Patterico's Pontifications

6/8/2006

Zarqawi Dead — No, Really!

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 7:22 am

Zarqawi is dead. I know, I know: you’ve heard it a million times before. But this time it’s for real.

UPDATE: Let’s anticipate the fringe-left responses:

  • But what about Osama-bin-Forgotten?
  • Funny that this happens right when Haditha is a big story. I question the timing.

Add your own.

102 Responses to “Zarqawi Dead — No, Really!”

  1. And the liberals are so disappointed!

    Check out some of the libby sites; it’s basically a “yes, but” response.

    Dana (3e4784)

  2. Here’s threw addtional reactions we’ll likely read..

    1. Were any Korans damaged in this attack?

    2. Through his death, Zarqawi avoided the inhumanity of his likely imprisonment and torture at the illegal US detention facility in Cuba.

    3. Who is the US to summarily kill this man? Shouldn’t the Iraqis have arrested him as part of a “police action?” Better yet, maybe the UN should have been consulted first.

    Jal (71415b)

  3. Why didn’t Bush get Zarqawi over two years ago when he had the chance? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  4. Can’t top this from the White House Press Briefing:

    Will the Zarqawi success help the President on immigration?

    Stephen Macklin (fc20a6)

  5. Jack Murtha, “Another cold-blooded killing of Iraqis by American troops”.

    Phil (ea4360)

  6. YOu jest, but many of the left are indeed questioning the timing.

    Patricia (2cc180)

  7. You jest, but many of the left are indeed questioning the timing! (See Dr. Sanity)

    Patricia (2cc180)

  8. Threats to the lives of innocent women and children were typically ignored as the Bush war machine’s blood lust to kill Zarqawi kicked into high gear. The popular insurgent leader has been the target of numerous attempts on his life in retaliation for his fight to prevent Halliburton from stealing Iraqi’s oil wealth. The merciless invaders launched their sneak attack on the peaceful family home located in a traditional tree-lined village outside the conflict zone around Baghdad with no thought about the lives of innocent farmers, their wives and children.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  9. How about this response:

    “Killing Zarqawi will only inspire a million fanatics to rise up and take his place.”

    (often stated in the same breath as “but we still haven’t found/killed Osama” without a trace of irony)

    Sean P (256007)

  10. With the able assistance of the United States Air Force our great leader, Abu Mahud al Zarqawi was transalted to paradise where he immediately began his eternal dalliance with his assigned virgins.

    Alan Kellogg (c2c110)

  11. I question the timing, Part 2: It happened so close to the elections.

    James Chen (d1de1b)

  12. “I question the timing, Part 2: It happened so close to the elections.”
    Yea, it’s funny how Zarqawi volunteered to die for Bush this close to the election. Man, Karl Rove and co. are good!

    “The popular insurgent leader”
    He wasn’t that popular amongst the innocent civilians he and his followers killed. He wasn’t that popular with the Iraqi’s that turned him in.

    “The merciless invaders”
    Zarqawi was an Iraqi? I thought he was Jordanian! Wouldn’t that make him an invader too?

    “with no thought about the lives of innocent farmers, their wives and children”
    According to the press, he was killed in remote area 30 miles from Baghdad. He was in an isolated safe house. That house was hit with two 500 pound guided bombs. Just how many “innocent farmers, their wives and children” were killed? The one’s that harbored him? I’d hardly call them innocent.

    Ray (be81f9)

  13. Sort of like SeanP, but…

    Just like Obi-wan, Z-man more dangerous to us dead than alive. We’ve turned an increasingly marginal figure in the insurgency into a martyr for all our enemies. This can only make the US less popular in the Middle East (or Europe? Mulsim World? Iran? Well whatever it can only make us even more hated)

    nittypig (4c1c43)

  14. Another possible reaction: if these “smart bombs” are so smart, then how we needed to drop TWO of them? The money saved by dropping only one could have put 100 under-represented minority undocumented immigrants through college.

    eharmonica (217d60)

  15. Sort of like SeanP, but…

    Just like Obi-wan, Z-man more dangerous to us dead than alive. We’ve turned an increasingly marginal figure in the insurgency into a martyr for all our enemies. This can only make the US less popular in the Middle East (or Europe? Mulsim World? Iran? Well whatever it can only make us even more hated)

    Also this heads off a potential conflict for leadership of Al Quaeda. It’s nice that OBL has the US doing his dirty work for him.

    nittypig (4c1c43)

  16. The only bad thing about it is that we cannot kill him again. And again. And again. The world is a much better place without him in it.

    nk (5a2f98)

  17. BTW: Is this site under attack again?

    nk (5a2f98)

  18. Hurrah! We sure did “bring him to justice,” didn’t we?

    And we avoided the fiasco of the Saddam “trial” by sending in two F-16s rather than our lauded Special Forces.

    Of course, we obliterated any chance of obtaining any of the invaluable intelligence that we insist on getting from the true 9/11 planners rather than putting them on trial, five years later.

    I am SO PROUD to be an American, where at least I know I’m free! Sing along, and enjoy the Kool-Aid.

    nosh (d8da01)

  19. “It’s a slow news day while we wait for the Karl Rove indictment in the Valerie Plame matter.”

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  20. It’s a slow news day while we wait for the Karl Rove indictment in the Valerie Plame matter.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  21. It’s a slow news day while we wait for further indictments (Karl Rove) in the Valerie Plame matter.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  22. nk, glad I’m not the only one with problems with the site. It’s readable but not formatted properly.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  23. …and as I hadn’t commented today until that one, apparently has comment problems too, per all the duplicate posts and the page of gobbledigook I got when I hit “submit comment.”

