927+03:00@ Tiglath (con't)
By the way, I used the obit...@ Tiglath (con't)<br /><br />By the way, I used the obituary from the New York Times not as a citation source (which would have been patently obvious to anyone with their faculties about them), but as a succinct and eloquent conclusory description of what is already known from hundreds of thousands of accounts and records. All of the things claimed in that obituary are accurate, and can be substantiated via first-hand accounts, physical evidence and the most basic research (the latter of which you have clearly neglected). I noticed your lack, by the way, of validation for your previous false and idiotic claim that the Iraqis had “no air force,” in the first Gulf War. God forbid you be wrong about something, best to leave it in limbo instead. (Don’t bother, by the way, arguing the point retroactively by saying that you meant it as a superlative in comparison to the U.S. air force. You didn’t say so, and besides you put it in such a context as to imply that the Iraqi Air Force was especially deficient in general, when in ACTUAL fact, it was one of the strongest subordinates of the Iraqi military and one of the most populous air forces in the region.)<br /><br />I presented NO what if scenario of my own. Not about Assad, nor Uganda, nor indeed, Iraq, so feel free to direct your criticism elsewhere. Neither did I use the senseless “lesser evil” designation as you have done twice now. Further, I did not attack your “what if” scenario as necessarily incorrect. I didn’t even point out that it is only one of countless possibilities and as such, you should know better than to present it or believe it as certain, though I will point that out now. It’s irritating that you continue to make the case that your particular version of alternative history should be, without doubt, perfectly acceptable as fact. That seems fairly unproven. Are you omniscient? If so, I apologise. <br /><br />As for “invective,” I have not yet used any such thing in my posts, and anyway your constant beating away at that straw man is, quite frankly, pathetic. 2+2=4 no matter how many times one uses the word “fuck.” Either the idea that an argument is made less relevant by profaneness or that an arguer is more erudite if they don’t use bad language is completely illogical. If I WERE a person more prone to employ invective, I would say that the person who believes in such a logical fallacy must be a fucking twit.<br /><br />And incidentally, I was quite polite in my previous posting, but since you (that person with such enviable manners) have chosen to collectively and blatantly insult this seven-headed “Anonymous” hydra (clearly comprised of SEVERAL different people), I respond to you in kind. I also do so, I confess, because your smugness has long passed the point of excruciating.<br /> <br />Your knowledge of Iraq’s modern history as well as your ability to research and confirm it seems not much better than your reading comprehension. You use patronizing stereotypes of “plebeians” (you must be a patrician, then? And how smart they always are!) and “neocons” to assert your superiority, in lieu of any evidence that is not steeped in your own personal opinion and your thin-air conjuration of increasingly spurious ‘facts.’ All in all, you have the qualities of a bumptious, miserable pedant whose responses are neither as witty nor as clever as you seem to think they are. <br /><br />On a side note, now that I’m being contentious towards the overly smug, this appears to be a fairly accurate description of Dawson also. One need only imagine it more stupid and with, as others have mentioned, an astounding persistence in the unrivalled (even by Tiglath) inability to understand short articles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-80753685666276202122011-09-12T01:28:35.482+03:002011-09-12T01:28:35.482+03:00@Tiglath
I am “Anonymous” of Sept. 9, 8:10 AM, an...@Tiglath<br /><br />I am “Anonymous” of Sept. 9, 8:10 AM, and that was my only post so far. I assume you are unaware that the designation “Anonymous” can be invoked by more than one person; I assume so because you seem convinced that all anonymous posts are courtesy a kind of hybrid-person who somehow is both for and against the Iraq War. Anyway, I’ll leave that for now and address only the criticisms you had in response to my post (mostly that I was deviating from point). And perhaps you type faster than you think and read faster than you comprehend, but you might retrospectively notice that my post was directly addressing the points you made in yours. Please allow me to compare more simply:<br /><br />“At no time he caused to his own people (sic) the NUMBER OF CASUALTIES and suffering that Bush's War has. THAT IS A FACT no matter how many gassed Kurds or other Saddam victims you bring into the argument.” – Tiglath (Emphasis mine) <br /><br />I argued that this was not a fact, and actually provided an argument more demonstrative than your ridiculous, apparently a priori, opinion-presented-as-fact. One may sum up my argument as “Saddam, by the most conservative estimates has caused, to his own people, a higher number of casualties than has Bush’s war. To say otherwise is not a fact.” You responded with,<br /><br />“During 23 years in power Saddam surely killed hundreds of thousands of people, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion.” - Tiglath<br /><br />to which it presumably slipped your mind to add “unless I’m discussing it.” And that sickening hundred of thousands dead is even discounting the wars Hussein started (a luxury you can’t extend to Bush without nearly negating your argument). Speaking of...