I'm not discrediting whatever service you performed, I thank you for that. It's just that one solidier can't see EVERYTHING that happens in Vietnam, especially if he's in another branch of the military.

Sounds like "I support the troops, but..."

Liberal dogma. Hardly worth reading if it wasn't for the fisking.

Posted by: Deathknyte on July 22, 2004 12:22 AM

Having been to college for twelve years of my life I understand this girl's attitude. I call it the "survey class mentality." This girl has been swiped with a broad brush of general knowledge by an extremely leftist source. Much as Chomsky could talk for hours and not say one falsehood, yet never once tell the truth. Truth is in the depth of knowledge, its connections and context. For example, leftists like Chomsky bring up the fact that America was the only nation to have ever used the atomic bomb.
In a greater context the use of that weapon could be viewed as not only the right thing to do, but the humanitarian thing to do. Hiroshima was only one of many cities completely destroyed and some with far higher casualty rates. How many cities would have needed to destroyed the old fashioned way by weeks of conventional bombing before the psychological impact would have created a sense of defeat? It is only in retrospect that the a-bomb became a "should never be used" weapon. Until that idea took hold it was simply a weapon that was devastating enough to give our enemies pause and could save millions of lives.

Posted by: StarBanker on July 22, 2004 01:56 AM

I respect denny, and I kinda think denny likes me, but here I disagree with him profoundly. To dismiss islam in such a way is like me dismissing christianity becausse the nazis were christian. Their gassing of the jews had a religious motivation. Thus, you cannot dismiss an entire religion - I myself dslike religion, but do not reserve my loathing for just onne faith.

Moreover, to say that muslims wish to return to their 10th centuryy hayday is folly. I daresay that even they prefer the modern tecchnoological world. To say also that they are envious of america's sucess is arrogant to the point of folly: to dismiss them as merely jealous is childish, and frankly to dismiss the israeli/palastiniaan problem as a possible cause for this war is foolish.

For thiss has everythinnng to do with palastine: in 1946, I need hardly tell you, the palastinians were forcibly removed froom some of their most sacred sites. Now, I'm not denying israel's right to be, but do you have any idea how pissed off they were? this, combiined with the fact that america is heavily involved in saudi arabia, means tthat they now have a grudge against america the size of saturn! jesus - to proclaim that they hate america merely through jealousy and contempt for how we treat women is infantile.

Posted by: matthew g on July 22, 2004 05:04 AM

The Nazis used Christianity as one of many tools. It was NOT at the heart of their motivation. Theirs was a self-proclaimed cultural mandate bred from hate and the desire for absolute power. The Muslims on the other hand have hate written in their Quran. Hate and destruction of the enemy has been a central part of their "holy" scriptures since the religion's inception. The supposed "extremist" Muslims are actually the only ones following all tenets of their faith. As Denny advised Robin so I advise you, matthew g: read the Quran. There is a stark and scary contrast between Islam and all other religions. It's the Liberal propoganda machine that wishes to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. And it goes so far that even our neo-conservatives (GWB) are now spreading that same lie.

I don't hate Muslims myself and I have befriended several. But when pushed to answer the question, they do admit that their faith tells them to destroy and kill the "infidel." And then they admit that their faith says we are the infidel. They draw no difference between a secular and religious society. To them, we are a Christian nation. Doesn't matter what we say or what our current cultural landscape looks like to us. Our troops over there are "Christian troops" and our gov't is a "Christian government." It's all the same to them. Sit down and talk to an open and honest Muslim. In the end, he or she will concur. We have to be honest and stop lying to ourselves.

In the end, there is a sharp and marked difference between Islam and all other religions. To use that whole "Nazis were Christian extremist" thing as a comparison is useless. It breaks down real quick.

Posted by: reiggin on July 22, 2004 08:34 AM

I don't give a rats' ass how my enemy justifies his decision to want to kill me. I don't want to be killed and, as with any intelligent life form I will do what I can to reduce the threat. Those who can intellectually accept their own death are an evolutionary dead end.

