THE MOTHER OF ALL FLIP FLOPS
I was going to post about possible ways to observe the Mother of All Flip Flops, but I’m delaying that to highlight stories that have emerged within the last 48 hours.
Big Bush supporters Sinclair have decided that uttering the names of troops who have died in combat in Iraq is “political”. At issue is the 04/30/04 Nightline installment, The Fallen, where Ted Koppel will read the names of the troops who have died in Iraq since the Mission Accomplished photo op. (Read ABC’s outline of the controversy.) Apparently Sinclair’s definition of what’s “political” depends on whether something makes George W. Bush look bad. But reading the names of the fallen on the anniversary of the vainglorious Mission Accomplished extravaganza isn’t political, any more than is reading the names of the September 11 dead on that anniversary. Standards of human dignity shouldn’t depend on which party holds power.
I don’t want to hear from chickenhawks about John Kerry’s medals or that his injuries weren’t severe enough. The discussion is repulsive to me. Every last vet deserves respect and gratitude, period, even the ones whose service was no more painful than being the most boring thing they ever did. Kerry is a legitimate hero, who put his life on the line to rescue his unit. Shame on any Bush shill or Republican in Congress who attacks this service, tries to diminish it, or allows attacks to occur without stepping forward and asking, At long last, have you no decency?, because gaining brief partisan advantage is more important to them than giving a vet his due.
One reason I protested Gulf Junior even harder than I protested Gulf Daddy was that I deeply feel we shouldn’t wage war without fully understanding what we ask of people by doing so. We ask for the risk and sacrifice of their lives but also for something more: that they put their humanity on the line by killing others or taking prisoners, or being taken themselves. Iraqis and the Arab world around them are witnessing the reintroduction of prison torture, complete with rape rooms and mass graves in Fallujah:
The people of Fallujah carried their dead to the city’s soccer stadium and buried them under the field on Friday, unable to get to cemeteries because of a U.S. siege of the city. As the struggle for Fallujah entered a fifth day, hundreds of women, children and the elderly streamed out of the city. Marines ordered Iraqi men of “military age” to stay behind, sometimes turning back entire families if they refused to be separated. “A lot of the women were crying,” said Lance Cpl. Robert Harriot, 22, of Eldred, N.Y. “There was one car with two women and a man. I told them that he couldn’t leave. They tried to plead with me. But I told them no, so they turned around.” (04/09/04 AP Navarro/Qader Saadi)
You may remember that one of the themes of the Mission Impossible photo op was liberating Iraqis from all that.
A big reason this administration and its supporters have no compunction abut treating the dead and wounded in war with disdain is that they are enabled by fawning courtier press that shields them from criticism. They are supposed to be alert watchdogs who serve the people the president is also supposed to serve, but the White House Press Corpse has become a lazy, toothless pack whose only expertise and interest seems to be licking their own balls. We have a president who can do the following without fear of exposure and widespread outrage from public and press:
They [George and Jeb Bush] were out of view as reporters dodged fire ants, and within minutes moved within view of the cameras. A reporter asked the president about allowing Baathists into the Iraqi leadership, what message it sends to the Iraqi people. The president, now tieless and dressed in gray slacks and a light blue shirt, ignored the question and kept pulling weeds. Jeb stayed in the background. At one point, President Bush addressed an AP writer, referring to the young volunteers he had watched: “Put this on the wire. These people are from all over the country.” (04/23/04, 2:46pm entry in Ryan Lizza’s Campaign Journal)
The most bizarre irony of the Mission Accomplished flip flop has to be that Bush now routinely refers to the people he was supposedly liberating as if they were the enemy, and the people he was liberating them from as his allies. Very few asslicks in his courtier-press, even though increasingly disgruntled, will point that out, though it should color the first paragraph of any news they transmit.
There is no war one can always win, even as Bush is attempting to do here, showing “resolve” by always moving the goalposts to suit his needs of the moment. WMDs no WMDs, what’s the difference? Regime change is the thing. Now everyone’s pretending this is really about 911 again.
