The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Just in Case We're Not Smug Enough
From the Globe and Mail.com:
Held hostage at gunpoint by Palestinian extremists in the Gaza Strip, Mark Budzanowski feared for his life – until his captors discovered his passport and declared 'We love Canada.'
Of course, rather than pat ourselves on the back, we really ought to consider the source. Palestinian terrorists love Canada! Oh yay. I'm so proud.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Just in Case We're Not Smug Enough:
That particular brand of 'love' would be S&M.
Canadians are smug masochists.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-16 9:57:08 AM
I've always thought that people can be judged by who their friends are.
I don't want terrorists as friends. Canada needs to do more to make them like us less (like having our troops hunt down and kill them.)
That some savage terrorist killer "loves Canada" should be a national shame and our citizens should be lining up to condemn this sad fact and have it rectified immediately.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-03-16 10:01:04 AM
Catch and release. Great fun if you’re fishing. I didn’t know that so many Canadians still aren’t aware how media savvy the terrorists are. By releasing the trophy fish the terrorists have made suckers out of a lot of naive people.
That the Canadian MSM would not bother to analyse the media signal the PA terrorists are trying to send by saying “we love Canada” doesn’t surprise me. But that terrorists saying they love Canada would actually flatter Canadians is an embarrassment. Here are some comments by your typical Grope and Flail readers.
I like post #16 but most of the opinions are what you would expect from those that live in the Toronto Annex and vote Liberal; smug, morally superior and anti-American. These are the kind of people terrorists love to kidnap and release. That these people don’t despise terrorists for kidnapping in the first place is an indication of how adolescent and protected Canadians have become.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-16 10:15:26 AM
Most of the people who have posted on this particular piece do not know what they are talking about. The kidnapped Canadian actually works for a US company with a HO in Atlanta Georgia. They also work in Iraq, rebuilding and offering humanitarian aid. Many of the comments are anti-Israeli, and display a profound ignorance
of the State of Israel and it's hostile neighbours.The Palestinian gunmen knew exactly who he was the moment he arrived in the area, and the fact that he is Canadian. The kidnappers are motivated by ransom - money, and in this case a kindly, out of touch, self absorbed Toronto media, anti conservative and supporters of the socialist hordes. In most countries the hoodlums would have been rounded up, arrested and locked up. If they had kidnapped an Israeli
citizen the IDF would have hunted them down and killed them.
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-03-16 10:36:05 AM
...birds of a feather...
Just hate thinking of how Canada, a once STRONG and Proud Dominion has been reduced to a neutered sexless mutt.
Howl all you like at that comment, just proves a point.
Posted by: tomax | 2006-03-16 10:37:26 AM
Reading that drooling idiocy reminds me why I cancelled my subscription to the G&M so many years ago.
What a bunch of imbeciles.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-03-16 10:42:42 AM
I'm sure the Palestinian terrorists were just exercising professional courtesy in admiring the workmanship of their hostage's passport, because those guys KNOW their Canadian passports.
Posted by: Paul Canniff | 2006-03-16 11:23:12 AM
Calling terrorists extremists is all I need to discredit the article and the rag it's written in.It is another leftist myth that we are loved by the scumbags who hate the Americans. When push comes to shove, these scumbags will willingly dump all the 'infidels' together whatever their passport.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-16 11:55:57 AM
Didn't Svend go over their to share some warm fuzzies with these pigs?
Maybe one of his fantasies is being violated by a couple of husky terrorists. Sort of S&M eh?
The deniers will either never know they were wrong (if we win this war) or they will wake up one morning to be herded into the local soccer stadium for a stoning or a hacking.
Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-03-16 12:10:45 PM
with friends like that, who needs enemies!
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-16 2:09:07 PM
with friends like that, who needs enemies!
Speller the Albertan must be a Palestenian
Posted by: Duked | 2006-03-16 3:18:38 PM
With fiends like Preacher, who needs enemas?
