Liberal Talking Points on Iraq: “We’ve Ethnically Cleansed most of Baghdad”
[Guest post by DRJ]
On September 10, 2007, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va) assured us the “surge has failed to achieve its objective and must be defined as a failure.” Now he explains why violence is down in Baghdad:
“Sure, there’s less violence, but that’s because we’ve ethnically cleansed most of Baghdad.”
It seems Rosa Brooks of the LA Times agrees although she doesn’t credit Moran (while it looks like Moran’s statement preceded Brooks’ column, it’s possible Brooks wrote her column first):
“It’s against this backdrop that we should evaluate the success of the Bush administration’s troop “surge” in Iraq. Yes, violence is down. Some of that is because of the surge itself: More troops — and smarter counterinsurgency tactics — have indeed translated into a reduction in violence. But violence also is down because the process of “sectarian cleansing” is nearing completion: Sunnis have been driven out of Shiite neighborhoods, Shiites out of Sunni neighborhoods, the Kurds have retaken their own historic territories and smaller minorities have been shoved to the side.”
The dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing is “the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity.”
Let’s assume Moran and Brooks used the term “cleansing” in its most benign form to mean expulsion or segregation by ethnicity or religious sect. (It’s much easier to make that argument for Brooks than Moran because Brooks specifically recognizes benefits from the surge and notes that “[s]ectarian segregation isn’t ideal, but it beats genocide.”) It’s not surprising to learn that, during wartime, Iraqis have moved to segregated areas for security or family reasons. In fact, it makes sense to do so.
However, the use of a term like “ethnic cleansing” isn’t a benign term. It suggests sectarian killings and perhaps even that American troops condoned or participated in genocide in Iraq. Whether by design or not, suggesting the US condones or participates in ethnic cleansing is inflammatory and adversely affects the American military in Iraq.
If these are the newest liberal talking points on Iraq, shame on them.
— DRJ
From the context of that clip, where he’s first complaining about the oppressive Muslim rules, I’m guessing he meant ethnic cleansing happened while we were controlling the area, just as the fundamentalist Muslims reportedly took over. Bad wording on his part, though.
As the Dude would say, “…The royal ‘we’…You know, the editorial, ‘We dropped off the money and ethnically cleansed them'”
Mike (8e0e3b) — 12/21/2007 @ 1:18 am“However, the use of a term like “ethnic cleansing” isn’t a benign term. It suggests sectarian killings and perhaps even that American troops condoned or participated in genocide in Iraq”
No. It means we’re morally culpable for what’s happened in Iraq.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/21/2007 @ 1:19 amI’d take you just a little more seriously if you paid any real attention to what was going on.
All attitude and no information. Who needs competence when you’ve got fantasies?
The unintended irony of blah’s statement is stunning.
JD (75f5c3) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:53 amUnlike blah, I don’t rely on biased MSM journalists like Karen DeYoung practicing hotel journalism in Baghdad as my primary sources of news on Iraq. She and her colleagues have worn out several drum sets with their relentless negative drunbeat on events. KKKKKWWWAAAAGGGGMMMIIIRRREE
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 9:12 amIraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of “occupying forces” as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
Blah…first line of the Washington Post article you sited, right?
Blah, bet you another journalist can find Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups who believe that the U.S. Military invasion is the primary root of the restoration of rights and privilages in that nation, including the ending of torture and rape rooms as common occurances, and the opportunity for advancement as individuals and as a nation.
When you quote an obviously opinionated article, at least try not to make it so obvious. Try adding something resembling a balanced approach to the attitude you try to show….
reff (bff229) — 12/21/2007 @ 9:31 amBlah’s links once again don’t support his claims, but this isn’t a surprise. That Iraqi’s want to blame us for their actions is the kind of moral confusion I expect from them and blah.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 9:40 amDaleyrocks and his ilk talk about a 50-year commitment. Geez, I’m glad it’s not a quagmire. What would that be, a 500-year commitment?
The ethnic/religious segregation of Baghdad since the beginning of the war is acknowledged by the US Army. Maps. People moved because of violence or the fear of violence. If that’s ethnic cleansing, then we have ethnic cleansing. What purpose denying the obvious holds escapes me. Well, it doesn’t escape me. It’s part of closing one’s eyes really, really hard and pretending that the Iraq landscape looks like we expected in 2003, and our bankrupt fantasies didn’t include ethnic cleansing.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 12/21/2007 @ 10:48 amAJL shows up, right on cue. Is Germany a kKkwagmire, AJL?
Yup, AJL, we were all hoping for a good old-fashioned ethnic cleansing. We tried to keep it secret, but you let the cat out of the bag. Damn you.