Troops are dying in appalling numbers and in deference to the latest goalpoast shift, Bush’s big donors regard the reading of their names as inconvenient. Meanwhile, Bush is wishing his new allies, Ba’ath thugs good luck in subduing the citizenry of Fallujah, the goalpost moved once again. The thugs’ new master won’t be challenged by his court scribes, who’ll give him PR points for castigating their acolytes even while enabling new atrocities now. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! This is a war Bush can’t lose! That’s because you’ll never find him risking anything, for all his talk of bold decisiveness. Anyone can look in control when all they do is spin whatever happens by saying that was part of the plan all along.
But losers there will be. I’ve learned from the vets in my own family and from working with refugees, many of them survivors of military torture, that the wounds of war can be longer than lifelong. The sickening experience of fighting in war and being exposed to it in any way can be like a perfidious virus. Like the contagion of diseases that form plagues, you don’t know who’ll catch it. It can passed between casual friends, marital partners or through generations of a family. If a military family is lucky, healing from war wounds can bring the family closer together and add tensile strength to family ties. Families can be blown apart suddenly, as if they stepped on a landmine. No one can predict if this will happen — no one can even tell if the family environment is mined.
A psychic war wound can be an ugly scar that, like a physical one, eventually stops being painful but may shock and horrify people who witness it unprepared. It can burden the one carrying it with occasional awkwardness or a deep persistent shame. It can be something they wear it like a badge of honor that sets them apart from the average or something that wanes in their awareness as they matter-of-factly work and live around it.
I know that the most fundamentally decent person I ever met or am likely to know, my grandfather, was needlessly stained by the shame of war throughout his life. He confided to me that his greatest regret was killing a young soldier who was almost the mirror image of himself — in age, demeanor, fear and confusion — rather than finding a way to say, even on the battlefield, let’s lay down our arms and work instead to end this madness.
Here’s the thing: war never doesn’t hurt. There’s probably a more grammatical way to say it less truthfully; I’d rather err on the side of meaning. There is always sacrifice in war. It’s always painful. Big or small, it will come from many many people and long after the mission really is accomplished beyond a politician’s transient concerns.
The reasons for waging war should be clear cut and straightforward. The justifications should be understood in advance, as should the price to be paid. War shouldn’t be sold like a cheap used car or unveiled like a Fall Product.
The cost of waging war should be shared by all, but those who promote war should be at the vanguard of accepting responsibility, always. Last for the applause, first for the condemnations, until every last grunt and their families have been personally thanked first. It’s called leadership.
If it’s shown that war has been waged on a faulty premise and that people have been hoodwinked, willingly or by accident, those responsible should make amends and not try a new bait and switch. They shouldn’t, as Bush is doing now, scurry around like a cockroach grabbing any missed crumbs while avoiding getting crushed under a heel. Or, like Cheney just tried to do, misrepresent the content of his speech at a college just to grab an opportunity to bash a political opponent.
Out of one side of his mouth, Bush condemns the torture of prisoners, yet he keeps the “unlawful enemy combatants” in his care separated from their human rights while letting his administration extract the maximum use from them, even if it’s only propaganda (see James Yee). He does as great a disservice to his prisoners as he has done to the “private contractors” specifically hired to dodge Geneva Convention definitions of combatants. He strips them all of their humanity.
I used to think that giving a limb or one’s life was the ultimate sacrifice. I’ve increasingly come to believe that there are worse things to lose. Those scared, foolish, arrogant stupid, burned out parties committing torture have lost touch, perhaps permanently, with their humanity.
They have their cheerleaders among those who regard war as a game or a TV show, their masters among the chickenhawk brigades happily earning money or fattening their egos with this optional war. The Codpiece in Chief is the most arrogant of fatheads, the biggest coward strutting among them, their Great Leader. I don’t know how or even if this group is ever judged or how they’ll pay, if at all — whether it will be by a court convened by the world body, by history or by their own consciences deep at night. It’s still unknown, and humanity is hard to quantify.
But many already have measurably paid for this war, with limb and life.