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-16 3:21:31 PM
Open rebuke is better than secret love.(Prov 27:5 KJV)
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Prov 27:6 KJV)
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (Rev 3:19 KJV)
(Mat 3:2 KJV) And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. (1 Tim 5:21 KJV)
full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17 KJV)
Posted by: Depends on how you look at it. | 2006-03-16 3:39:49 PM
Preacher, do us a mercy, pet, and take your Lithium.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-16 3:47:36 PM
Terrorists don't *love* Canada. They don't care about it.
They didn't kill Budzanowski for the same reason that planes hit the World Trade Center and not First Canada Place on 9-11. Canada hasn't been directing the politics of many countries of the world since WWII, so it's not resented.
You're so rapped up in ideology and U.S. government worship that you can't see the plain truth: no government intervention in foreign countries = little terrorism.
You can understand this equation: no welfare = little insentive to be poverty; so why can't you understand the latter?
Government invention always has unintended consequences, whether domestic or foreign. There is a place for defensive war, but the War on Terror isn't such a war. It's merely increasing pre-9-11 intervention, which is why the number of terrorists are increasing.
Terrorists hate threats to their country's sovereignty. That's why they hate Washington. And they'll do anything they can to hurt Washington, including killing innocent Americans. That makes them criminals, but it doesn't take away from their motivation.
If terrorists actually hated the West, not just Western interventionism, Budzanowski would be dead.
I can't stand the left-wing smugness of the Canadian institution typified by Maude Barlow, Naomi Klein, and the Liberal Party of Canada. But you're giving them a run for their money with your self-delusion.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-16 4:14:00 PM
Anyone else notice how tomax emphasied Canada's "STRONG" heritage and not it's "strong and free" heritage.
I guess he likes armed bureaucrats (i.e. soldiers) more than liberty.
It's true that Canada used to be much freer, but I can do without tomax's fascist revisionism.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-16 4:21:16 PM
You're starting to blither, Preacher. It is not good.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-16 4:25:24 PM
Posted by: PGP | 2006-03-16 5:09:27 PM
No government intervention = less terrorists and the sort Seymour? How about Europe's experiment with no government intervention and Hitler? That went well. They could have killed that plant at the roots but they had to led it grow into a tree. You leave those terrorists alone they will grow and boil like a pot and someday they'll boil over into your front yard and you'll be complaining to the government for letting it happen. The only solution is to fight them on their own turf before they can make it to yours.
Posted by: Andrew | 2006-03-16 5:30:57 PM
Sorry to get off topic here but you have check out this item.
and I did a post on it at Duke's Place
Scary shit my friends.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-16 6:22:12 PM
RS says, “Terrorists hate threats to their countries sovereignty”.
Hmmm…does sovereignty get created when despots highjack a country? How can you use “terrorists and their country’s sovereignty” in the same sentence? Isn’t that an oxymoron?
“Threats to their sovereignty” doesn’t explain the London subway bombings, the Madrid train bombing, Bali, Turkey.
We’re infidels, they hate all of us in the West and they even hate their own that don’t submit.
Afghanistan was not sovereign to the Taliban; it was their playpen for terrorism that harboured OBL. Nor did the madman Saddam and his 20% Sunni have a right to rule the 80% Shiites and Kurds who now have sovereign rights and access to oil wealth to be used for something other than Palaces and bombs for Saddam.
How do you know the “terrorists are increasing”? There are 1.3 billion Muslims, how many were Moderates before 9/11, how many now? Is it changing? Who could possibly know?
OBL understands the difference between the “strong horse and the weak horse”. He assumed America had become a weak horse after “Blackhawk Down” type of cut and run failures etc.
We now have choices as Harper said, to fight or “cut and run”. To fight terrorism here or as Andrew said “ fight them on their own turf”.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-16 6:24:00 PM
According to a really annoying commentator on TVO, for Canadians, climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism and this is why we should not be in Afghanistan. Good enough for me.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-03-16 6:35:30 PM
Terrorism, unlike Hitler, is the product of intervention.