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  24. This is fun:

    Zarkawi was killed to keep him quiet. He was going to turn in OBL and Zawahiri for the reward money and retire to the South of France. But, Dick Cheney ordered Zarkawi killed to keep him from revealing that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  25. You know, nosh, there are planes, boats, trains and automobiles leaving America every day. There’s no Iron Curtain here. Why don’t you take a small trip to Baghdad, find an Al Qaeda cell and tell them how much you hate America? I’m sure they’ll treat you like a king with that renowned Arab hospitality.

    nk (57e995)

  26. Love it or Leave it! Huh, nk? Thanks for the forty-year-old cliche.

    I keep hearing that what we are fighting for is Democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

    nosh (d8da01)

  27. The king, as I’m sure you have all understood, I mean is Charles I of England.

    nk (57e995)

  28. Hate Bush, hate the Congress, hate Coca-Cola, hate me. None of us are America. You went too far.

    nk (57e995)

  29. nk, you NeoCons sure hate it when people point out the contradictions. We didn’t bring Zarqawi to justice, we obliterated him, and four others besides. We will avoid at all costs another embarrassing kangaroo court like Saddam’s that illustrates our ineptness and hypocrisy. We condemn Zarqawi for beheadings and killing civilians, as we should, but we excuse our war crimes as “fog of war” and “collateral damage.” Our own President, Secretary of Defense, and Pentagon won’t obey the congressional vote to ban torture.

    We are increasingly hated around the world, not because of my criticisms, but because of your arrogance.

    nosh (d8da01)

  30. Whatsamattawityou? Don’t you read your home town newspaper? Zarqawi was only BLAMED for all those nasty things!

    Iraq Terrorist Cell Leader Zarqawi Killed in Airstrike
    By Solomon Moore and Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writers 9:19 AM PDT, June 8, 2006

    BAGHDAD _ Abu Musab Zarqawi, blamed for suicide bombings, beheadings and engineering some of the most devastating attacks by insurgents, was killed in a U.S. airstrike, Iraqi and U.S. officials announced this morning…..

    Among the acts blamed on Zarqawi and his followers was the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan.

    He is also blamed for the April 2004 beheading of U.S. hostage Nicholas Berg. Tapes of that killing were posted on the Internet.

    What kinna lawyer are you, exulting over the execution of somebody who was only BLAMED and never tried in a counrt of law?

    John (e40f53)

  31. Apparently, liberals are holding a rally downtown to try to reverse his death.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  32. This is Karl Rove’s and the religous right’s effort to divert the public’s attention from the near loss of Duke Cunnigham’s former House seat.

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  33. “I keep hearing that what we are fighting for is Democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.”

    Nosh,
    We are fighting for these noble concepts. We are fighting in a foreign country to bring these noble concepts to a foreign people at great cost to our men and women in the military. Zarqawi and his followers want to control every aspect of people’s lives, people like you and me. They want to control the lives of every person on this earth, not just in Iraq. They want total world domination, remember?

    Zarqawi died in combat, we don’t stop combat operations to give a trial to the people at the other end of munitions as those people will not stop trying to kill us until we are all dead or under their control. Zarqawi was fighting a jihad, also known as a war. The insurrection in Iraq is just part of that jihad. The attack on Zarqawi was a combat operation; it wasn’t a police action.

    Ray (be81f9)

  34. to paraphrase several commenters,

    Why oh why dont you see that the real enemy is 52% of Americans voting in the last election?

    bains (7235b5)

  35. nk, you NeoCons sure hate it when people point out the contradictions. We didn’t bring Zarqawi to justice, we obliterated him, and four others besides.

    Because that IS what you do in War, obliterate, not bring to Justice.
    Once again the Left illustrates

    1) How stuck they are in Pre-9/11 thinking

    and

    2)Why they cannot be trusted on National Security matters.

    Dan Kauffman (0cf47b)

  36. What kinna lawyer are you, exulting over the execution of somebody who was only BLAMED and never tried in a counrt of law?

    Comment by John — 6/8/2006 @ 2:30 pm

    Hmm did we try Yamamoto in a court of law?

    Dan Kauffman (0cf47b)

  37. Actually Dan, Comment #35, nosh is wrong as usual. We did bring Zarkawi to Justice — the Perfect Justice. Never mind even bothering to debate nosh. Patterico is too nice a guy for me to dirty his site with my thoughts about nosh’s actual motives for his froth-mouthed attacks on the administration and our country.

    nk (947b03)

  38. Ray, when we invaded a sovereign foreign country back in 2003, it wasn’t to spread democracy and freedom, it was because of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, remember? And have you seen the tapes of the news conference before the invasion where Rumsfeld said we “know where they are”?

    Bush campaigned in 2000 against nation-building, remember?

    It is the Neo-cons and the conservatives who are attempting to rewrite history. Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator, but that wasn’t the reason we invaded — it was and is an opportunistic power grab. Notice how little we have to say about much more brutal and threatening dictatorships such as North Korea, because they aren’t as easy a target.

    Freedom of thought? This week I watched our President endorse discrimination and pander to the tyranny of the majority with his ridiculous support of a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage. It isn’t just the Muslim fundamentalists that are intolerant and dangerous.