And when there’s a chance to acknowledge these most generous who have served and paid, we should take the time to hear their names, deeds and circumstances.
Saying and hearing their names isn’t politics. It’s decency. It’s humanity. So many people have become disembodied from that. Let’s not be separated from ours. Whatever you think the ultimate sacrifice is in war, please watch Nightline tonight and pay your respects in your particular way. If you missed the broadcast, please read about the fallen by going to the Nightline page.
Notes and links in the extension. Copy edits made online so apologies for any disruptions.
If the White House Press Corpse’s service to the president’s image is less slavish than it was a year ago, when they also served as cheerleaders and applause wranglers, they’re still not doing their job. Here’s a partial list of Bush’s courtiers, the court scribes, the White House Press Corpse. Most of them think that simplifying their own jobs is more important than you having access to democracy, so use this list to email back objectionable work. Get to know their past work, using resources like the Daily Howler.
Who’s being naive, Kay?, is about the media cold-shouldering the story of David Kay pleading for the White House to “come clean” about their WMD case. Little wonder, when we have a White House Press Corpse so cowed by this administration, it laughs along with the Prez of Comedy as he does his No WMDs Here! schtick when troops in Iraq are about to endure the bloodiest month of the supposedly “accomplished” mission.
At the same time, Sinclair’s attempts at censorship and media bullying is just another example of how this administration works. (I doubt that the big Bush supporters behind the attempt to sit on this Nightline grenade weren’t getting signals from the RNC and/or the White House.) It’s how they work. Just ask Richard Clarke and Joseph Wilson, or read The Blogfodder from the S,N! archives.
the White House Press Corpse has become a lazy, toothless pack whose only expertise and interesst seems to be licking their own balls.
That’s completely unfair. Some members of the Press Corpse don’t have balls.
spam deleted
Now, I realize the above comment from barwick is just spam, but there’s a pretty scary (if inadvertent) disconnect there — “Look at the dead fetuses! Ignore the dead soldiers!” Just goes to prove that the wingnuts have no interest in the living, only potential lives. Sad, really.
That’s tellin’ it like it is, Peanut!
Most of today’s TV ‘hairdo’ journalists go way beyond being mere cheerleaders or whores- they are the moral equivalent of tobacco company “cancer scientists”.
They must know at some level that Bu$hCo are exactly as you described in your post— what person with an IQ over 90 doesn’t?— but they’ve been bought off so completely that they would never dream of saying so publicly. It’s just too bad that their families and friends aren’t the ones who have to pay the price.
A real fucking banana republic press, fit for a Chimp.
Do you know a Maupassant story, Boule du Suif? (Spelling?) A coach carrying a rather nice ex-‘ho (leaving town to make a career change) and some snotty bourgois types is detained in a German garrison. The garrison’s CO says he’ll let the coach go if the ‘ho fucks him. As a matter of patriotism, the hooker despises Germans (including the CO), as do the other French passengers, but they almost immediately start pressuring her to spread ’em for the CO. This goes on for days–they tell her the CO isn’t so bad, it’ll be an act of patriotism and/or charity, they’ll be supportive afterwards etc.
After a couple weeks of this shtick from the other passengers, she finally holds her nose and puts out. The next day the coach pulls out of the garrison and–surprise, surprise!!–everyone takes the position that, having screwed the CO on their behalf, she’s a slut. They proceed to treat her like shit.
Sort of like Bush’s “disgust” at the soldiers’ mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
* * *
Also–does anyone else get the impression that his disgust seems to derive solely from the homoerotic aspects of the torture? It’s not like he ever said boo about prisoner treatment at Guantanamo or the deaths and maimings of all those civilians.
Well said, well said.
Peanut, this is just a brilliant piece. It deserves to be very widely read. I am especially drawn to your observation that war, like a kind of plague, injures everyone who comes in contact with it, even peripherally. If we thought of was as a kind of radiation that soldiers and civilians are exposed to rather than as a “game” in which there are winners and losers, we wouldn’t fight them at all. Think of how different “war games” would be if, in addition to needing to “win” the commanders and soldiers had to account to each other for the deaths from the other side, for the ecological fall out, for the family destruction. How would we rate the winners and losers, then?
thanks for a great post
Inasmuch as we– every one of us– support the troops, perhaps we could support their judgment on the issue of whether to publicly acknowledge the names of those brother and sister soldiers who have died in the service of their country.