Posted by: Walter Wallis on July 22, 2004 08:46 AM

Matthew - As I said in my post, even if we let them slaughter all the Jews and we vacated all Arab lands it would make no difference. They would still hate us because of what we are: A success. The Arabs only produce two products: oil (Which we found and developed for them before they nationalized the oil industry) and terrorism. That's it. Palestine is a straw man. Incidentally, Israel allows them access to all of their holy sites. When the Arabs controlled Jerusalem they did not allow Jews access to their holy site, the wailing wall. Palestine does not have anything to do with what Muslims are doing in the Sudan, Nigeria, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and everywhere else that they killing people and justifying it because Allah tells them to kill infidels.

Christianity went through its violent stages. They had the Spanish Inquisition and the forcible conversions during the Spanish conquest of Latin America, but the Christian Bible essentially promotes peace and tolerance, and Christianity outgrew its violent stage. The Koran does not. It preaches conquest. Have you heard of hudna? This is a concept that you make peace with your enemy long enough for you to grow strong enough to defeat them. Then you renew the war and conquer him. Mohammed used this policy in his early conquests. Arafat has used this policy in the Israeli/Palstinian conflict.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 22, 2004 10:57 AM

i see no difference n the s_called holy books be they bible koran or torrah - they are all antiquated, and so for anyone to compare the wo, to say "theirs is a book of hate" is mindless. aurtrocities have been comitted in the name of all 3, be they the crucifiction, the inquisition or the 9/11 demolition. talk like his only fuels rthe crucade, then we will have returned to the 10th century

Posted by: matthew g on July 22, 2004 11:37 AM

By the way, for the record, I'm male. Robin is a unisex name.

One, It seems to me that by your arguements, we should just have invaded and killed all the North Vietnamese. Risking war with China and millions of american dead. And now we should just kill all the Muslims... they're the enemy right? They preach a religion of hate and war? That kind of reasoning leads to genocide. Do me a favor, Read the Bible. Old Testament particularly. Not exactly alot of love going on there. There's some scary stuff in Leviticus. Oh, and that two of the 10 commandments say that other religions is wrong. Christian dogma can be used just as dangerously. Christian dogma caused a civil war in China that cost 20 million lives. Christians have gotten over their violent phase... yeah right. Then tell me why most churchgoers are conservatives and notorious war hawks? War! War! War! I don't think Jesus would have fought in Vietnam or Iraq, do you?

Two, I really can't believe your summation of why extremist Muslims hate us is because they envy us. That's some self centered BS if I've ever heard it. "They hate me cuz they wanna be me."

In order to defeat your enemy, you must understand what you enemy is trying to win. It's that simple. Basic Sun Tzu stuff. If we don't understand WHY they attack us, we can never truly defeat them. This invading of Iraq and grumbling about Iran is only gonna make MORE suicide bombers wanna blow stuff up in America. Bad enough our boys are dying everyday for a country that hates them.

I'll post more later. I suggest you relink the actual page I first posted on, so they can read my comments in full form.

Posted by: Robin Palm on July 22, 2004 12:42 PM

Robin, have you ever talked w/any of the Vietnamese who came here?

Robin we know why they attacked us.

There's 2 good conversations going on at Bjorn Staerk's blog. Bjorn's Norweigan.

You want a conversation? Talk to "Ali."

We won Nam and they would have been better off, so would the rest of that area have been.

somewhere recent on Inside Iberian Notes, someone walked a Catalan thru the Nam war, read it.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 22, 2004 12:50 PM

Matthew:

"For thiss has everythinnng to do with palastine: in 1946, I need hardly tell you, the palastinians were forcibly removed froom some of their most sacred sites."

Err. No. Very very wrong.

First of all, Isreal came into being in 1948. Not '46. First mistake.

Second, Jordan was the "Arab" state created. Back then, "Palestinians" were all Jewish. It wasn't until 1968, and the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" got into the news. (and portrayed themselves as victims).

Third - Israel didn't remove anybody. Arabs left - in fact, Israel *begged* them to stay. They left, because Egypt, Syria, and Jordan promised them they'd get everything once they ran the Jews into the sea.. Attacked, and the Jews beat them back with discards from WWII. Oops.

Fourth - which sites? A number of those "sacred sites" are built on TOP of older, sacred Jewish sites, you realise? As part of the conquering and defilement of other people/cultures/religions. Look up dhimmi some time, and find out that your church-hating self would fare very poorly under Islam.