Stop comparing everything you hate to Hitler. It's a weak argument.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-16 6:42:01 PM
Threats to sovereignty does explain the London and Madrid subway bombings.
Spain and Britain invaded Iraq.
And OBL and the Taliban are the product of US intervention. America funded OBL to fight the Soviets. Then he knocked over the WTC. Way to protect Americans U.S. government!
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-16 6:47:50 PM
Howard - I thought that was one of Susan Riley's dumber-than-normally-dumb comments.
How can she set up an either-or analysis of 'problems'. According to her, we 'fight' either Terrorism in the world OR, OR, we 'fight' climate change. I didn't know that these two problems were to be addressed by any nation as Either One OR the Other. Why not both?
With regard to climate change - that's debatable and unproven. But, let's say that we agree with Ms Riley (and I rarely do; I support Gilles Paquet's wisdom)..how is 'fighting' climate change comparable to 'fighting' terrorism - other than that we are using the same verb (but only metaphorically) for both??
How can Ms Riley ignore that we live in a global world (she affirms this only with regard to the weather).. we must not behave as if we were on some isolate self-sufficient island..for we aren't (do we grow oranges in Canada?)..and we have a moral duty to help others on this planet.
That includes helping other peoples protect themselves against terrorists trying to destroy their elected gov't - as in Afghanistan.
We can, of course, do nothing - and insist that all countries do nothing against terrorism. That would end the rule of law, for terrorists would take over by virtue of their violence (since we refuse to fight them). What would rule? Might- i.e., he who beheads the most, frightens the most - will win. Not the rule of law - but - violence.
Ms Riley always riles me; she's a typical leftist - naive, ignorant, and steeped like an old teapot, in the dregs of Trudeaupian empty idealism.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-16 6:49:39 PM
We've pursued a foreign policy of minding our own business, in return the world leaves our citizens alone. What a travesty. We should be promoting the expansion of US power--oops sorry, the spread of democracy without regard to the cost.
Posted by: We don't need no independence | 2006-03-16 6:51:25 PM
I take back my earlier comment about Hitler not being a product of intervention. He was.
Because the U.S. joined the first world war, it made it so that a war on the verge of a stalemate became a lopsided Ally victory. This allowed the French and British to force the radically unfair Treaty of Versailles on the Germans.
The tenents of the treaty destroyed the German economy and led to massive discontent in Germany.
This paved the way for Hitler's rise to power. People believed he would make Germany great again like before the war.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-16 6:53:21 PM
>Ms Riley always riles me; she's a typical leftist - naive, ignorant, and steeped like an old teapot, in the dregs of Trudeaupian empty idealism.<
That can be said of Seymour as well, fanaticism causes terrorism, nothing more, nothing less. Quit hating your own country, the Americans, and our own ideals and access the blame where it belongs.
If it wasn't for the US intervening in both world wars you could very well be speaking German, or worse, have been made into a lamp shade.
Quit riding that leftist, pacifist, tired old horse, about us being the reason they are blowing up buildings and killing people all over the world. You come across sounding like the idiot you so obviously are.
If the world would have acted preemptively against Hitler as they should have, there would have been no world war two and millions of lives would have been saved.
It seems the only country that has learned that lesson up to this point is the US. Thank god at least they have kept up the military, and the fortitude to confront this evil.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-16 7:26:50 PM
Robert Seymour, the Spain bombing was planned in Morocco before Iraq. But you could argue it was about reclaiming the Moorish Kingdom, which the Moors lost in 1492, and I’d agree. But does that make it about sovereignty? If it is, then Canada belongs to the First Nations who can fight it out amongst their tribes… on and on it goes. Then roll back the maps to the Gates of Vienna in 1683 and the Ottoman Empire. Where and when do we draw the lines on “intervention”?