JD (75f5c3) — 12/21/2007 @ 10:52 amSunnis and Shiites have been killing on another since the 7th Century, over a thousand years before the United States was founded. But to Blame-America-First-Democrats, it is the USA that has caused the strife.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/21/2007 @ 10:59 amDRJ – They should feel shame for making such a patently ludicrous contention, but as blah and AJL show, hating Bush and Republicans far outweighs their ability to feel shame.
JD (75f5c3) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:01 am“They should feel shame for making such a patently ludicrous contention”
“Blah’s links once again don’t support his claims, but this isn’t a surprise.”
Show me what those are kiddo. Why don’t you read my links for once.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:25 amblah – You are supporting the idea that we are either participating in, or encouraging ethic cleansing in Iraq. That you and your fellow travelers would say such a thing should be quickly followed by an immediate sense of shame for maligning your fellow citizens. Yet, it is now. That is sad.
JD (75f5c3) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:41 am“blah – You are supporting the idea that we are either participating in, or encouraging ethic cleansing in Iraq.”
We won the war. This is the aftermath. Your willful ignorance serves a purpose: you proclaim yourself unaware, naive and innocent. You avoid responsibility.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:54 amYou can’t even recite the history of this war. There are volumes and volumes, thousands and thousands of pages, documents and records. And you have nothing but claims of good intentions.
What’s next, more accusations of treason?
No shame, none whatsoever.
JD (75f5c3) — 12/21/2007 @ 12:35 pmRead your links, blah? Why should I do something you don’t bother to do?
But in fact I did read them and found that my expectations of your links was confirmed. The Washington Post piece was especially amusing as I noted.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 12:37 pmWe didn’t participate in the ethnic cleansing. Agreed.
Our policy, or lack thereof, allowed it to take place.
I’m having trouble understanding whether you are denying that there has been a violence-fueled segregation of Baghdad or denying that it is in any way our responsibility, since the Shiites and Sunni have been killing themselves for centuries. Can you clarify this?
(Cue Bill Kristol🙂
I think we’ll end up with a version of the peasant’s argument: I didn’t borrow the pot. It was broken when I borrowed it. I returned it in perfect condition.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 12/21/2007 @ 12:46 pmBlah, you avoided responding to comments about the first line of your first link…
Because the truth is simply there for all to see..
Try another link…
p.s….I read all your links, and they didn’t logically connect with their premises. Nothing but opinion and innuendo…
reff (bff229) — 12/21/2007 @ 12:52 pmI guess blah and AJL didn’t get the memo. The “cleansing” started to reverse a month ago. And they are being welcomed by their neighbors.
LarryD (feb78b) — 12/21/2007 @ 12:58 pmTranslation: Damn, the surge worked, so we gotta find a new way to disparage it.
[Remember folks, libs are better than you, so no matter what you do, they must condemn you for it to prove that point.]
ras (fc54bb) — 12/21/2007 @ 1:23 pmPerhaps the most inane sentence on the innernets today.
Do you ever consider holding the people who actually do things responsible for them, Andrew? Shall we just blame it all on the Chinese?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 1:36 pmWhich, btw, is not ethnic cleansing. If you want to see ethnic cleansing, it just happened in Gaza a couple of years ago. And naturally the Jooooos did it.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 1:37 pmWhere’s my ilk? I’ve misplaced my ilk. A kingdom for my ilk!
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 2:23 pmYou want to tell me that you and all the other conservatives blame 9/11 only on the hijackers and their co-conspirators? You’ve never, for example, approved of anything about allegedly poor national security policy of Bill Clinton did that allowed Al Qaeda to effectuate their plot?
The standard you are proposing makes no sense as a general principle. Bush Devotion Syndrome strikes again!
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 12/21/2007 @ 3:27 pmThe ethnic cleansing HAS BEEN happening. Lots of sources have reported it and the Coalition has also reported it. Your comment that saying that ethnic cleansing has occurred implies that the US has condoned it boggles the mind.
IT HAS HAPPENED. SAYING THAT IT has happened is STATING TRUTH.
You are really a silly, silly lady. Are you sure you should not be a liberal? I’m more used to them having this kind of emoting lack of logic.
If you can get your lazy intellectual ass in gear, go read Westhawk. Sheesh. You really make me sick, you communist hiding inside the Republican party.
TCO (79f88a) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:02 pmI’m not banned? I thought my comments were just private remarks to jab Patty. Hmmm…think we will be back to that soon.
You can’t handle the truth!
*drops cover as walks out of court in uniform*
TCO (79f88a) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:04 pmFirst, I’m not terribly conservative, and second, yes, I blame 9/11 on the people who hatched and executed the plot. Which is why I don’t get all weepy at the thought of the likes of KSM being waterboarded.