    If you truly care about the welfare of our troops, bring them home.

    nosh (d8da01)

  39. Know what tyranny of the *minority* is called, nosh? Dictatorship.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  40. In comment #37, I said: “Patterico is too nice a guy for me to dirty his site with my thoughts about nosh’s actual motives for his froth-mouthed attacks on the administration and our country.”

    In comment #38, nosh did it himself: “This week I watched our President endorse discrimination and pander to the tyranny of the majority with his ridiculous support of a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage.”

    nk (bfc26a)

  41. Nosh,

    Then I guess the Balkan states were “invaded’ as a power grab too. I guess the Neo-cons rewrote history when they wanted to end ethnic cleansing, right?

    I think your the one trying to rewrite history as it was the Clinton administration that authorized a regime change in Iraq as official policy and it was the Bush administration that brought that change to Iraq. It was Congress that authorized the Iraqi war. I guess Congress is full of Neo-cons, right?

    I guess its not a very good power grab since we allowed the Iraqi people to form their own government and adopt their own Constitution.

    As far as the North Korea goes, we did fight a war with them which ended in a cease fire and North Korea hasn’t tried to invade South Korea since then, but I guess you forgot about that! Unless you think that was a power grab too.

    Freedom of thought? You don’t believe that the thought of gay marriage is morally repugnant to most people. You don’t think that people should believe in the sanctity of marriage and that marriage should not include same sex couples. You are intolerant of religious people and their morals and standards. I guess freedom of thought is only allowed when that thought is the same as yours. Talk about intolerant!

    You speek of the tyranny of the majority considering that the minority can be tyrannicalas well. Do you belive that only yhe minorty should be allowed to decide what is right or wrong? Do you belife that only the minority shoud have a voice in Government? Do you belive that only the minority shoud be allowed to vote? Then I guess you belive that children should be able to decide the elections and what laws should or should not be enforced as they are a minority of the population. How about minority of illegal immigrents in this counrty? Should they be the ones the only ones that make the desicions? Tyranny of the majority indeed!

    Your right when you say that “It isn’t just the Muslim fundamentalists that are intolerant and dangerous.” It’s you as well.

    Ray (be81f9)

  42. Ray, before I get to the substance of your attack:

    “speek” “belive” (twice) “immigrents” “your” instead of you’re, and “counrty” — your submission wouldn’t get a passing mark in my old fourth-grade class.

    nosh (d8da01)

  43. Oh really????? Where’s the dead body?????? We would surely like to ve a glance at it.

    Neil (ff1c81)

  44. If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger, eh?

    I’m really not concerned if you find my spelling correct or not. Ever here of a typo? Talk about intolerant!

    BTW, how did I do on sentence structure and punctuation?

    Ray (be81f9)

  45. Nosh,

    You missed the misspelling of”tyrannicalas.” I guess you need to consult the teachers edition more often.

    Ray (be81f9)

  46. I respond to your direct post to me and suddenly it’s an attack? How does that happen?

    Ray (be81f9)

  47. “Ever here of a typo?” LOL Where did you go to school? And I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to “tyrannicalas” being a typo.

    I apologize, though. You were probably using that new George W. spellcheck program! 😉

    nosh (d8da01)

  48. Actually, I downloaded the spell checker from Daily Kos which was recommended to me by members of the Democratic Underground. 😉

    Ray (be81f9)

  49. “Ever here of a typo?” LOL Where did you go to school?”

    I guess my humor is a little too subtle for you, or to use Kerryspeak, to nuanced.

    BTW I am a product of Minneapolis Public Schools. You know, a liberal city.

    Ray (be81f9)

  50. “If you truly care about the welfare of our troops, bring them home.”

    If you truly care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, you would want the troops to stay. Pulling out would abandon them to Muslim fundamentalists and create another Talaban type of tyrannical government or allow another Saddam type to seize power. By allowing the troops to stay, we allow the Iraqi people to build up their own forces and secure their own government. Just like we did in Europe and Japan after WWII. Just like we did in the Balkan states. Just like we did in Afghanistan. And just like were doing now in Iraq.

    It takes years for a new government to stabilize and for that government to fully secure the county. It took decades after WWII for Europe to recover and may take decades in Iraq today. If we pull out troops we run the risk of what happened after WWI, namely another war within a few decades or years, or even months.

    Our troops do more than help secure a country. They help rebuild damaged infrastructures, help train civilian workers, and help the economy as we lease the bases and the troops spend money in the host countries. That what happen in Europe after WWII and our troops are still there. I served in Germany for 18 months back in the 80’s so I understand just what American forces can accomplish. Why do you think countries like Germany still lease us bases? After all, Germany has a military too.

    Pulling our troops out now would be the worse thing we could do.

    Ray (be81f9)

  51. I will never ceased to be amazed at the total stupidity of liberals. Why should we have accorded this animal anything other than this quick dispatch off the planet? Did he ever show any mercy to those he beheaded? No he didn’t. A rogue animal is a rogue animal. He and his ilk all deserve to be bombed out of society.

    paul from fl (464e99)

  52. I have long been struck by the disconnect between the coverage of Iraq by the Washington Post’s “News” division, which is completely negative and biased, and the coverage on its Op-Ed pages, which are much more nauanced. Today’s Post illustrates the point nicely. The headline and first paragraph on the front page are as follows:

    After Zarqawi, No Clear Path for a Weary Iraq

    Analysts and military spokesmen said Thursday that the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed Wednesday when two 500-pound bombs obliterated his hideout north of Baghdad, will not extinguish the sectarian conflict that he helped foment and that is now claiming many more lives in Iraq than his campaign of beheadings and bombings.