The London bombers were British not Iraqis. These terrorists are part of an Islamofascists movement, it isn’t about sovereignty and countries it’s a movement that knows neither physical boundaries nor time horizons. The movement will not stop unless we stop it; the longer we wait the worse it will be.
I find it odd when people think that every consequence that fell out of the American fight to take down the last evil empire, the USSR, was the cause of some new evil. Technically correct, that America trained OBL but totally out of context of what was going on in proxy wars for decades against the commies. How could anyone predict the fallout and all the twisted evil consequences of having trained OBL? Similarly should Kennedy have not intervened in the Cuban Missile crisis? We’d all be speaking Russian if Democrats hadn’t acted, back when they had spine.
I agree with deepblue, this is like Churchill and the “gathering storm” warnings about Hitler in the 1930’s that would have saved millions of lives had anyone listened.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-16 7:52:01 PM
What is interesting about the 'reactive' argument, which states that The Only Reason There Are Terrorists - is Because We (usually the Evil USA) Acted against them - is how it reduces people to machines, it views people only as mechanical artifacts.
In this view, a terrorist is like a metal weathervane. It acts only when it is acted upon. It has no mind, no reasoning capacity, no thoughts. It is just a mechanical artifact. When the wind blows on it - it moves one way. When the wind blows another way - it moves that way. The terrorists aren't people who can think or reason. They are simply mechanical artifacts that flutter in the wind. All they can do is react; they have no capacity to act, to make their own decisions.
Mr. Seymour is also making an error about the definition of 'terrorist'. He is actually stating that a national war, carried out by a sovereign nation (good or bad)as in the case of the Third Reich - is the same as terrorism. False. The soldiers of the Third Reich were not terrorists. Terrorists are not members of a valid military of a nation. That's why they are not bound within the Geneva Convention.
Terrorism is not caused by 'intervention' of another nation. World history is filled with interventions - whether it is Germany marching into Poland (are the Poles now acting as terrorists in Germany?) Or France in Indochina - are they now acting as terrorists in France? Or the Dutch in New Guinea - are they acting as terrorists in the Netherlands; the UK in Africa - are Africans acting as terrorists in England? Belgians in Africa...same question. On and on.
How does this fallacious explanation explain the Air India bombings - carried out by Canadian Sikhs? The Lockerbie bombing by Libyans?
Terrorism is a criminal action; it is a crime committed by criminals against civilians. There are various reasons - none of them justifiable.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-16 8:03:44 PM
I notice Mr. Seymour failed to address the Bali bombing. It occurred in 2002, the Iraq war in 2003.
I'll refresh your memory: the Australians helped the Timorese get their sovereignty, the Muslims tried to take it away.
And please note Mr Seymour, Iraqis are never involved in the terror attacks in Spain, Britain and elsewhere. That's because they overwhelmingly support the overthrow of Saddam, even if you and your fellow travelers on the anti-American Left do not.
Posted by: chip | 2006-03-16 8:38:26 PM
Nomdenet, when I lived in the Annex in '90's, I voted Reform, but everybody else voted NDP.
Posted by: Shalom Beck | 2006-03-16 11:03:06 PM
The pals are great at propaganda. They knew what they were doing in releasing him.
Posted by: soup | 2006-03-17 12:45:56 AM
"no government intervention in foreign countries = little terrorism."
How does this theory explain the total of 4,494 Islamist terror attacks since 9/11, including those in places like India, Algeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Thailand, Egypt, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Turkey, Kabardino-Balkaria, Morocco, Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, Kenya, Eritrea, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Sri Lanka , East Timor and Qatar?
"Threats to sovereignty does explain the London and Madrid subway bombings. Spain and Britain invaded Iraq."
The url below links to a Times of London story from 2005. "AN INDIAN man was jailed in Bombay yesterday for plotting to fly passenger jets into the House of Commons and Tower Bridge in London on September 11, 2001."