False dichotomy. The primary job of the federal government is the defense of America. Clinton’s administration did a fairly crappy job in that area, but that does not make them responsible for 9/11. Neither does lack of direct responsibility for 9/11 does not immunize them from criticism of their national security shortcomings.
Your insistence that the US is responsible for sectarian violence (which is currently playing out in many parts of the Muslim world) is nonsense, unless you’d like to suggest that those stupid Muslims needed Saddam to keep them from killing each other. Is that what you’re saying, Andrew?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:16 pmDo you approve the waterboarding of Mafia dons?
Please give a direct yes or no (one word answer, full space to next para).
In next para, give all the caveats, the disagreements with the point, you think I will draw from your answer, etc. etc. etc.
TCO (79f88a) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:19 pmI don’t do hand shows.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:27 pmWhen we installed our then “Puppy Dog,” Saddam, he heeled like a good little boy & we let him have what he wanted… Power… then when he grew up & bit “US,” we slapped him down. As long as we control the people who control the oil, there will be contention, when we lose that control, we will beat the next “Dog” in line. History repeats itself… Just Manifesting our Destiny, or “Bush’s” dynasty.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:32 pmWilliam Engelke, ah, the old “Saddam was a US stooge” meme.
Very silly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:38 pmPablo: It’s called socratic dialogue. It’s the way one analyzes issues, surfacing points of agreement and areas of disagrreement and/or uncertainty. It requires a truth telling/seeking mind rather than a sophistic butt-pussy likking attitude. More Feynman. Less idiot.
TCO (79f88a) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:42 pm29 and 30 are a perfect example of why you both should have been drowned at birth like kittens on the farm!!!!
TCO (79f88a) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:43 pmSocratic Dialogue is prose, normally fictional and not actual dialogue. The Socratic Method, of which I am a fervent adherent, involves asking probing questions in order to lead the questioned to discover the truth. It does not involve demands that a question be answered in a particular form or format. If you’d like me to answer a question, just ask it. Or kiss my ass. Whichever.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:50 pm#29
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/21/2007 @ 4:54 pmLearn a little History. Saddam was not installed by the US. He rose to power on his own and was supported by France and the Soviet Union. For example France provide the technology for the nuclear reactor later destroyed by Israel. Eighty percent of Iraq’s military equipment came from the Soviet Union and about 10% (mostly planes) came from France.
TCO, yes thank you for that contribution.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:02 pmTCO,
I honestly can’t tell if your earlier comment(s) are directed at me or not. To the extent they are, I agree that ethnic segregation has occurred in Iraq. Another word for segregation is cleansing, and I would accept it if that was the point Moran and Brooks were trying to make.
However, I don’t think that was Moran’s point. I think Moran knows full well that ethnic cleansing can also mean genocide and I also think his use of the term ethnic cleansing was calculated to make America and the US military look bad.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:06 pm#34 – …. right & they’re right there at the oil terminals right now, pumping away… get real
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:29 pmDRJ: I think your getting wrapped around the connotation of a word that your opponent used is a perfect example of the substitution of feeling for fact that I used to equate with liberals, but see more and more with conservatives. And that I would like burned out of the pary.
I hope the Democrats BUTT-RAPE the corruptocrat Stevensesque Repubs.
TCO (3a318a) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:33 pmYou know Saddam is dead now, right? And that France and Russia were majorly pissed off that we took him out?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:37 pmBut the WMDs are in the Bekaa Valley! I’m sure of it! Along with my virginity!
TCO (3a318a) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:39 pm#37
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/21/2007 @ 5:41 pmYour next challenge – learn some economics.
In the meantime, this thread is about Democrats using code words that mean American soldiers are committing atrocities – the Bread of Butter of Democrat party since 1968.
#39 – The US installed Saddam & the Shaw of Iran. Both “Western” educated… When did the “Soviet” union move in ?… When the Ayatollah moved against the west & OPEC initiated the 1970’s oil crunch. France was with the US led OPEC-US Alliance & lingered with OPEC after Saddam defected from US influence & invaded Kuwait. Iran defected to Soviet influence with the ousting of the Shaw & installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:25 pm“29 and 30 are a perfect example of why you both should have been drowned at birth like kittens on the farm!!!!”
TCO obviously wants to be banned. With the comments in this thread — particularly the violent one I just quoted — he gets his wish.
He can be reinstated in one week’s time, if he issues a sincere apology to all concerned. Sole judge of the apology’s sincerity: me.
Don’t want to apologize? Then have a nice life, pal.
Patterico (f043f8) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:30 pmEngelke, actually your understanding of the region is no more accurate than your spelling of the title of the monarch of Iran. The US did not “install” Saddam, he was a minor player in the Baathist Party that overthrew the monarchy in Iraq. A party that had little US support. Saddam worked his way up to power with the usual tools of despots.