    The headline and first paragraph for the lead editorial are as follows:

    A Good Day in Iraq

    THE KILLING of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is a big gain for the U.S. mission in Iraq and the country’s new government, the more so because it comes at a critical moment. With one airstrike, U.S. forces deprived Iraq’s insurgency — diverse and fragmented though it is — of its sole widely recognized leader, probably its biggest fundraiser and recruiter, and the organizer of some of the most spectacular and demoralizing attacks in Iraq, from the bombing of the United Nations headquarters three years ago to the beheadings of foreign hostages to the massacres of Shiite worshipers in Najaf and Karbala. Although al-Qaeda in Iraq makes up only a part of the Iraqi insurgency, it has been the organization most intent on fomenting sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites; the elimination of its leader will surely contribute to stanching that civil conflict.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  53. Some additional lefty comments I’ve noticed at other sites:

    * Bush’s poll numbers suck.

    * Lot’s of US servicemen died this month.

    * GHOUL!

    * He was turned in to the US by Bin Laden.

    * The video is fake.

    * ROVE!

    * “it’s sort of like Dr. Frankenstien killing his own monster”

    * Bush could have killed him before but didn’t.

    * This strengthens AQ because it allows OBL to consolidate his power.

    And some others. Great day for the US armed forces, I’m damn proud of them.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  54. it isn’t just the fringe left asking why we haven’t capped bin laden yet. hard to believe one guy could elude uncle sam for this long. unless there was greater value in keeping him alive.
    today they reported that zarqawi was briefly still alive after the airstrike. after two 500-pound bombs? i wonder if we’re getting accurate details.

    assistant devil's advocate (7adc55)

  55. If the timimg was important to the election – shouldn’t this have happened _before_ Tuesday’s elections?

    Marshall (3c5471)

  56. The senseless MURDER of Abu Musab Al Zarkawi in a DESPICABLE SNEAK ATTACK using American aircraft by the illegal and unelected AMERIKAN DICTATOR Bush, demonstrates that he’s no better than those he slanders as “terrorists.” Actually, Bush is much WORSE.

    The brave Islamic MARTYRS who brought justice to the LITTLE EICHMANNS at the World Trade Center and to the BLOODTHIRSTY FIENDS at the Pentagon used American airplanes too. Same method, same motivation. But, the despicable Bush HYPOCRITICALLY blames only the martyrs of ISLAM, when in fact he did the SAME THING they did, only without divine guidance as revealed by the markings on a HOLY FISH.

    Shame be upon Bushitler’s EVIL head, and may a million FLEAS infest his favorite POLO PONY.

    Help support the Progressive VISION of peace and freedom, vote for Socialists (even when they PRETEND to be Democrats), send DONATIONS to the UN, buy French wine, and MIX it with your KOOL-AID.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  57. Now, that’s going too far Black Jack. The poor POLO PONY hasn’t done anything to deserve being infested with a million fleas.

    nk (06f5d0)

  58. Black Jack, you forgot a couple of Ks — it’s AmeriKKKa. Back to indoctrination camp with you until you get it right.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  59. Only progressive socialist democrats will bring world peace! Communism has only killed a hundred million people. For the sake of the world, lets give it another chance!

    Ray (be81f9)

  60. I reject the evil criticism flowing like molten lava from the diseased mouths of the loathsome running dogs of capitalism’s pampered elite, with their Gucci shoes and matching handbags, frisky blond babes, and 401k’s, which suck the blood from welfare cheats, and virgins in need of quality day care.

    So you can just hand over your fancy 9mm Glocks and go volunteer to cook soup on Labor Day at your local church of the bleeding heart. I have already seen AlGore’s movie twice, and I have the T shirt too. So you can just go suck those funny looking purple pickled eggs displayed in bars where smelly inebriates congregate to trade their Food Stamps for vintage muscatel. Enough said.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  61. I love the video at Hotair.com.

    Patricia (2cc180)

  62. Calling Democrats Communists… How original Ray.

    Meanwhile, you ignore that the right is guilty of their atrocities too – or do you not believe in the Holocaust?

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  63. Wrong again Psy, Hitler was head of the National Socialist Workers Party. He’s one of yours. Just like the other big time killers, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Saddam.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  64. #62 and #63: That’s right actually. Nazism and Fascism were socialist movements and considered themselves closer philosophically to Soviet communism than to the western “capitalist” societies (America and England). That parallelism helped form the temporary Hitler-Stalin alliance for the invasion of Poland. Which doesn’t mean that using those adjectives in the context of this debate is anything more than name-calling.

    nk (35ba30)

  65. BJ and Psy: you’re both half-right about the Nazis. As their real name suggests (“Nazi” was, IIRC, a pejorative term analogous to “Commie”), they were an oddball coalition of right-wing nationalists and left-wing socialists, truly the worst of both worlds. Genuine conservatives wanted nothing to do with these populist/socialists. Genuine leftists (“liberal” has a completely different meaning in Germany) didn’t care for them either; they abhorred the racism and generally favored a policy of international socialism. The Nazis were neither “right” nor “left” in any coherent sense of the word, but they incorporated just enough elements of each to convince today’s liberals and conservatives to each use the Nazis to tar the other. They are to the political spectrum as Fresno is to California and Maryland is to the East Coast: if you live in the South, you’ll think of them as the North, and vice-versa.