May I suggest Seymour, say less.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-03-17 2:57:51 AM
Shalom and you were probably the only one not driving a Volvo or a Lada ... ;>)
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-17 6:22:15 AM
Somebody is using variations on my ID
Whoever commented here as 'Duked' and is using my blog address is a fraud
Speller seems to know how to find out whose who.
I want to know who this is .. .it's not the first time. this has happened.
Then I want to know where that person lives.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-17 9:13:02 AM
Ahh, Robert Seymour's bringing up the point I've been wondering about. So maybe he can answer this question:
What did the U.S. do as a "first offense" against the Arabs to get them so upset in the first place?
Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-03-17 11:33:55 AM
Although it is a simplistic question, maybe I can shed some light on why extremist Arabs hate the U.S and don't hate Canada. (Notice I didnt say "love".
While the Arab world has long felt betrayed by Europe's colonial powers, its disillusionment with America begins most importantly with the creation of Israel in 1948. As the Arabs see it, at a time when colonies were winning independence from the West, here was a state largely composed of foreign people being imposed on a region with Western backing. The anger deepened in the wake of America's support for Israel during the wars of 1967 and 1973, and ever since in its relations with the Palestinians. The daily exposure to Israel's iron-fisted rule over the occupied territories has turned this into the great cause of the Arab--and indeed the broader Islamic--world. The maiming of hundreds of Palestinian children by U.S military equipment (Tanks, F-16's, Apache Helicopters to name a few) in retaliation for terrorist bombings on Israeli soil quite obviously angers the population.
Elsewhere, they look at American policy in the region as cynically geared to America's oil interests, supporting thugs and tyrants without any hesitation. Finally, the bombing and isolation of Iraq have become fodder for daily attacks on the United States. While many in the Arab world do not like Saddam Hussein, they believe that the United States has chosen a particularly inhuman method of fighting him--a method that is starving and bombinmg an entire nation.
There is substance to some of these charges, and certainly from the point of view of an Arab, American actions are never going to seem entirely fair. Like any country, America has its interests. In my view, America's greatest sins toward the Arab world are sins of omission. It has neglected to press any regime there to open up its society. This neglect turned deadly in the case of Afghanistan. Walking away from that fractured country after 1989 resulted in the rise of bin Laden and the Taliban. This is not the gravest error a great power can make, but it is a common American one. As F. Scott Fitzgerald explained of his characters in "The Great Gatsby," "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed things up and creatures and then retreated back into their money, or their vast carelessness... and let other people clean up the mess." America has not been venal in the Arab world. But it has been careless. And then we wonder why an extremist organization would prefer Canadians over Americans? Duh.....
Posted by: V | 2006-03-18 12:40:08 PM
I agree V, and given the third anniversery of the illegal and unjust war on Iraq, and its inherent linkage to extremist elements I think it merits further discussion. Lets say that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been real, rather than
imaginary, I'm sure the U.S. would never have invaded. And it's worth repeating that
outside the United States, nobody actually believes that there were any links between the Iraqis and al-Qaeda.
The state of ignorance within the U.S. and some segments of Canadian population is, I guess, a tribute to the three information monkeys--the networks and Fox TV--whose motto appears
to be: see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth, one could throw a fear-mongering rag like the National Post in there too, if anyone actually read it.
How can there be a vigilant and alert citizenry (surely a key prerequisite for capitalist
democracy) in these conditions of officially inspired ignorance?
The main reason for the war was to demonstrate imperial power--to show the region and the world that the American Empire was determined to preserve its hegemony by any means necessary.
Where the economic war was ineffective, a military offensive could be unleashed.
This was a shot across the bows of the Far Eastern states and the West Europeans. The message was clear: we have the capacity and power to intervene military at will. A subsidiary reason was to satisfy the Israeli
regime, which saw Iraq and Syria as the only regimes in the region that resisted the Pax Israeliana.