As for an “OPEC-US Alliance”, well that is pretty hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:31 pmSaddam was “western” educated? Where? (Hint: No, he wasn’t.)
The Ayatollah didn’t come to power until until the 1979 revolution. He had nothing to do with the 70’s oil crunch. The Baathist regime signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviets in 1972.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:35 pmSmarter trolls, please.
Paul (d07d56) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:44 pm44 – … and the US did not support the Afghanistan Freedom Fighters, either, directly. The CIA is not recognized by the US ? McCarthy was right, it is all the Soviets doing ? I really want to get your perspective. Sorry about the dig but you really put too much trust into the “Iron” hand of the west.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:47 pmSeriously, back to the issue at hand… Estimated Iraqi Civilian casualties, up to 85,900 deaths. Between this figure and the US/insurgent kill ratios, undisclosed to this point, they will be squeaky clean by the time we leave. Does this sound good for Iraq to anyone ?
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:54 pmI agree with Paul. These trolls are are no challenge at all. I’ve half a mind to do some trolling here myself, just to learn ’em how a real argument is supposed to be done.
The half a mind part is what qualifies me.
babyface ras (fc54bb) — 12/21/2007 @ 6:59 pmOoh, William’s trying the spaghetti-throw approach to see if anything’ll stick. Don’t forget to blame the US for the Beatles breakup while you’re at it, Willy Boy. You know, right after America created Europe just so they could sell pork rinds over there.
ras (fc54bb) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:02 pmI’ve half a mind to do some trolling here myself, just to learn ‘em how a real argument is supposed to be done.
It woud help if commenters like William had a grasp on facts, reason, logic and ethics.
Paul (d07d56) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:07 pmEngelke, the CIA support to the Afghani resistance is irrelevant to the discussion. The US supplied a literally trivial amount of military equipment and an equally trivia amount of financial aid to Iraq. Iraq was not the US client state and Saddam not the US puppet you want to believe. Any serious examination of history confirms this. Chomskyite Leftist fantasies no more and no less.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:09 pmMmmmm…. Pork Rinds. The point I am “attempting” to make is too many people re-write history to divert responsibility. We are there, Russia isn’t. We are pumping the oil, France isn’t. Our president IS in the oil business & our vice-president has most of his major interests financially in the Defense industry. How clear are those facts ? & what part of 2+2 is not 4 ?
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:16 pmAnd, White Separatists killed John Lennon.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:17 pmWilliam,
You wanna sling accusations and feel good about yourself, go ahead, but it won’t work; you’ll be just as insecure when you’re done as you are now. Damned if I wanna be a your enabler.
And the thread is about an ethnic cleansing charge; it’s not about innuendo nor is it a “let’s see what other charges I can hurl to make myself sound morally superior” forum.
Seriously.
Another Drew,
I knew it!
ras (fc54bb) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:25 pmEngelke, your “point” is evolving more than Precambrian vertebrates.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:27 pmHuh, I’ve probably got some facts wrong, but
I thought Iraqis were pumping their own oil with our help in repairs and security.
I thought our President was a full time president and not an oil man.
I thought our Vice Presidents investments were in a blind trust, so who knows what they are.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:29 pmSaddam was by no means Western educated; he did audit some law courses at Cairo University; coincidentally the same school Nick Kristof attended for a spell; before he became a China specialist. The presumptions of many on this
narciso (c36902) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:34 pmboard as well as Karen de Young; is that the state of society in 2003 Baghdad was somewhat
ideal. Under the Tikriti mob, water, electricity, food oil (even from the majority Shia and Kurds region)was in the hands of this subsect of
Dulaimi, Jibbur and Ubeidi clans. It was not a coincidence that Saddam (later Sadr City) one of
the few Shia neighborhoods was treated like an open sewer compared to Amariya or Dora. After three quarters of a century of systemic disposession of the Shia from the professions, politics, business, et al (under the leadership
of Nuri al Said, the Pachachis and the Kailani’s; the last yielded the Fascist Golden Square movement which tried to take power in 1936 under
Bakir Sidky and succeeded briefly in 1941)TTHey turned to ‘direct action first forming the cadres of the Iraqi Communist Party then under Mohammed Sadr. son of one of the few Shia high officials, who formed the Da’wa movement. The Kurds, in which whose lands oil was discovered in 1927; were
even more intensely repressed with the Anfal being the most extreme of these measures. After 1991; Iraq’s defeat drove Saddam to accomodate
Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies in their politics
as part of a Grand Front. Many former Baathist functionaries in the army and the security forces
look up these jihadist currents with a vengeance
and waged a terror campaign against the Shia, from bases in Syria and Jordan.which culminated with the bombing of the Samarra mosque. A little pushback was in order after that.
Forget about the “Morals” card, What part of Cleansing of Iraq is this not ?