Or perhaps we could ask the family of those servicemembers whose lives have been lost.
Any question as to the response?
Sorry, Peanut, I forgot to mention that the post that I’m commenting on is an extremely well-articulated defense of humanity itself. Many thanks for what is some of your best work.
Regarding the reintroduction of torture courtesy of the Americans–that our soldiers are doing this is appalling and reprehensible.
Perhaps even worse are some of the reactions received by CBS once it chose to break the story and air some of the photos.
Several are posted on my blog (back on April 29), and here’s a sample:
Was I supposed to be horrified by the report of Iraqi prisoners being positioned in “pornographic” positions and humiliated by American soldiers? I was not. During your report, all I could think of was the murder, torture, maiming, burning and beheading of innocent civilians, women and children included, carried out by terrorists and supporters of Saddam Hussein. At least these men were men of war.
They had to pose for pornographic pictures? So what. We cannot imagine sitting at home on our couches the horrors our soldiers must face every day. Why not focus your attention on the unfair practices of our enemy?
–Sally Ainsley
Wow that’s funny..
For all your liberals’ talk of “free speech” then you go and delete someone’s post when they speak the truth… heaven forbid.
As I said before… heaven forbid I confuse you liberals with something so insignificant as the truth.
Oh, and to answer your question mnemosyne, when you said:
“Now, I realize the above comment from barwick is just spam, but there’s a pretty scary (if inadvertent) disconnect there — “Look at the dead fetuses! Ignore the dead soldiers!” Just goes to prove that the wingnuts have no interest in the living, only potential lives. Sad, really.”
Yeah I don’t care about them at all. I know some of them fighting over there right now. I grew up in the same parish as Jerry Zovko, one of the men who was over there and dragged through the streets by crazed civilians of Fallujah on March 31.
You know what? Every one I know who is over there is GLAD to be over there, taking a stand with strong resolve, against those who would rather threaten and defy the free nations of this planet.
You and your like appeased Hitler and look where that ended up. You whined when George Bush Sr. wanted to finish off Saddam’s Regime over a decade ago after he had invaded Kuwait, you whined when we attacked Iraq after they violated the terms of the ending of the Gulf War (namely unrestricted access, not to mention pursuit of nuclear weapons as verified by UN inspectors, posession of chemical weapons, etc.)
And don’t even try to say he didn’t have them or he got rid of them… even if he buried them, that’s one backyard swimming pool’s size worth of chemicals in a big giant sandbox, do you *think* he could hide them? The dude buried MIG jets in the sand right outside a base occupied for US forces for months before we found out the MIGs were there.
Give me a break. You liberals aren’t about “freedom” or making this country better, all you want to do is advance your socialist agenda, spewing hate towards all those who stand in support of our Founding Fathers and their principles.
Hurry, Barwick! If you sign up for a tour of duty in Iraq real quick, maybe you can still get there in time to torture somebody.
It’s what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.
What a dumbass comment Barwick.
My husband just returned after a year in Iraq. He was not “Glad” to be there, with little support, little money and without all the benefits they had in Baghdad. No USO tours, no vip visits, no fake turkey photo op with Shrub. Why? Cause he was based just outside of Fallujah. He was “glad” to make it to and from Baghdad too numerous times to count. Fellow soldiers were injured and killed by IEDs. Yeah right GLAD. You stupid ass.
My husband was also in Afghanistan; at least that made some sense since that was the base of the terrorists who attacked us. But they were all pulled off that mission to go to Iraq. Now it’s day 965 since the attacks and where’s Osama?
It’s a fair complaint that Barwick has made. I’d restore the comment, if for no other reason than to, as they say, remove all doubt.