With a puppet regime in Iraq, the plan was to topple the Syrian Baathists. As [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair confided in an off-the-record briefing to three senior liberal journalists, Iraq was designed to make wars
against Syria and Iran unnecessary. The success in Iraq meant that bullying, intimidation and threats would be enough. The Iraqi resistance has dispelled that particular illusion and the war has done nothing but given further cause to anyone opposing Western interests.
Posted by: Bob | 2006-03-18 12:55:15 PM
Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by: V | 2006-03-18 12:58:48 PM
Yes, V and Bob - ignorance is bliss. But I maintain that you two are ignorant.
1) The Iraq war is not illegal. Check out the US Constitution; it was approved by Congress. It's legal. Surely you don't think that wars are illegal unless approved by the corrupt bureaucracy - the UN? Since when does a sovereign nation hand over its decision-making rights to the UN. So- explain - why is this war illegal???
As for its being a 'just war' - that is the decision of the coalition (US, UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, etc, etc).
2)The Arab world is not interested in the plight of the Palestinians; they have done nothing to help them with education, health, negotiations, refugees - nothing.
3) The US is starving the Iraqis????? What an outrageous allegation. Proof?
4)What's your proof that IF the WMD had existed, then, the US wouldn't have invaded?? How would you know whether/not those weapons existed until you invaded?
5) There are a lot of analysts, outside of the US, who link Iraq and Al Qaeda.
6)And there are lots who reject the 'oil' as a reason. Remember, that oil has to be sold. The Arab nations have trapped themselves - they have nothing to offer to the world economy other than oil. And, their arable land base is so small that they cannot support their exploding population without imports. They have to sell it.
7)Neglected to press any regime to open up its society??? What is happening now - with democracy in Afghanistan - their first-ever vote. Democracy in Iraq- their first-ever vote.
8)The real problem is the frozen mindset of the Arab nations, who have locked themselves into a tribal political system - a corrupt tribalism that has moved into military dictatorships..and have kept their people uneducated, illiterate and governed by superstition and emotion. The scientific output of the Arab world is ZILCH. The industrial capacity of the Arab world is ZILCH.
9)What nonsense- that the main reason for the war was to 'demonstrate American hegemony'. That's one of the dumbest statements I've heard in a long time. The US doesn't need the expense of a war to do that; why should it go to such an expense? Demonstrate to whom? Why? Utter nonsense.
What economic war??
10) Nonsense - the US doesn't go to war in x-country to show China etc...that it's powerful. That's not how a robust economy operates.
The reason for the war - was to move the Arab states out of their feudal tribal dictatorships and into democracy..because those tribal dictatorships were fomenting terrorists..who were attacking the west rather than their own dictators.
Naturally- there'd be no need for a war in Syria, Lebanon etc..for the agenda was a domino effect of democracy moving across the territory. And, it's working.
11) Bullying, intimidation, threats??? Provide some examples.
12)Canada? Canada supports Israel. So much for your thesis.
And - Canada has a well-known reputation as a haven for terrorists. Those people want to keep it that way.
I suggest you read up a bit on 'jihad' and extremist Islam. And stop making up fictional tales.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-18 2:10:33 PM
The Iraq war is CLEARLY illegal and now even
Richard Perle, the senior adviser to the US defence secretary adnmits that the US had broken international law, blaming French reluctance to attack Iraq for leaving Washington with "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing," said Perle in London in comments published by the British media on Thursday. "International law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."
Stating that its legal because the U.S congress approved it makes no sense, ET, basically your argument is "its right because we say it is, regardless of what the majority of states said and who cares about that minor thing called 'international law'.
Moreover, even using your flawed logic and disregard for international law the war was STILL illegal. Bush was required to prove to the United States Congress under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" Section 3 Paragraph B that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited completly and beyond any reasonable doubt.
The U.S never starved the Iraqis??!