Cost of U.S. Retaliation to 9/11/2001 Attacks
19 total people effectively attacked United States, 9/11/2001. 19 Terrorists sustained Fatal
Injuries, 1 Terrorist detained with direct link to 9/11/2001 action as intended actor/participant.
550 Suspected Al Qaeda Operatives detained by US at Guantanamo Bay.
Osama Bin Laden still eludes the coalition. Keywords: Taliban & Iraqi Insurgents replace Al
Qaeda as targeted Terrorist organizations in theaters of operation. Iraqi/Afghani war efforts offer
no significant advantage to US domestic security, however aggravate middle eastern immigrants
& pose ongoing threats through dynamic dissident factors as a result of the bloodshed.
The wars in Afghanistan & Iraq have been & are being conducted based upon the premise that
the USA is under sustained ongoing significant terrorist threats, both foreign & domestic. Through
effective handling, no successful significant domestic attacks have been recorded since the
9/11/2001 domestic attack yet Coalition Casualties continue to mount, overseas with no viable
effect on US domestic security.
Total American Domestic Casualties, to date – 9/11/2001 Attack = 2,973 people.
Total Terrorist Domestic Casualties – Post 9/11/2001 Attack = Undisclosed.
Total American deaths – Iraq War – 3,895.
Total Non-Fatal American Casualties =
24,965 from hostile actions – 25,406 from non-hostile activities.
Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack – Iraq = 54,266.
Total Estimated Iraqi Civilian Casualties to date – Wartime = 78,743 to 85,813 dead.
Total American deaths – Afghanistan War = 398.
Total Non-Fatal American Casualties = 1,840.
Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack – Afghanistan = 2,238.
Total Estimated Afghani Civilian Casualties to date – Wartime = 3,000 – 3,400 dead.
Total Friendly Casualties Iraq/Afghanistan wars in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack = 145,717.
Total Friendly War Casualty per victim of 9/11/2001 domestic attack in Iraq/Afghanistan = 49.
For each victim of the 9/11/2001 attack, 49 innocent people either lost their lives or were
permanently disabled in retaliation to the attack bringing the total of American Casualties as a
result of the 9/11/2001 attack to 59,477 of which 56,504 casualties were a direct effect of the US
retaliation led by President Bush & Vice-President Cheney with a average policy approval rating
of less than 40% by the American People during the course of the wars durations through
December, 2007.
In addition, combined estimates of Iraqi/Afghani Civilian fatalities have reached upwards to
89,213 since President Bush and Vice-President Cheney established Iraq and Afghanistan as the
sole military battlefields in the War on Terror, to date. Although Saddam Hussein is now dead, Al
Qaeda, the principle threat targeted, has been all but dismissed from engagement while combat
continues in Iraq & Afghanistan against their respective indigenous populations, reminiscent of
Vietnam & the progressive escalation of engagements with the Viet Cong. (Vietnamese Provincial
Police).
$9.1 Trillion Dollars Deficit, tripled since President Bush Inauguration. War spending continues
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 7:45 pmunabated with no end in sight. Disposition: Indefinite. As private industry wanes economically,
short of the Military Industrial Complex & the oil industry, American government faces bankruptcy
and the American Taxpayer faces escalating taxes to bail out the government & finance the war.
William Engelke #53:
The major American oil companies have avoided Iraq. Maybe it’s for security reasons, or because of the bad PR Halliburton and KBR received, or perhaps they don’t think they can make a profit in today’s conditions, or maybe these companies are leery of having their assets nationalized like happened in Venezuela. Thus, as of March 2005:
CRS link (page 23).
DRJ (09f144) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:02 pmYour cut and paste is plagiarism Engelke, and quite silly. It lumps together Afghanistan and Iraq – that alone makes it laughable. The implication that we are in combat against “their respective indigenous populations” ignores the establishment of elected governments in each country.
Nonsensical propaganda Engelke, which is probably less supportive of your ever-evolving “point” than blah’s nonsense.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:03 pmI wrote that document yesterday SPQR.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:15 pmWhat part of killing Iraqi people in Iraq is not combat against their indigenous population ? It’s their civil war, not ours. Saddam is gone, their social status quotient is their responsibility. We did our part, let them do theirs.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:21 pmSure you did, Engelke. Regardless, it is incoherent. You can’t even get the basic Federal budgetary figures right.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:23 pmYes I did & I stand behind it… & what have you done here other than complain about my views… contribute to your war happy presidents insanity. Axis of Evil, rekindling of the cold war. He has regressed us to pre-Regan international relations.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:30 pmEngelke – You also conveniently ignore acts of terrorism committed elsewhere by Al Qaeda, its clones or Islamic extremists, such as North Africa, Europe, and Asia, in addition to the numerous terrorist plots which have been disrupted. Iraq and Afghanistan are by no means the only battlefields and the U.S. is lucky such attacks have not occurred here. I wonder why they have not?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:31 pm“pre-Regan” international relations? Oh, you mean that we have a Iranian embassy hostage crisis?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:34 pmEnhelke – People are complaining about your facts, which have been consistently wrong. If your facts inform your views, it is no wonder your views are such as they are.