Hi, all. Chris, re: the spam/non-spam? I don’t archive the stuff but periodically, it does get dumped here. Blair — who it turns out isn’t Jayson Blair but TONY Blair! — usually handles greasy pink detail, but I doubt it would appear to be less spammy to him than it did to me. Reversing barwick’s prejudices isn’t a high priority; they seem chronic.
Barwick, you weren’t “censored” because of your views but because your post was so devoid of connection with the discussion or the entry, I honestly thought it was spam. Spam trolls often dump a bunch of ascii onto comment threads simply to make the comments section literally illegible to users. Your barrage looked like greasy pink stuff to me.
You’re certainly welcome to join any discussion. I’d recommend quoting the portion of the post you’re referring to and addressing that specific area rather than yacking up a rambling, incoherent “I hate liberals and this blog” fugue, which is characteristic of spam. Complaining that you weren’t treated special is like walking into a bar and busting chairs, then carping that the service was terrible.
Chris, about asking the families, I think they should be consulted about privacy for the funerals, but commemorating the dead by reading their names on the news should be done until the mission really is accomplished. That Maupassant Molly mentioned — which I’ll have to dig up, Molly, cause it sounds like the perfect allegory — seems to nail what a lot of homecoming vets experience. A lot of the shame people lay on vets after the action’s over is from not knowing how to have a dialogue about war wounds. (Just ask Gulf War vets who have persistent health problems from DU and can’t get recourse.) IMO that awkwardness is why vets’ benefits get targeted so swiftly, even during war, as the Bush admin has sleazily done. Saying the names of the dead honors their service, and it makes it harder to turn our backs on them afterwards. (BTW, for a good vet’s eye view of things, do visit Jo Fish at his blog, Democratic Vet.)
Thanks for the nice comments, all.
PS: I’ve been untethered from my main system for a couple of days because of repairs going on in my office. Sunday’s and Monday’s posts are inacessible. I should be back on the mothership tomorrow so I’ll have a few new entries tomorrow.
Aarlene–Glad he’s back in one piece.
Yes, Aarlene, I’m glad your husband is back safe and sound too.
I know that you and he probably have other things on your minds right now, but I’d be really interested to see his reponse to Barwick’s posting.
Well Aarlene I’m thankful that your husband was over there defending our nation.
And yes, the soldiers I know are GLAD to be over there doing what needs to be done. For the first time in the history of the United States someone had the balls to make a pre-emptive strike against those who within the next few years or decade would be able to (and would gladly take the opportunity to) threaten us with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Had Winston Churchill been in power in Britain in 1935 as Hitler was violating the Treaty of Versailles, he would have given an ultimatum to destroy all weaponry that was made. If he did not comply, he would have struck Germany and Hitler’s war machine as it was preparing for the Blitzkrieg against Poland, France, and the rest of Europe, thereby “causing” the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers of Britain and Germany, and certainly thousands of innocent civilians at the same time.
BUT World War II would have been averted. My grandmother would still have her brother, my grandfather wouldn’t have been haunted by memories of his service in the Pacific till the day he died in 1994, millions upon millions of soldiers AND civilians lives would not have been lost, two nuclear weapons would not have been dropped on two separate cities in Japan… you get the point?
THAT is what Churchill would have done, and I’m sure if you were alive back then you would have been screaming up and down at Franklin Delano Roosevelt for supporting him (or for not condemning him), screaming that it’s a “war for nothing” and this and that.
World War II was not a war to capture Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. It was a war to end the horrific acts that were occuring across the globe at the time. You may not see it as such, but the war on terrorism is much the same thing. Terrorists and those who support them in any way will be attacked and disabled (whether they give twenty-five thousand dollars to families of suicide bombers, producing chemical and nuclear weapons (as verified by UN inspectors) against the rules of the Gulf War peace treaty, which he could then sell to terrorists or other nations).
If Saddam was given enough time he could easily have threatened every nation around him with those weapons, and if he developed ICBM technology, he could threaten the entire globe.
As I said, the soldiers I know are glad to be over there getting the job done. And no they’re not glad that they have to be there, that they’re risking their lives, that they might have to or have killed people, that they’re in a war at all.