"combiined with the fact that america is heavily involved in saudi arabia, means tthat they now have a grudge against america the size of saturn!"

So what would explain terror attacks prior to 1991, when US troops moved into SA to protect it from Iraq? Or now - since all the US troops are out of SA?

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 22, 2004 12:55 PM

Now this is offensive: "9/11 demolition."

It wasn't a fucking demolition. It was a bloody minded attack on the United States.

Posted by: Yosemite Sam on July 22, 2004 01:02 PM

Robin:
"It seems to me that by your arguements, we should just have invaded and killed all the North Vietnamese. Risking war with China and millions of american dead."

If you know history, then you know that we won the war during the Tet offensive. Tada. All the "viet cong" dead. Supply networks demolished. "Resistance" - gone.

Except, the NV said hey, look, the press is savaging the military, the public is turning against the war.. and the US - the public matters! (Nice thing about being a head honcho in a Communist regime, you don't _have_ to care what the peons think. Or that they survive).

Even if you would argue this - as some did with me - 10 years ago, now that General Giap has said that that's when he knew he could win.. How can you? Militarly, we kicked the NVA's ass. Look up the battle for Hue. Outnumbered marines, denied fire support (don't want to mess up this "historic city") for the first week of the battle, still advanced against well dug in, prepared defenders.

The war was won on the battlefield. It was lost here. The press still remembers - with pride! - how they were the decisive weapon in that struggle. They don't see it as a mark of dishonor, they see it as proof that They Are Morally Superior. All those millions dead under the Communists? Well, _that's not *our* problem_. After all, it was a "wrong war". Those hundreds of thousands lashing driftwood into rafts and trying to escape? Well, gee, if they'd go back and WORK towards the collective. They're just greedy and not willing to sacrifice.

"Do me a favor, Read the Bible. Old Testament particularly."

Well, depending on your belief system, I know many who don't read the OT. Because it's null and void, they say. Since Jesus came, the rest is irrelevant.

Of course, this not being Islam, a holy war hasn't erupted over their differing interpretations.

"Oh, and that two of the 10 commandments say that other religions is wrong."

But neither say to put to death those who do not agree. Or to enslave them, or presuming they're from a related religion, tax them heavily and deny them true personage.

"If we don't understand WHY they attack us, we can never truly defeat them."

We agree here. Problem is, your (apparent) beliefs about that are demonstrably wrong. They don't hate us for most of the "root cause" reasons. They hate us for either standing in their way of domination (for the non-religious), or for the religious - for Barbie, for McDonalds, for "threatening their culture", for empowering their women, for arming our women, for letting our women vote - hold office. For the fact that homosexual marriage is the current "hot button" social topic.

(Funny thing. Apparently, homosexuality is a hot topic in islam now - There's quite the argument going on on how to deal with those found. Whether they should be beheaded, stoned, tossed off a tall building/cliff, or drawn and quartered. I've read of several religious arguments that degerated into gunfights when the topic came up.)

Why do you say they "hate us?"

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 22, 2004 01:09 PM

If they wanna kill me, and they do, do I really give a shit why? First things first, I want them dead, not because I want them dead per se, but because if they're dead, they can't kill me.

Lets get our priorities in order, then when we're still alive, we can debate with the whole "blame America first" crowd.

(And don't go apeshit with "Look, another American wants to kill all Muslims". No, I only want to kill those persons who want to kill me, regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof.)

Posted by: Daniel on July 22, 2004 01:16 PM

Matthew - By the Christian Bible. I meant the New Testament. I should have been more specific. Contrast the New Testament to the Koran.

Robin - I'm sorry I got your sex wrong. as you can tell by other commenters, I was not alone.

I'm saying that we should have fought the war to win. We didn't. Who knows if the Chinese would have entered. Remember they were making overtures to the West at the time. Are the millions of American dead that you estimate anything like the 10,000 we were supposed to lose in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Since you say we should understand them I was trying to explain what is currently at the heart of Arab culture. They have totally failed. They believe Allah has told them they should rule the world. They are failures. They couldn't even defeat Israel even though they vastly outnumbered the Israelis in all the wars. Meanwhile we infidels are the greatest power the world has ever known. That's not self-centered. That is a fact. We're a success, they are failures. They look back at their glory days and want to return to them. They want to return to the Baghdad Caliphate when they had a massive empire. What the Muslim fundos are preaching is that Allah is pissed and they have to smite the infidel to return to their glory days. I do understand our enemy.