    Xrlq (3eed8d)

  66. I don’t care if Hitler and his murderous cohorts called themselves Mary Poppinists – they ruled with a dictatorship. They also called themselves Christians and buried their dead soldiers under crosses – does that make Hitler a Christian too?

    Dictatorships and totalitarian governments are clearly rightist regimes. I can’t think of a single way that Nazis were actually communistic. Sure X, they may have claimed to have a populist platform, but did they do anything specifically for the average wage workers? Murdering laborers for not working hard enough doesn’t count – as that is obviously not a leftist principle.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  67. Psy,

    Conservatives as Nazi’s. Like that’s original!

    “Murdering laborers for not working hard enough does’t count – as that is obviously not a leftist principle.”

    True, but confiscating people’s property and/or wealth for dissemination by the “State” is a leftist principal! That’s what the Nazi’s did to the Jews, and others, when they confiscated the Jew’s businesses and seized their bank accounts. That’s what the Communists did to the private farmers when the made the farms collective and forced the farmers to grow only those crops that the government allowed. Both the Nazi’s and the Communists forced people to work for government assigned jobs. Both imprisoned anyone that spoke out in opposition to the government. Both used conscription in the military. Both used “class struggle’ to promote their ideals and as justification for their actions. The comparisons go on, and on, and on.

    Nazism, like communism, was a hell of a lot closer to left wing ideals than to right wing, but I know that you’ll never accept that.

    Ray (be81f9)

  68. Conservatives as Nazi’s. Like that’s original!

    You started this discussion with your ignorant claim, not me.

    If a state takes over property, that does not imply communism. Try to think a little deeper. If Hitler had evenly divided the property, that would be communistic. But they didn’t do that, did they?

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  69. “I don’t care if Hitler and his murderous cohorts called themselves Mary Poppinists – they ruled with a dictatorship.”

    The same could be said of Stalin and HIS murdering cohorts, they ruled as a dictatorship as well. What happened to people that opposed Stalin? They were worked to death in the Gulags or were shot as a traitor. Stalin and his supporters killed millions, just like Hitler and HIS supporters. Both had absolute control of the economy of their respective country. Both had absolute control of the judiciary. Both had absolute control of the military. Both had absolute control of the legislature. Both ruled through fear and intimidation. Both are examples of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Ray (be81f9)

  70. Hitler even used a fear of communism to gain power. I don’t know what propaganda you’re reading Ray, but they are lying to you.

    One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers – as stated in the Weimar Constitution – he had to play on the old president’s fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
    A known communist – Marianus van der Lubbe – was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him – Nazi officials – claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.
    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  71. “If Hitler had evenly divided the property, that would be communistic. But they didn’t do that, did they?”

    Nether did Stalin, nor any other communist leader. Remember the Dachas? Party loyalist were and, in the existing communist countries, still are given cars, tailor made clothing, second houses, and more, as a reward for faithful alliance to the party and it’s ideals. The common citizen received none of these.

    Ray (be81f9)

  72. Nether did Stalin, nor any other communist leader.

    Well then, it never really was a communist country then, was it? It was really a rightist totalitarian regime calling itself communistic.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  73. Hitler, and his supporters, used fear of a a lot of things, like anti-antisemitism, to achieve and maintain power. So did Stalin and his supporters. I fail to see your point.

    Ray (be81f9)

  74. My point is, the USSR never was a truly communistic country. It was totalitarian instead, which is a right wing form of government.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  75. “Well then, it never really was a communist country then, was it? It was really a rightist totalitarian regime calling itself communistic.”

    Now your really streaching! Do you really belife that or are you just trying to stop the debate? Remember, communism still exists in the world today and most od the things Stalin did are still occuring. I guess that none of the communist states are “true” communisin, and if that’s true, the ideals of communisum are dooms to failure as history hase shom that that type of political systems will always lead to “rightist totalitarian regime.”

    Ray (be81f9)

  76. #
    Opps, let me try that after using a spell checker.
    Silly me!

    “Well then, it never really was a communist country then, was it? It was really a rightist totalitarian regime calling itself communistic.”

    Now your really stretching! Do you really believe that or are you just trying to stop the debate? Remember, communism still exists in the world today and most of the things Stalin did are still occurring. I guess that none of the communist states are “true” communism, and if that’s true, the ideals of communism are doomed to failure as history has shown that that type of political systems will always lead to “rightist totalitarian regime.”

    Ray (be81f9)

  77. “Well then, it never really was a communist country then, was it? It was really a rightist totalitarian regime calling itself communistic.”

    Psy,

    You can spin this all you want, but you only spinning in circles. Face it, communism and/or socialism, are failed political ideals as they don’t allow for the individual and individual rights. Just like any totalitarian form of government, ether “right” or “left.”

    Ray (be81f9)

  78. Don’t get me wrong Ray – I’m not saying that nothing the USSR did was communistic; there were certain elements of it there. However, it never was practiced the way that Marx envisioned. I’m not saying that it would work – I happen to believe that controlled competition is a good thing. (If you want to know what uncontrolled competition was like, read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair.)

    Anyway, I think I’m commenting too much and I have to go for now.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  79. Psy, a economy that has controlled competition by government intervention can not support a growing population and leads to massive poverty and starvation of it’s civilian population. History shows this again and again.

    Why do you think that China is adopting a free market economy, just to get along with America? No, they are adopting a free market economy as that is the only economy that works with large populations. A free market economy is what made this country the richest, most powerful country and is what enables the free flow of ideas which has lead to the explosion of inventions this country has produced in the last 200 years.