Why not go back to the thread topic.
This country has a democratic process to deal with your other issues. 2008 is an election year. The democrats promised to do something about Iraq, why haven’t they performed?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:35 pmAnd you attempt to make this point by revising history yourself?
It is not in any part the “Cleansing of Iraq”, unless you count cleansing it of al-Qaeda.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:36 pmI’m being accused of rewriting history by someone who can’t get basic historical facts correct.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:40 pmBecause the situation is sufficiently handled by the respective countries involved other than a few Al Qaeda successes, here & there. The whole thing is exaggerated, Al Qaeda attacked us yet we concentrate on Iraq. The retaliation is disproportionately focused on Iraq & if we were to wrath upon our attackers with such vigor, who are we to not give the same consideration to the people of Iraq, post Saddam.
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:42 pmEngelke, you are not getting any more coherent – especially not by misrepresenting the reasons for the Iraq operation. Further, you seem to ignore that we are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent the resurgence of Al Queda and the Taliban.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:45 pmGood debate guy’s… it’s my bedtime, rip me to shreds but give me credit for strengthening your arguments although I stand behind my statements.
Sincerely,
The Devil’s Advocate
William Engelke (a08e92) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:47 pmUh, no, you did not strengthen anything.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:48 pmBill – Iraq had nothing really to do with 9/11. Didn’t you hear?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:48 pmI am beginning to think English is not William Engelke’s first language and something is lost in the translation.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:49 pmYeah, Perfect Sense, I think that this part was the first clue:
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:51 pm“Total Non-Fatal American Casualties =
24,965 from hostile actions – 25,406 from non-hostile activities.
Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack – Iraq = 54,266.”
No it wasn’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:53 pmAnd that when we went into Afgfhanistan, we jumped right smack in the middle of a civil war.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/21/2007 @ 8:54 pm“Learn a little History. Saddam was not installed by the US. He rose to power on his own and was supported by France and the Soviet Union.”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/21/2007 @ 10:50 pmJesus Christ are we back here again?
You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown.
You don’t know history. You don’t even want to.
“US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.”
I’d supply a link that goes with this statement- I’ve done it 3 or 4 times here- but since it has a famous photo at the top of the page that’s all anyone would talk about. No one reads the 15 odd links to sources, so why bother?
blah (fb88b3) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:02 pmThe history of Saddam Hussein’s relation to the US is easy enough to find. And you could always google “dual use” technology.
It’s like playing wack-a-mole. But I do it anyway.
Blah – Your link is kinda silent on the CIA and Saddam from 1963 to 1979, when he formally assumed power. We were supporting him in 1972 and after when Iraq nationalized its oil industry and signed an aid pact with the Soviet Union? Got any info on that sweetie? Your link is pretty threadbare.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:28 pm“According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq’s educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.
The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Kassem and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad — for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.
But it wasn’t long before there was infighting among Iraq’s new rulers. In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960’s, I often heard C.I.A. officers — including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time — speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists.”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:59 pmDid we encourage and then support him in his attack against Iran?
And had we helped install the Shah?
What was the name of the elected Prime Minister of Iran we helped to overthrow? I’ll give you a hint: it was in 1953.
“In 1984, Italy’s state-owned Agusta helicopter manufacturer sold $164 milion worth of helicopters to Iraq. The order was for military helicopters fitted out for anti-submarine warfare, but Rome had needed permission from Washington because the choppers were sold by Agusta Bell, which made them under license from Bell Textron in the United States. [Italian PM Guilio] Andreotti, when asked in 1993 about the sale of Agusta helicopters to Iraq, sat stiffly at his desk in Rome and confirmed with a terse ‘si’ that they had indeed been sold as part of a top-level understanding between President Reagan and Prime Minister Crazi to try to assist Saddam. ‘Certainly the policy were all following at the time was a policy of great support for Iraq,’ said Andreotti”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/22/2007 @ 12:09 amWhy aren’t you telling us the source for that again blah?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 12:12 am“The removal of Iraq from the state terrorism list also freed the Reagan administration to aid Iraq militarily in its war with Iran. The first concrete expression of this new freedom was the decision to sell Iraq sixty Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters and ten Bell UH-1 helicopters, ostensibly for civilian purposes. It was a proposal that caused a serious division within the administration.”