What do you propose? Do nothing and hope they go away? We tried that. Negotiate? Once again, know your enemy. They look at negotiations and appeasement as a form of weakness. It's right there in the Koran. Look at past history. The Iranians (I know they're Persians and not Arabs, but they are similar) knew Jimmah Carter was a wimp. They released the hostages when Reagan took office because they weren't sure what the dumb cowboy would do.

Know your enemy. They only understand one thing: Strength.

Listen to all the hatred that is spewed out on Friday sermons. They hate us. Really. They do.

I try to turn comments off on posts over three months old because I am usually the only one who reads comments that old as they are emailed to me when posted. I don't want to manage a lot of threads. I posted your first comment in its entirety and tried to summarize your response to my response. I did the post late at night and wanted to try to keep it as short as I could. Even then, it was much longer than I wanted.

I wanted some of my regular commenters to have a shot at you and I'm hoping that they can help you see the errors in your thought processes.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 22, 2004 01:17 PM

You are sooooo right, and Robin is soooo typical. I work amongst a buncha liberals (higher ed is full of them), and it is very hard to listen to them. I rarely talk, as they really don't listen very much anyway. I also find they don't really read that much; they get a good deal of their info from websites (like moveon.org) and news blurbs. The dims who are more well-read are well-intentioned, but they miss the point that you don't strap people on the backs of the successful working class (the tax cuts for the 'wealthiest 1% bull they keep harping on)and expect them (us) to keep pulling more and more of them on our backs while losing more and more of our (their) hard-earned dollars. What's the incentive to work if they end up like us, if they have their way. They will end up with no incentive to work either, if taxes reach previous levels and more. I fully expect a 50% tax, or more, as soon as the first Dim hits the White House and can swing it. Pray for a Rep. Congress to stop it. We will miss Zell Miller, as he voted his good sense, and is not likely to be replaced by someone with his savvy. Congrats on great site!

Posted by: Sue McGowan on July 22, 2004 01:28 PM

Robin, by any chance do you wear green tighties with a red vest and yellow cape?

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Posted by: Paul on July 22, 2004 02:09 PM

concerning the population of palestine before 1948:
"- The demographic situation during the British Mandate

*The first official census made in Palestine was in 22/10/1922. It showed that Palestine population number reached, at that time, about (757182) individuals among whom 83704 Jews. The number of Jews equals (11.1%) of total population." - http://www.pnic.gov.ps/english/Population/Population_Increase.html

might I refer you to table 3 on the above page.

on the other hand, the same page shows the arabic population actually increased fromm 48 onwards.

also:
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel." - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

fleeing crossfire? why was there any crossfire if they actually wanted to leave?

finally, dhimmi seems as ludicrus as bin laden.

Posted by: matthew g on July 22, 2004 02:09 PM

Robin wants to be liked.

So, Robin needs to decide which inalienable and ennumerated rights he is willing to give up to get along.

ICC violates 4, 5 & 6.

UN and domestic socialists want to grab guns, there goes 2. (Yes, because it's worked so well in England, Australia and France.)

Without 2, there's no what's left of 1.

And if the domestic PC crowd keeps in charge, there won't be any of 1 left to protect.

Start reading MEMRI.

When someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him - holocaust survivor.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 22, 2004 02:26 PM

One striking thing we see here is that Denny is a much nicer and more patient person that myself.

I would have written that Robin is a 'moral fool','particularly not well read on history', and 'one who makes the typical Leftist mistake of viewing other cultures through their own 'value' system' and ended there.

One who makes the point that throwing a grenade at Osama bin Laden that may kill you in turn is tantamount to being a suicide bomber is a person of such shocking moral foolishness and idiocy that I do not see a redemptive path. I do not write that in spite or malice, but simply in that it is what it is.

Posted by: addison on July 22, 2004 03:30 PM

Matthew:

"*The first official census made in Palestine...The number of Jews equals (11.1%) of total population." - http://www.pnic.gov.ps/english/Population/Population_Increase.html"

Well, it's good that you're referencing outside sources.