    There’s a reason why Americans continually out produce countries that are a hell of a lot bigger then we. It’s our economic model and the inventions that systems has produced. That how produce the food that we give to other countries. That’s how me invented the majority of the products in use today. That’s how we survive today, and will survive in the future.

    Ray (be81f9)

  80. Marx was a fool. He believed that by forcing people to be equal in their wealth and possessions a natural balance would be achieved that would eliminate human suffering and lead to a paradise on earth. He thought that people would trade their real individualism for an imagined collective society where everyone was equal, kind of like an ant colony. That’s impossible. We are humans, not ants.

    Each of us has natural abilities that are different from others. Why not let people use their natural abilities to improve their lives and the lives of others? That’s the way the natural world works and that’s what our system of government and our economical system allows. It may not make us all equal as far as Marx was concerned, but it makes us able to survive a challenging and sometimes dangerous world without the massive suffering that Marx’ system of government has forced on it’s citizens time and time again.

    Ray (be81f9)

  81. “There’s a reason why Americans continually out produce countries that are a hell of a lot bigger then we. It’s our economic model and the inventions that systems has produced.” – Ray

    Unexpectedly, the forces we set in motion are boomeranging.

    NAFTA sent jobs south. Now those jobs are cheaper to do in China – a country that subsidizes its brightest with engineering educations (here and there), guaranteeing the next generation’s wealth is .

    That’s a much steeper trajectory.

    steve (d9aab7)

  82. “There’s a reason why Americans continually out produce countries that are a hell of a lot bigger then we. It’s our economic model and the inventions that systems has produced.” – Ray

    Unexpectedly, the forces we set in motion are boomeranging.

    NAFTA sent jobs south. Now those jobs are cheaper to do in China – a country that subsidizes its brightest with engineering educations (here and there), so the next generation’s prosperity is self-sustaining.

    Seems like a steeper trajectory to me.

    Five years ago, Guadalajara was flush with job creation from the north. Then those firms learned the Chinese work for a third as much and have double the productivity. Basically, it’s a 6X dividend, more than offsetting the cost of shipping goods great distances. Guadalajara is yesterday.

    Are we the day-before-yesterday?

    steve (d9aab7)

  83. Nosh wrote:

    This week I watched our President endorse discrimination and pander to the tyranny of the majority with his ridiculous support of a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage.

    “Tyranny of the majority?” As in the expressed, democratic wishes of the people?

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  84. “Unexpectedly, the forces we set in motion are boomeranging.”

    Our economy is consistently expanding. We have low unemployment and low inflation. Record numbers of people are employed and are earning income, despite massive importation of products manufactured by cheap labor in other countries and an increasing population via immigration, both legal and illegal. We must be doing something right!

    Ray (be81f9)

  85. Psy said, “Dictatorships and totalitarian governments are clearly rightist regimes.”

    Really now, is that so? For just one example, close to home, it’s sure to be news to all those folks risking their lives to depart the totalitarian worker’s paradise run by Dictator for Life, El Supremo himself, Fidel “The Beard” Castro.

    In solidarity with fellow travelers on the road to collectivist utopia, you might want to drop Fidel a note and explain how it is that he’s off base a little bit. Tell him that he hasn’t got it quite right yet, and that communism would undoubtedly work really really good if only it ever once got a fair chance. You know that for a fact because you learned all about it in college.

    Explain that the only thing which prevents the whole world from throwing off their chains and becoming happy tractor drivers, is those tricky counterrevolutionary insects who’s greedy capitalism keeps the masses enslaved to cell phones and TV dinners. Those heartless dogs.

    Why, if Fidel would just get on the one true golden path, then peaceful and environmentally aware, totalitarian dictators wouldn’t be forced (it’s all Bush’s fault anyway) to murder millions of happy workers every few years or so, just to cover up mass starvation, prevent organized opposition, and hold on to power at the point of ChiCom AK-47’s. (Boy oh boy, did that Chairman Mao know where political power comes from, or what?)

    PS: You might also include a brief mention that his revolution took control of Cuba over 40 years ago and it’s OK now to change his fatigue uniform. Such a blatant display of military success can lead to confusion among the useful idiots being organized to oppose GWB’s wars.

    If it’s a big deal, and he gets his nose out of joint, Fidel could always keep an old hat around, like John Kerry does. You know, there’s hope, Fidel has been willing to change, he gave up the cigars, he might go for a more complete make over. Fidel would look great Snowboarding or Windsurfing in Birkenstocks and a magic hat, and there’s lots of chubby rich older women around who like ex-military guys, especially those with second careers in Lefty politics.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  86. Since this comment thread has gone way off subject, anyway, here are some helpful definitions:

    Fascism: You have two cows. The governmenr takes them away and sells you the milk.
    Communism: You have two cows. The government takes them away and gives you the milk for free but you have to stand in line for hours to get it and it has turned sour by then.
    American capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Soon you have a hundred cows.
    French capitalism: You have two cows. You go on strike until the government gives you a third one. Meantime, who needs milk when you can drink wine?
    Slobovian capitalism: You have two bulls. You wonder why they do not produce milk and even trying to milk them results in so many injuries?

    nk (8214ee)

  87. nk,

    That was great! I’m stealing that!

    Ray (be81f9)

  88. Psyberian:

    don’t care if Hitler and his murderous cohorts called themselves Mary Poppinists – they ruled with a dictatorship.