<br /><br />"Saddam,Chris doesn't seem to know, we pushed out of Kuwait with the little finger of the left hand. He never won a battle, had no air force, and AT NO TIME POSED ANY THREAT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE IN HIS JURISDICTION." – Tiglath (Emphasis mine again)<br /><br />I argued that at one time he posed a massive threat to Iran, and at another, to Kuwait. To which you responded:<br /><br />“On the issue of whether it was wise to leave Saddam in power in 2003, he discusses the Iran-Iraq war of two decades prior for apparently no other reason than his tendency to ramble on. Pay attention, Neocon. We are discussing 2003, not 1980.” - Tiglath<br /><br />I’m sorry; I suppose I must have wrongly taken your use of “at no time,” to mean “never,” when you so transparently meant it to refer to “2003, the specific year.” If you did mean that, then you should be careful about how haphazardly you throw around negators (see first three words of the first Tiglath quote above). I suppose I should also learn that I am discussing whatever issue you wish me to be (in this case, the 2003 invasion of Iraq), as opposed to the issue I specifically introduced by quoting you, which was not the Iraq Invasion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-26847372105048459232011-09-11T22:01:58.403+03:002011-09-11T22:01:58.403+03:00@Tiglath
You are quite the humanitarian! So we s...@Tiglath<br /><br />You are quite the humanitarian! So we shouldn't judge Saddam by what he did (which you stipulate), but by what he was capable of doing from 2003 forward. Is it me, or does that not make you (at least sound like) a Saddamophile. I think you loved Saddam. Who would run a system (criminal justice, finance, diplomacy) based on an optimistic prospectus when the past is so clearly detailed, documented and serves as a possible road-map to what we should ACTUALLY expect.<br /><br />But it's okay, 'cause you loved and admire Saddam. I'm sure the Klan, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, and all other reactionary groups, can make good on the human experience if we let them in the saddle just a liiiiiiitle bit longer.<br /><br />Enjoy your 9/11, you capitulating masochist.C. P. Coletahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13788516001602477994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-56018478027081349632011-09-11T06:34:19.083+03:002011-09-11T06:34:19.083+03:00Anonymous said: "So how much more like Hitle...Anonymous said: "So how much more like Hitler would you want Saddam to be?"<br /><br />I am not the one who compared Saddam to Hitler; "Chris" and "Anonymous" are. <br /><br />It is you two who need Saddam to be more like Hitler so that comparing the two as like threats to humanity does not cause people to laugh hysterically, and immediately categorize you two as two mooks deserving all kinds of mockery and never to be taken seriously. <br /><br />Your praise of Saddam's technology induces so much laughter that stomach cramps might be an issue, don't do it, man. <br /><br />What technology are you talking about? Chemical warfare... gas? Did you know that it predates Hitler by decades? Like the First World War? Scud Missiles? Well, considering their accuracy they do remind one of Hitler's V1s and V2s, with which Hitler wreaked far more destruction that Saddam ever did with his missiles. For one, Hitler's missiles were able to continually hit London, the enemy's capital, whereas Saddam was never able to even reach Tehran with his Scuds. Did you not read any of that in the NY Times's obituaries? <br /><br />So much for Saddam's technology for which Hitler would have died for, according to Anonymous.... <br /><br />This is great entertainment, Anonymous... please write more.Tiglathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026547030769758888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-14070715207321055342011-09-11T06:13:03.460+03:002011-09-11T06:13:03.460+03:00Anonymous insults his interlocutors so that reader...Anonymous insults his interlocutors so that readers will think he is tough and brave, and doesn't even suspect that his invective tells more about him than those he is trying to disparage. Throw dirt, lose ground. His arguments not only make no good sense, they don't even make good nonsense. Regardless, he continues to pleasure himself on center stage for the amusement of all. It's a joy to watch. <br /><br />He finds it hard to focus on the issue at hand. On the issue of whether it was wise to leave Saddam in power in 2003, he discusses the Iran-Iraq war of two decades prior for apparently no other reason than his tendency to ramble on. Pay attention, Neocon. We are discussing 2003, not 1980. <br /><br />During 23 years in power Saddam surely killed hundreds of thousands of people, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is how many people Saddam is likely to have killed had we left him in power in 2003. Anonymous the Neocon, believes it would have been like Rwanda x 10. That is about ten million people, folks. Almost half the country. It goes to show you where Anonymous is writing from... the Asylum of Ignorance, and how clearly the man lacks the gene that gives people a sense of ridicule, and