In the choice between peace and war there is an obvious choice. But there is only one way you can be guaranteed peace, and that is surrender.
Man, these people were so HAPPY to have Hitler come in and occupy them. Those allies were nothing but barbaric warmongers for attacking Hitler and freeing this nation… I mean man, look at the joy on their faces:
http://www.ushmm.org/dorpm.cgi/wlc/film/dfr0710r.smi
Barwick, your cartoon version of history is as idiotic as your cartoon version of current events.
Churchill at NO time proposed a pre-emptive strike against ANYONE.
What he DID propose was that England and France sign a defensive alliance with Czechoslovakia—
a nation which, contrary to popular stereotypes was actually quite well-armed and could have held out against Hitler quite well, thank you very much, IF the Germans had been faced with a two-front war.
But since neither England or France wanted to give the Czechs such a guarantee, Hitler could confidently invade Czechoslovakia, and did so.
After the fall of Czechoslovakia, it became quite plain that Poland would be the next target of Nazi aggression, so Churchill called upon England and France to form a defensive alliance with the USSR in order to guarantee Poland’s borders.
But neither England or France was willing to make such a defensive alliance with the USSR. So Stalin and company decided that their NEXT BEST choice to protect their asses from the Nazis was to sign the 1939 non-aggression pact. Once this was accomplished, Poland was obviously toast.
You can verify this for yourself in William Manchester’s excellent Churchill biography, “The Last Lion”. Go to the public libray and read it, so you’ll know WTF you’re talking about the next time you start shooting your mouth off, you stupid arse.
Incidentally, you should also know that the US at that time was staunchly opposed to intervention in Europe.
And that was NOT because the liberal president Roosevelt was opposed to intervention, but because prominent RIGHT-wingers of the thirties,including radio’s Father Coughlin (the Rush Limbaugh of the 1930’s, the German Bund, and even prominent American air ace Charles Lindburgh, were staunch Hitler fans who wanted the US to leave their boy alone.
If you’re Winston Churchill, and the first vote taken in Parliment is “Winston Churchill cannot hold any position” because they are afraid he would again rise to a position of power, what would you do?
Would you go right out on record, right after the “War to end all wars” when everybody’s starry-eyed with peace, and say “we need to attack Germany and destroy their weapons that they illegally produced”?
almost forgot…
After Neville Chamberlain came back with a “signed promise of peace” from Hitler, and everybody was celebrating, applauding Chamberlain on such a great diplomatic victory and avoiding a horrific war, everyone was standing and clapping while Winston Churchill remained sitting, looking grim.
When asked what he thought of this great day that Neville Chamberlain had brought upon the continent, he responded:
“Mr. Chamberlain had a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor and he shall have war.”
To which everyone responded by railing him, calling him a warmonger and such.
Don’t tell me Churchill only wanted an “alliance” with these countries. Churchill is on record many times as saying that Britain needs to take a stand militarily against Hitler.
England went into the war against Germany because of the pact they had with an allied country. When Germany invaded that country England declared war on Germany. They didn’t launch a preemptive strike on a country totally unrelated to the attack based on what they thought that country might do or what weaponry they thought was there.
How does our preemptive attack on a country not involved the attacks on 11 SEP 2001 equate with England’s action? Saudi Arabia would have been a better target only after we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Which task is still unfinished, if you haven’t noticed.
If you’re Winston Churchill, and the first vote taken in Parliment is “Winston Churchill cannot hold any position” because they are afraid he would again rise to a position of power, what would you do?
This is sheer bullshit, Barwick. Stop making shit up and READ THE FUCKING BOOK for yourself. Nobody in Parliament was afraid of Churchill rising to a position of power. Most MP’s, of all parties, thought he was an irrelevant relic, an alcoholic, over the hill and should retire, etc.
Would you go right out on record, right after the “War to end all wars” when everybody’s starry-eyed with peace, and say “we need to attack Germany and destroy their weapons that they illegally produced”?
Again, READ THE BOOK and stop making shit up.