"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Given your blatant disregard for reality and the facts, I am not even going to bother adressing the rest of your ridiculous points. Just keep living in whatever naive strange fantasy "the West can do no wrong" world you live in.
Is it worth trying to democratize sovereign states at the costs of tens of thousands of inncocent lives--do you really think those poeple left alive are going to be thanking you for bombing them "out of their tribal dictatorships fomenting terrorism"
into your version of an enlightened society? You want to talk about havens for terrorism, its dangerous shortsited misguided thinking like your own that creates such havens. ie. present day Iraq.
Can you tell me where such blind patriotic idiocy comes from?
Posted by: V | 2006-03-18 2:56:29 PM
"the US had broken international law"
This has been repeated for 3 years now. Specifically, which law has been broken?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-03-18 3:22:13 PM
That's right, V - a nation's sovereign decisions are not up to a vote by other nations. Are you seriously suggesting, for instance, that Canada's decision to assist NATO in Afghanistan, should not be its own decision, but should be up to a majority vote of the nations of the world?
International law? What does it say about the war??
For you to repeat that the Iraq war is CLEARLY illegal - doesn't make it illegal. You still haven't provided any evidence for its illegality.
Your quotes are selective; anyone can cut and paste pro/con quotes. They don't provide proof.
No- I disagree that both claims have been discredited.
Those were UN sanctions. Not US sanctions. Please get your facts right.
Now you are saying that the UN Sanctions 'starved ' Iraqi children. Your first post stated that it was the US war. Which is it?
And the UN sanctions? Who imposed them - the UN. And what happened to the oil-for-food money??? Hmmm? The UN supported a fraudulent system, which included the work of Maurice Strong, a Canadian diplomat - that defrauded the Iraqi people of that money..and Hussein pocketed that money. Now- what does that have to do with the US and the Iraqi War??
Ahh. The common tactic of the CaveDweller - you run back into the cave, and refuse to confront reality and answer questions.. You simply state 'your questions are too stupid to answer'. Hah. Enjoy your cave.
Tribalism is a dangerous sociopolitical system in a population that has grown too large for such a method of social organization. If it is retained in a large population, it turns totalitarian and fascist. That's what has happened in the ME - and that fascism affects the whole world. Allowing fascism to overpower the rule of law, to establish military dictatorships - in the ME and allow this fascism to spread - would destroy the free world. Is that what you prefer? Or do you think that the west should fight it - as it fought the fascism of the 1930-40's and the similar collectivist destruction of communism in the 70-80s.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-18 3:26:10 PM
Facism should be fought, of course it should, the problem is that you put far too much faith in your government. It is extremly naive for you to honestly believe that the unilateral actions being taken by the U.S around the world are remotely akin to historic struggles against Hitler, Japan and Communism.
It is an absolutely appaling myth that the U.S.'s role in world affairs since world war two have been to defend "freedom and democracy." This notion is simply not supported by the facts. The facts are numerous- the CIA has helped engineer the downfall of legitimate, democratically elected governments(Chile 1973, Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, the list goes on) and propped up governments that later became enemies (Sadam in the Iran/Iraq war, the Mujahideen Taliban 'freedom fighters' now deemed 'terrorists' and thrown into Gitmo. The U.S. is a leading sponsor of international terrorism (ie the Reagan administration in Central America).
Is this what your idea of the west fighting for democracy is!?? Wake up to reality, yes I support TRUE Democracy and TRUE liberty, not the hollow use of these nobel ideas to bully and control the rest of the world.
The fact is the West's foreign policy is not that of the Nazi's, it differs in one very important way: we have gotten away with it for 50 years.
You may see things differently and want to hold on to your security blanket believing that we live in a fair world where democratic countries could never commit such atrocities. Be that as it may, your world view is contrary to reality, and we can no longer continue this conversation if you naively insist on clinging to this immature dichotomic view of the world.
Posted by: Victor | 2006-03-18 10:12:00 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.