so loves to parade his lack of education on a par with his upbringing and manners -- and manifestly making no effort no correct them. The man gets his history from obituaries in the NY Times - 'nuff said. An he is also a prophet, folks. Assad will not fall, he tells us. Hilarious! Get thee to a library,man Run, don't walk. <br /><br />Prior to the Iraq War we had Saddam boxed in. History revisionists forget conveniently how he was prepared to allow anything to forestall an invasion, inspection of his palaces or anything we would have asked. Ha had none of the free hand he enjoyed when he committed the worst massacres against his people in years past, and we would have been able to prevent a repeat of such atrocities. Yes, in the street his goons could still go into houses and make people disappear, but the body count would be low compared to what it would be, had he full military strength and freedom of action. <br /><br />It's no hard to see how a so boxed-in Saddam would kill many fewer than Bush's War did. The numbers for Bush's War are hard to get but there is no doubt that it's in the hundreds of thousands also, and counting... Hardly a "lesser evil" than Saddam. <br /><br />Anonymous criticizes "what-if" scenarios others mention, and in the next sentence he indulges in the most ludicrous what-ifs of all himself: Rwanda x 10. Gee! It's so funny, he does not even seem aware of it. Read what you write before you post, Anonymous, you might come across a wee bit less defective than you have done so far. <br /><br />The fact is that Sunni Saddam kept in check Shiite Iran, but Bush did away with that, and now we have a Shiite Iraq that looks up to Iran, and a soon to be Syria, Iraq, Iran Shiite axis looms large to control the region in the coming decades, and as a Great Wall to the Arab Spring. All thanks to Bush and Neocons like Anonymous who call themselves patriots, but on closer inspection reveal nothing but staggering incompetence.Tiglathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026547030769758888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-15659577394412798112011-09-11T01:57:35.077+03:002011-09-11T01:57:35.077+03:00Here's a REAL question for Dawson. First of al...Here's a REAL question for Dawson. First of all-- you normally get Hitchens' point exactly backwards, but it seems here you aren't making any glaring errors of reading. Plaudits for that.<br /><br />Now, ahem, my question. I happen to be a huge Chomsky fan (read many of his books-- Manufacturing Consent is his best IMHO)-- but your recent reformulation of his question vis-a-vis US "responsibility" for it's own actions (and those of it's proxies) made me want to ask this:<br /><br />If we built Saddam (which we did-- like we built Batista, Pinochet, et.al.) then wouldn't it be our responsibility to dismantle his ass? I mean, who else but us should take these fascistic dictators out; who but those who propped them up?! <br /><br />I wish we'd remove every right-wing dictator and psychopath the CIA invented. Why don't you? Sure, I agree the Bush Crime Family didn't do it for noble reasons-- but so fucking what. I don't care if I get a blow-job for nobel reasons or not--I just want the blow-job. This question is sincerely posed despite the blow-job reference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-51302891756900069292011-09-10T17:03:23.884+03:002011-09-10T17:03:23.884+03:00@Dawson...
I get it now. You cannot be living in...@Dawson...<br /><br />I get it now. You cannot be living in America. You cannot be living next to college students, or an elderly couple, or even an "assimilated" Muslim family. You're definitely not living next to a strip mall, or trailer park community, or golf course. <br /><br />You are definitely some tool, official or otherwise, who is to be the constant contrarian to what America should be standing for, and what it actually represents. You're living in some Mideast or South Asian apartment, with your 11 children (I hope all girls), trying to hold on to the sins of the C.I.A. because you probably started a book on 9/10 that seemed so fucking juicy until Your Boys decided to board Flights 11, 93, et al.<br /><br />You, Dawson, are a loser. A fucking herb who reminds us all that tomorrow will get better, because if you lived next to any of those people/places I referenced, you'd know they exist - persist - despite the C.I.A.'s misdeeds and Atta's attempts at silly glory.<br /><br />Assalamu Alaikum, you Useful Idiot<br /><br />P.s. Who's Michael Dawson, really? The guy who taught you how to speak English. Apologize!C. P. Coletahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13788516001602477994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-87684253944625091232011-09-10T02:05:14.556+03:002011-09-10T02:05:14.556+03:00Is this the same "Tiglath"
Whoa...
htt...Is this the same "Tiglath"<br /><br />Whoa...<br /><br />http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/medieval/574/Public-Discussion-of-Joseph-Suriol-s-ConductAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073647307948118016.post-74784965472362321432011-09-09T21:37:31.644+03:002011-09-09T21:37:31.644+03:00"You are not worthy to lick the boot of a com..."You are not worthy to lick the boot of a combat veteran."<br /><br />If there is fascism in America, it emanates from the military, as usual.Michael Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353560855423670828noreply@blogger.com