Since England was in NO position to challenge Germany militarily and everyone knew it, including Churchill, the key to keeping Hitler in check was obviously to threaten Germany with the prospect of a two-flank war. Nobody in Germany, including Hitler, had any illusions about Germany’s ability to win a such a war. (Hitler only invaded Russia when he thought that Britain had been knocked out of the war… and if the US hadn’t eventually shown up to help Britain invade Europe, the two-flank war probably would never have happened.)
The idea of trying to knock out Germany’s huge armed forces with a lightning blow would have been an utter disaster for England. The fact that you even believe that this was a military option shows that you know NOTHING about the subject.
Nearly exhausted by WWI and up to its eyeballs in debt, Britain was not in any position to have super-power pretensions. Churchill would not have even considered for ten seconds the sort of idiotic Bush-like unilateral action which you suggest.
Shazam! Glen lays down the smack, informative to as this was the one historical parallel I had some trouble laying to rest. Of course I thought the best part of Barwick’s post was the whole part about how if Hitler been taken out in 1935 there would have been no war in the Pacific– please! What we would have allowed hte Japanese to Conquer all of East Asia yeah that would have been great. The fact is the entire comparision is way off base Iraq never had the military-industrial infrastructure to build a massive force, almost all of their weapon systems were imported– so how exactly were going to the sophistcated components required to be threat on the world stage together, even if the acquired chemical weapons by the easiest WMD to acquire they wouldn’t use them. Sadda, was deterred trust me I have looked into it had WMDs (chem./biol) during the first Gulf War he didn’t use them because he feared massive U.S. retaliation. He wasn’t irrational he wanted remain in power.
“England went into the war against Germany because of the pact they had with an allied country. When Germany invaded that country England declared war on Germany. They didn’t launch a preemptive strike on a country totally unrelated to the attack based on what they thought that country might do or what weaponry they thought was there.
How does our preemptive attack on a country not involved the attacks on 11 SEP 2001 equate with England’s action? Saudi Arabia would have been a better target only after we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Which task is still unfinished, if you haven’t noticed.”
Go back and read it in context. I said “liberals probably would have whined if Winston Churchill was in charge and attacked Germany in 1937 while he was still building up his army, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles”. He would have “caused” the deaths of tens of thousands of people, you’d be protesting the crap out of him for being such a warmonger, how dare he do such a thing?
This is the FIRST time the US has attacked a rogue nation who was threatening us, in violation of peace treaties signed after they were defeated, yadda yadda yadda… you get the point. Had Saddam been allowed to continue, he would undoubtedly have been able to develop nuclear weapons, threatening everyone around him, and if he ever developed long range missile capability, he could threaten the entire globe. THAT is why we are over there, because there was no end in sight, no diplomatic solution (we tried for eleven years), and Saddam was never going to back down, much like Hitler would not be appeased.
“This is sheer bullshit, Barwick. Stop making shit up and READ THE FUCKING BOOK for yourself. Nobody in Parliament was afraid of Churchill rising to a position of power. Most MP’s, of all parties, thought he was an irrelevant relic, an alcoholic, over the hill and should retire, etc.”
That’s funny. Especially the part where they made that “irrelevant relic, over the hill, alcoholic who should retire” the Prime Minister. Once what he said was going to happen, happened. But unlike modern socialists (er.. I mean liberals…) like you guys, Neville Chamberlain at least admitted that he was wrong.
“Again, READ THE BOOK and stop making shit up.
Since England was in NO position to challenge Germany militarily and everyone knew it, including Churchill, the key to keeping Hitler in check was obviously to threaten Germany with the prospect of a two-flank war. Nobody in Germany, including Hitler, had any illusions about Germany’s ability to win a such a war. (Hitler only invaded Russia when he thought that Britain had been knocked out of the war… and if the US hadn’t eventually shown up to help Britain invade Europe, the two-flank war probably would never have happened.)
The idea of trying to knock out Germany’s huge armed forces with a lightning blow would have been an utter disaster for England. The fact that you even believe that this was a military option shows that you know NOTHING about the subject.