    As do left-wing and right-wing dictators, alike. Your point?

    Dictatorships and totalitarian governments are clearly rightist regimes.

    Give me a fucking break. By that logic, every socialist state on the planet is a “rightist” regime. Hell, Marx himself advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat, so by that tortured reasoning even he must have been a “rightist.”

    I can’t think of a single way that Nazis were actually communistic. Sure X, they may have claimed to have a populist platform, but did they do anything specifically for the average wage workers?

    The same thing other demagogues – and just about everyone with a populist platform – do for the average wage workers, which is either nothing or worse. But socialism and communism are about ideologies, not results. The fact that they harm the very people they are supposed to help does not mean they aren’t true to their ideology; it just means the ideology it

    It’s not a “rightist” principle, either. It’s certainly no closer to American conservatism than it is to American liberalism, both of which abhor tyranny. But to argue that leftism generally cannot include dictatorship is insane. Hitler is debatable, but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are not, and all three of them were at least as evil and tyrannical as Hitler, if not more so. Stalin and Mao each murdered far more people than Hitler did. Pol Pot didn’t, but only because his country was too small for that to be mathematically possible.

    Xrlq (f6cf51)

  89. Tell [Fidel] … that communism would undoubtedly work really really good if only it ever once got a fair chance. You know that for a fact because you learned all about it in college. – Black Jack

    No, but I did learn that capitalism isn’t the euphoria that the right wingers depicts it as. Didn’t you read my previous comment? What’s gotten into you lately anyway, BJ? Lately you seem even more bitter than usual.

    NK, unfortunately American capitalism doesn’t always work that way. For example, someone comes along and buys your two cows along with most of the others, and before you know it you have a monopoly or oligarchy charging outrages prices for beef. Moreover, if capitalism is so great why is the majority of the wealth owned by only 10% of the population?

    As do left-wing and right-wing dictators, alike. Your point? – X

    X, this is fundamental about politics. It is shocking to me that you (among others here) apparently don’t know it. But totalitarianism and dictatorships are so absolutely antithetical to Marxist philosophy that it shows that you have no understanding of its most basic principal. What is its most basic principal? It is implied in the phrase “Workers of the world unite.” Does that sound like a movement that wants a dictatorship? Obviously, it does not. On the contrary, it is a rising up of the people against what Marxists consider dictators – capitalists. To replace one dictator for another in such a scenario would of course be useless. So no, you can’t claim that dictatorships (or totalitarian forms of government) are what communists want. Only right-wing political philosophy defends dictatorships.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  90. Psy,

    “KN, unfortunately American capitalism does’t always work that way. For example, someone comes along and buys your two cows along with most of the others, and before you know it you have a monopoly or oligarchy charging outrages prices for beef.”

    The US has laws that restrict monopolies. That’s called anti-trust and actually promotes competition and prevents the scenarios you describe. You better do a little research before making unrealistic claims.

    “Moreover, if capitalism is so great why is the majority of the wealth owned by only 10% of the population?”

    Is it because that the 10% of the worlds population lives in countries that adopt capitalism and are the ones that generate that wealth? If we take that wealth away from those who generate it, how will new wealth be generated?

    Get real Psy, a government controlled economy can not provide for the needs of it’s own population, let alone the population of the world as a whole.

    Capitalism generate the wealth that allows it’s citizens to donate the billions of dollars that help provide relive to those who need it. name another system of economics that generate that type of charity!

    Ray (be81f9)

  91. Our government has not always restricted monopolies the way that they should Ray. So it is just one example of how capitalism can go astray.

    That 10% of the population owning the majority of the wealth is right here in the U.S.A. Ray – I wasn’t talking about the whole world.

    Incidentally, you praise anti-trust laws and deride a “government controlled economy.” But you can’t have it both ways – anti-trust laws are a form of government intervention and therefore control the economy.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  92. Psy,

    Get off you high horse for a second and answer me this: If capitalism is such a failure, then why are we so successful? Why do we donate so much food, materials, and money to those in need, both here and around the world far above socialist countries who can’t even produce the food necessary to feed their population and must import?. Why do so many people want to immigrate here. Why are so many countries adopting our economic system? Why do you live in a country that uses a capitalist economic system?

    Capitalism is the worse economic system there is, except for all others.

    Incidentally, anti-trust is not government control of an economy, it is legal control of the behavior of a company’s employees, like a board of directors, and the decisions those employees make. It a legal proceeding the is restricted to a single company. Get it straight!

    Ray (be81f9)

  93. Ray, I know I’m coming across as against capitalism. But let me add that controlled capitalism does deserve credit for sustaining a middle class – at least we’ve got that. My point is only that it is far from perfect. I don’t have a better solution. But since the threat of communism has abated for the most part here, I think we should be able to take an honest look at it, that’s all. What you said is exactly right IMO:

    Capitalism is the worse economic system there is, except for all others.

    One of my favorite criticisms of communism is the saying which I believe comes from Russia: “They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.” Sadly, I’m afraid that people need competition for a motivator too. Otherwise, we get lazy.
    As for the anti-trust laws not being part of the government, I suppose that’s a fair point. But what body appoints the judges and other legal entities which enforce these anti-trust laws? It comes back to the government, doesn’t it? So if our government is not doing its job, the system fails.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  94. Psy,

    Once again your arguing in circles.