However, do you think that perhaps the Palestenian National Authority might be a mite bit biased?

So note, that even with that bias, they note that in 1922, Jews were 11% of the population of "Palestine". So even they're saying that Jews were Palestenian. (Prior to 1948, if you used the word "Palenstenian, everybody else presumed you meant the Jews, since otherwise, you'd say "Arab").
Also, that 11% includes what we now call Israel, the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and part of Syria, if I recall correctly. That's not a count of the people only inside "Israel" in 1922, you do follow that, right?

"fleeing crossfire? why was there any crossfire if they actually wanted to leave?"

Because they weren't shooting their way *out* - the Arab armies were shooting their way *in*. Did you not notice the very quote you quoted?

"Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies"

The Israel's weren't shooting to keep the Arabs in. They were shooting to keep from being slaughtered. Your thought process here appears to have jumped a rail somewhere. The Arab world declared war, and promised grand things if arabs left Israel, and when Israel won.. well, err.. and then the UN stepped and started handing out food and money and publishing books on how evil the Jews are..... (Same time frame, something like 8 million refugees were resettled in Poland, Germany, France.. and notice... no "camps" there still, 60 years later.. or even 10 years later).

"finally, dhimmi seems as ludicrus as bin laden."

Excuse me? What seems ludicrous about it? That it exists? Or that there's a lot of people who believe it deep down that This Is The Way That It Is And Should Be? And will kill you to make it that way?

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 22, 2004 04:20 PM

Did you mean, "It is their failure and our success?" Check your post... if you can find where I mean...

Posted by: Susan on July 22, 2004 05:31 PM

God, I love this site. Thanks Denny.

Posted by: agdegro on July 22, 2004 06:35 PM

WOW Denny, this is the most post's I have seen so far. So does anybody know why we pay a Senator who missed 24 of the last 27 key votes? For all you Dimocrates out there I will do the math for you he voted 3 times.

Posted by: Greg DiCroce on July 22, 2004 06:42 PM

i suspect robin and matthew are very young. theory and idealism are very important to them now. they are unfinished products without a full set of their own life experiences yet. testing and finding their way, we've all been there.

matthew, i suggest you read all you can of v s naipaul("among the believers") - a nobel prize winner and bernard lewis. bernard lewis has been an arab scholar for 50 years. he loves the culture, hates the fascism. read "what went wrong". he coined the phrase "islam has bloody border". the koran isn't like our bible. our western religions permitted secularism and reformations. islam can't.

robin, imperialists would never have left germany, japan, afghanistan and iraq voluntarily. the last empire, the russians, needs to be examined by you. read solzhenitsyn(a nobel prize winner). you confuse personal relationships - friendships - in a naive way with the role of nations. nations don't have friends, they have alliances based on self interests. that is not an evil thing in itself.

that you comment on a board that is mainly conservation is good. you are gutsy. you are seekers. don't go away, don't close your minds. dialogue yields truth.

Posted by: onecent on July 22, 2004 07:19 PM

meant "islam has bloody borders".

Posted by: onecent on July 22, 2004 07:31 PM

Susan - Fixed. Thanks. That's what happens when I post late at night and have consumed some vodka and a half bottle of wine. I knead too du a betr job of prufing my riting.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 22, 2004 07:52 PM

Robin: Do you understand the phrase "Useful Idiot"
and do you see how it applies to all of your arguements? That phrase is what John F------G Kerry would use if he were to look at this site and see your misguided posts.

Posted by: Paul in Pa on July 22, 2004 08:50 PM

re: ...on how Bush was keeping the "shores of Texas safe from Vietnamese attack".

Vietnam was just one theatre in the larger war - the Cold War, World War III. GW Bush was not active in that theatre; his job was keeping Texas (and the rest of the US) safe from attack by Soviet Union bombers. It must have worked, right? (I am actually serious in this statement; the sixties were full of probe, defense, counterprobe efforts by both US and USSR and a failure to respond adequately might very well have led to a perception of vulnerability, and war. This threat was taken very seriously, and from the National Security perspective was considered much more critical than Vietnam.)

Interestingly, Bush's job flying those obsolete single-engine jet fighters in training and in domestic skies was actually more dangerous, statistically, than Kerry's initial assignment in Vietnam, in the Blue Water Navy.