Nearly exhausted by WWI and up to its eyeballs in debt, Britain was not in any position to have super-power pretensions. Churchill would not have even considered for ten seconds the sort of idiotic Bush-like unilateral action which you suggest.”
Whoa there tiger, calm down before you go off swearing at me like I’m making stuff up and outright lying. Liberals do that best… “ahhh did not haaave sexual relations with thaaat wo-man”… anyhow… getting back on point…
What year are you talking about here? After World War I, Germany was a defeated nation, unable to build a real military of any sort, until Hitler violated the treaty. If you’re talking about August 1939, yeah Britain was kinda at a disadvantage. If you’re talking the early to mid 1930’s, it’s another story. Even back then, Churchill was saying “Um, guys, Hitler isn’t building those tanks just to have parades. We need to build up our army.”
Had England did what he suggested from that point on, Germany would never have had the military power they had in World War II. At some point a decision would have been made to stop them before they become too powerful. England would have struck Germany for violating the Treaty of Versailles while they had the upper hand, and Churchill would have went down in history as a warmonger who killed tens of thousands of people for a “needless” war. But seven million Russian civlians would have lived, thirteen million Russian soldiers would have lived, three million German civilians and three million German soldiers would have lived, two atomic bombs would not have been dropped… You get the point? But the writers of history would have demonized Churchill and his pre-emptive strike against Germany as unnecessary, without ever knowing that fifty-two MILLION people would have died otherwise during the course of a World War that Winston Churchill would have prevented by preemptively striking Germany while they were still a defeated nation, trying to build up their military might in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
“Shazam! Glen lays down the smack, informative to as this was the one historical parallel I had some trouble laying to rest. Of course I thought the best part of Barwick’s post was the whole part about how if Hitler been taken out in 1935 there would have been no war in the Pacific– please! What we would have allowed hte Japanese to Conquer all of East Asia yeah that would have been great. The fact is the entire comparision is way off base Iraq never had the military-industrial infrastructure to build a massive force, almost all of their weapon systems were imported– so how exactly were going to the sophistcated components required to be threat on the world stage together, even if the acquired chemical weapons by the easiest WMD to acquire they wouldn’t use them. Sadda, was deterred trust me I have looked into it had WMDs (chem./biol) during the first Gulf War he didn’t use them because he feared massive U.S. retaliation. He wasn’t irrational he wanted remain in power.”
You’re absolutely right, they didn’t have the industry to fight a massive campaign. But, by your reasoning, let’s go back to 1000 AD thinking.
Population of Axis countries in 1940:
Germany – 70 million people
Japan – 70 million people
Italy – 40 million people
Total – 180 million people
World population – 2400 million people.
By AD 1000 thinking, there is NO way Germany, Japan, and Italy posess the power to threaten the entire rest of the globe, they don’t have enough people, they’re outnumbered 13 to 1.
But why could they threaten the globe? Because they posessed a multiplicating factor of technology.
Now, what technology could one nation (or even one person) use to blackmail all of those around him for a couple mile radius? Let’s even ignore Chemical or Biological weapons, assuming they never existed, let’s just say one, that’s nuclear. Now, what other technology could allow you to threaten those around you in, say, a 200 mile radius? Missiles (or even rockets). Now, what other technology could allow you to threaten anyone on the globe? Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.
Which of those three technologies did Saddam have? Missiles. That one’s easy. Which one did we KNOW he was actively pursuing? Nuclear. Which one, with the aid of newer and newer computer technology, would he eventually be able to build, develop, and test without ever having to run a single real-world test? ICBM’s.
You think what you want to think, believe what you want to believe, but the simple truth is Saddam could have gotten the equipment and technology, it was only a matter of time. And if he had them, it’s a whole new cold war all over again. Only this time it’s Saddam and whoever he chooses to give the technology to, against the United States and all who stand against Saddam and what he stands for. Who knows, maybe a missile never launches, maybe it does, what do we do then? Either way, another cold war is something I do not want to see happen in my lifetime, or in my children’s, or grandchildren’s, or their kids, or…
greatykaus41.net/