All this is here And if you want background history of Iraq it’s here
blah (fb88b3) — 12/22/2007 @ 12:14 amI’m sure I’ll have to post this again in a few months. You never remember (you choose to forget)
“Why aren’t you telling us the source for that again blah?”
I just did. For why I’m playing with you See #81. I’m sick of your bullshit.
“I’d supply a link that goes with this statement- I’ve done it 3 or 4 times here- but since it has a famous photo at the top of the page that’s all anyone would talk about. No one reads the 15 odd links to sources, so why bother?”
There are more links of course. Read a god damn book
blah (fb88b3) — 12/22/2007 @ 12:21 amblah:
Calm down.
Patterico (fbda38) — 12/22/2007 @ 12:24 amBlah, you get no points for showing that the US provided support to Iraq during the war with Iran. That doesn’t make Saddam a puppet of the US, it makes him someone with a common enemy that we sold some weapons to.
Here’s a question I’ve always wanted to ask people like you. If the US helps Saddam or the Shah, how does that make Saddam or the Shah a puppet of the US? Shouldn’t it make the US the puppet? After all, we were supposedly providing all of this help and we got precious little in return. Sounds like our random bumbling intelligence services just got taken. Why not go with that story?
Or how about, we tried to get Saddam to be an ally and a nice guy, but he was just too vicious so we finally had to take him out. Why not go with that story?
But no, the only stories that you want to tell are stories where the US is a malicious dark force, responsible for all evil in the world. And that brings up another question. Why do you want the malicious dark evil government in this story to have more power over our lives, to control our health care and a larger chunk of our income and our employment obligations and where we can smoke. Shouldn’t someone who thinks that the US is the source of all evil want to reduce the power of this evil government?
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 12/22/2007 @ 3:27 amOh, and you guys should give William a break. He’s probably only about fifteen and is just learning how embarrassing it can be to take your high-school teacher’s word for something and repeat it in public, only to find out the hard way that the teacher was full of it.
He argues like someone who is just naive and ill-informed and too proud to admit when he was wrong. He seems not to be deliberately deceptive like blah.
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 12/22/2007 @ 3:35 amblah, here an article from that well know Republican tool, the New York Times
ON MY MIND; The Soviet-Iraq Axis
By A. M. ROSENTHAL
Published: February 19, 1991
There’s no use getting mad at Mikhail Gorbachev and his partner, Saddam Hussein. Both are doing what comes naturally to two nervous dictators trying to get out of terminal trouble. The Moscow-Baghdad axis, obviously and openly, is at work on a plan that would restore to the Soviet Union and Iraq the power that both have lost in the Middle East….The Moscow-Baghdad alliance was never dissolved. In the eternal struggle against naiveté about the Kremlin and the third world, it helps to keep that in mind. The Soviet Union was Saddam Hussein’s chief ally and source of weapons. Scud missiles landing in Saudi Arabia and the tanks facing American troops are Soviet made… (Emphasis Added.)
Over some 18 years, the Soviet Union supplied Saddam with 5,500 main battle tanks. The USA supplied zero tanks to Iraq. So in the the keen mind of American liberals it is obvious that Saddam was a American stooge.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/22/2007 @ 5:00 amblah – You have a habit of ignoring information that is inconvenient to your meme. It’s not my problem if that makes you angry, honey. I think the problem is with your biased links.
Short History of MiG-25 in service with the Iraqi Air Force, since 1980
Iraq ordered MiG-25 (ASCC-code “Foxbat”) from the USSR in 1979, in a large acquizition package including some 240 aircraft and helicopters. The Soviets conditioned the delivery of Foxbats on stationing up to 18.000 of their “advisors” in Iraq (at the time the whole IrAF was only 24.000 strong), and the 24 MiG-25s that were to be deployed in Iraq had also to be defended and escorted by a squadron each of Soviet-flown MiG-21MFs and MiG-23MLs.
This whole Soviet “delegation” started arriving in Iraq in late spring 1980, and had all of its MiG-25s, MiG-21s, and MiG-23s initially based at the newly built Shoibiyah AB, some 40km south-west from Basrah, in southern Iraq.
When Iraq invaded Iran, on 22 September 1980, the Soviet contingent was only slightly decreased, although Moscow officially declared neutrality in this war – while simultaneously trying to establish better relations with Tehran. The result was that the Soviets “advisors” at Shoibiyah AB were to become directly involved in the war against Iran on the Iraqi side – and this right from the start of the fighting. Already on the afternoon of 22 September, only two hours after the first wave of Iraqi air strikes against Iran, the IRIAF flew first attacks against Shoibiyah AB, hitting it very hard by a four-ship of F-4E Phantom IIs, that caused considerable damage. On the following day another strike was flown, damaging the airfield sufficiently to force the whole Soviet contingent to be evacuated to H-3/al-Wallid AB, in western Iraq.