    You claim that “I happen to believe that controlled competition is a good thing.” yet say that “Our government has not always restricted monopolies the way that they should Ray.” implying that monopolies control competition by reducing or elimination competition altogether. If controlled competition is a good thing, then how can a monopoly, which restricts competition, be a bad thing?

    Which one is it Psy, a government monopoly of business like socialism or competition through capitalism like a democracy?

    Ray (be81f9)

  95. “So if our government is not doing its job, the system fails.”

    That’s true in any government, but sometimes a the system fails BECAUSE the government is doing it’s job. The failure of the USSR is a great example of that.

    Ray (be81f9)

  96. “Controlled competition” may not be the best way to phrase it. But what I am trying to say with that phrase is: let’s prevent the ugliest effects of capitalism like monopolies and, as another example, price gouging. To the extent that our government prevents such unfair practices, it is “controlling” or restricting pure, unwashed, capitalism.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  97. “But since the threat of communism has abated for the most part here, ”

    The “threat of communism” had abated because communism is shown to be a failure. Communism and the total government control of an economy can not provide for that countries population without causing massive poverty and starvation. It may work for small populations, but no government can adapt quick enough to a changing environment that threatens it’s population. Capitalism, and the productivity and innovation it provides, can react to a changing environment much faster then any government. That’s why you’ll see private donations flowing into a disaster area, like N.O after the flood, then any government program can provide. That donated wealth can only occur in a system that allows and promotes the accumulation of privately held wealth. I can think of no other system that can do the same.

    BTW, I’m not against putting restriction on uncontrolled capitalism, I just believe that our capitalist system has built in restrictions through the very nature of competition and that the government should only restrict competition when such competition interferes with the flow of goods and materials and cause economic strife.

    Ray (be81f9)

  98. “ugliest effects of capitalism like monopolies”

    Psy, what is communism but a government controlled monopoly of business? In communism, there is no competition!

    Ray (be81f9)

  99. Zarqawi isn’t very important. He was a 2-bit thug. What is important: a child was killed in the attack.

    Fred (bf6c84)

  100. X, this is fundamental about politics. It is shocking to me that you (among others here) apparently don’t know it. But totalitarianism and dictatorships are so absolutely antithetical to Marxist philosophy that it shows that you have no understanding of its most basic principal. What is its most basic principal? It is implied in the phrase “Workers of the world unite.” Does that sound like a movement that wants a dictatorship? Obviously, it does not.

    It’s only “obvious” in the sense that it implies an oligarchy rather than a pure dictatorship. But the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not some anti-Marxist slogan; it originated with Marx himself.

    On the contrary, it is a rising up of the people against what Marxists consider dictators – capitalists.

    Precisely: Marxists live in an Orwellian world where freedom equals fascism, and those who would abolish it, at least in the economic realm, are “liberators.” And you’re surprised when economic totalitarianism leads to totalitarianism in other spheres as well?

    To replace one dictator for another in such a scenario would of course be useless.

    That proves that leftist ideology is indeed useless. It doesn’t prove that it isn’t what it is.

    So no, you can’t claim that dictatorships (or totalitarian forms of government) are what communists want. Only right-wing political philosophy defends dictatorships.

    I defy you to produce a single example of “right-wing political philosophy,” as defended by any American or even Western European conservatives, that defend dictatorships. No, a foreign policy of strategically defending certain dictators over others for geopolitical reasons doesn’t count. On the other hand, socialism expressly defends its own version of totalitarianism as a means toward an end, namely, to “reinvent” the public to the point where the state can wither away and allow “real” communism to fluorish. That this utopian pipe dream never materialized does not change this fact. So it’s hardly a coincidence that every single government in the world that has pronounced itself either “socialist” or “communist” has produced the very tyranny you credulously claim no communists ever wanted.

    Xrlq (f6cf51)

  101. Psyberian, Comment #89 and Ray Comment #90:

    Of course I’m not going to get a 100 cows from a single mating pair. (I am a farmboy, BTW.) Since I have a bull, the other farmers who do not have bulls will pay me stud fees for their cows. I will use those stud fees to buy more cows. It may very well be that some cows will be from my neighbors who do not see it worth their while to pay my stud fees and I will offer them more money than the slaughter house. OK, I have a better grip on the wealth teat than others. That’s why taxes were invented. Anti-monopoly laws too, but I would hope that a monopoly such as mine, because I realized that a cow will not give you calves or milk without a bull, will not be punished.

    Sure, the horrible predation that Marx saw in Europe’s version of capitalism during the Industrial Revolution and what we saw in the stock market crash of 1929 which caused the Great Depression are things that any sensible government will legislate against. On the other hand, even though it was not called that back then, capitalism is what brought down feudalism in the Renaissance.

    I’m sure glad Patterico does not charge us his prorated cost for our off-subject comments.

    nk (06f5d0)

  102. “But what I am trying to say with that phrase is: let’s prevent the ugliest effects of capitalism like monopolies and, as another example, price gouging.”

    Price gouging, as you call it, is an effect of restricted competition, not unrestricted capitalism. When there is no competition and no incentive to lower prices, then price gouging can, and has, occur. How can price gouging occur if the competition lowers it’s prices in an attempt to have the consumer buy it’s product? I’ve seen competition lower prices, like during the “Gas Wars” back in the 7’s and 80’sf or example. I’ve seen lack of competition raise prices in state controlled monopolies, like cable television for example. Explain how controlled competition will avoid price gouging. You can’t and you know it!

    Ray (be81f9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4393 secs.