For the rest of 1980 “Iraqi” MiG-25s did not participate in the war: actually, by the end of the year only four were put under the Iraqi control, while all the others remained in Soviet hands. This was to change only painfully slow though 1981 and 1982: not before the summer 1982 were Iraqi Foxbats to start flying more intensive combat sorties. Their initial operations, however, ended with a swift loss of four examples to the Iranian F-14s, in September, November, and December of the same year. Another MiG-25PD(export) is known to have been shot down by F-14s and F-5s, in 1983, while another – flown by the Iraqi top “ace” of the Iraq-Iran War, Lt.Col. Mohammad “Sky Falcon” Rayyan – was shot down by gunfire from an IRIAF F-5E while underway at Mach 1 and 29.000ft, in July 1986.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 5:08 amNo one reads the 15 odd links to sources, so why bother?
Are you [seven-letter word that starts with f, used in many contexts] kidding me?
How many times have you been refuted with your own links?
You never remember (you choose to forget)
Unfortunately, we do. SPQR aready reponded to your contention back at #15:
So, blah, are you going to tell me to do my own research again, after calling me a “passive fence-sitter?”
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 5:08 amOver some 18 years, the Soviet Union supplied Saddam with 5,500 main battle tanks.
Yes, and the type of tank supplied were the best type the USSR ever produced: 1,000 were the T-72 most of the rest the T-55. In the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, the MSM predicted defeat for the US since they had spent the 70s and 80s ripping the US made M-1 Abrams.
We all know the outcome.
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 5:24 amI agree. William’s arguments aren’t internally cohesive. They appear to be a classic case of visceral reaction to a series of propaganda class distortions – kernels of standalone fact expanded by layers of conclusions with no cause and effect relationships. There’s few if any logical connections between the distortions. Late high school or very early college would be my guess. He hasn’t really LOOKED at what he’s saying yet.
blah’s opinions are already firmly and unassailably fixed by progressive (not liberal) politics. His arguments cherry pick supporting data with no concern for veracity, context, or pertinence. He insists the audience accept his arguments on how things must be at face value or be considered stupid. Classic progressive.
There is hope for William. He is actually interesting as an example of an evolving world view. Hopefully he’ll start thinking for himself and make better connections once he applies context and logic and sifts through what he’s being told.
blah is just another tedious progressive voice from the ash heap.
Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 12/22/2007 @ 5:27 amOne of blah’s cites to prove his point that Saddam was put into power by the USA is:
Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot
By Richard Sale
United Press International
April 10, 2003
Unfortunately this “news article” uses unnamed sources 31 times to insinuate that Saddam was a American stooge for 30 years. Wow! In the wacky world of liberals, it would have been even more credible if the author had used unnamed sources 50 times.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/22/2007 @ 6:07 amHis arguments cherry pick supporting data with no concern for veracity, context, or pertinence.
Oh come on, JPT…anyone can prove anything in this fashion! 🙂
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 6:34 amBREAKING NEWS – IRAQ A U.S. PUPPET STATE FROM 1963 FORWARD ACCORDING TO BLAH AND 15 LINKS.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 7:06 amBREAKING NEWS 1972 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ NATIONALIZES WESTERN OIL INTERESTS.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 7:09 amBREAKING NEWS 1979 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ SIGNS MULTI BILLION RUSSIAN MILITARY ASSISTANCE PACT
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 7:11 amBREAKING NEWS 1990 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ INVADES KUWAIT.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 7:12 amI’ll add to the list:
BREAKING NEWS 1996 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS 1997 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS 1998 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS 1999 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS 2000 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS 2001 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS 2002 – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS (Spring 2003) – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ VIOLATES UN RESOLUTIONS
BREAKING NEWS (Fall 2003) – U.S. PUPPET STATE OF IRAQ NOW OFFICIALLY ‘QUAGMIRE’
Paul (d07d56) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:25 amI’m fine Pat, but thanks for the concern.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/22/2007 @ 8:43 amPat: I understand that threats, innuendos etc are wrong and hurtful. That’s me. I’m a bad person. However, I don’t think it useful for me to apologize as my fundamental message–that the “dumb conservatives” need a (probably literal) slap in the face in order to get them to start thinking with real intellectual curiousity and honesty–remains true and would be compromised by reduction of the harsh effect of rhetoric.
TCO (3a318a) — 12/22/2007 @ 6:23 pmI accept the perma-ban.
TCO (3a318a) — 12/22/2007 @ 6:24 pmTCO,
At least you have a good attitude about being banned.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/22/2007 @ 7:01 pmI think TCO has got the roles reversed if he’s calling others dumb, based on the comments of his I’ve read. At least he’s got that going for him.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/22/2007 @ 7:07 pm