Posted by: Glenmore on July 23, 2004 12:34 AM

I saw "Fog of War" and I heard that supposedly the Vietnamese viewed it as another anti-colonial struggle (French got kicked out, we came in) and a civil war to reunify the country -- therefore we should've stayed out.

But, although there're probably some differences, the same argument could've been made about Korea -- that the North Korean Communists were fighting to reunify the country under one government. However that doesn't change the fact that if the North Koreans had their way, the country would've been united under a COMMUNIST government, and as we can see from North Korea that wouldn't've exactly been the best thing. So, I'm not sure just how well the above argument holds up.

We intervened on behalf of an anti-Communist dictatorship that's transitioned into a democracy, while the northern half is a rigid Stalinesque dictatorship. I think we can safely say that part of the world is better off as a result of our actions. Unfortunately, we weren't able to do the same in Vietnam.

Posted by: Eric on July 23, 2004 01:00 AM

If Robin's a hottie, maybe she could use a good ole shagging?!

Posted by: Jeff on July 23, 2004 09:59 AM

First off. To anyone who has insulted me, called me stupid or whatever, I repeat the Golden rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. This country was founded to respect and honor differences in opinion, and to be governed by compromise of those said opinions.

Addison: Nope, I'm not well read on history at all. Only my major in college, and all I read at the bookstore I work at. Maybe... somehow... I came to a different conclusion than you did? Is it possible?

I do not doubt for one minute that we kicked the NVA's ass militarily. The numbers were completely out of this world. However, America just didn't have the will to fight that war. Barely anyone knew where Vietnam was, much less why our boys were dying over there. The NVA did lose alot of men and might during TET, mainly because they switched to throwing full regiments around to attack us. If they were closer to defeat, they could continue for years doing Guerilla warfare.

Korea was a little different. For one, I certainly believe that the South Korean government was a little more stable than the South Vietnamese. Two, we had international support. That helps alot. Three, Korea is better suited to our style of Warfare than Vietnam. The fact that the government went to democracy and has been sucessful... lucky for us. How long have we had troops there now? 50 years?

As to the whole grenade with Osama thing. I would even think of doing it. Yeah, from our perspective, it sounds completely insane that I would compare that with a suicide bomber. But the thought process is the same. I'm sure the bombers feel they are ridding the world of evil people "infidels" if you will. Just as we, would feel the same killing them. I think they would bomb George Bush, killer of 20,000 'innocent' iraqi civilians with no hesitation.

The reason I insist on trying to understand our enemy, is because if we don't, the violence will never end. We will always have to fight them, because they will always hate us. Violence usually just begets more violence unless you kill EVERYONE. Which... is genocide. We ended up having to do that to the Indians, since the wars never stopped right?

The (other) Addison: I don't not know the full reasons behind their hatred of us. I do not claim to be an expert.
1)I think a big reason is Isreal and the West's support of it.
2)Imperialism left a bad taste in their mouths too. The British and the French didn't really treat people too well down there. To them, we're just more White people I suppose.
3)U.S. fiddling in Iran/Iraq. Us supporting the Shah of Iran until 1972, and then we he was overthrown by the current regime, we supported Iraq in the war against it. I say that's a good reason to hate us.
4)Economic/Cultural Hegemony. This is quite powerful, and creates resentment/dischord. U.S. culture is quite imnipresent, and is distastful to even people in our own society.
5)Religous Conflict. They're Muslim, We're Christian. Same God, willing to kill over interpretation.
6)Because we give them an easy scapegoat to rally their people behind.--- It's much easier to say "Down with U.S.A" and get people to agree with you than trying to say "Would you like to reform our government?" Just like the Nazis did with the Jews, and we did with Communism/Terrorism, it is easier to focus on the thing that is an 'enemy to all' than actually try to solve problems. Everyone can agree that "insert bad guys" are bad, and that can motivate an agenda. Just like the Chinese 1911 revolution. Everyone was all about "Kill the Manchus!" and people loved it, but didn't think about much else.

Any other ideas?

Paul-I do favor tights now and then. You can see me wearing them under my other alias: Burt Ward.

Jeff-Some girls think I'm a hottie. But as far as shagging, I'm not so sure I'd be into the man love action. We could move to Mass. and get married though. That'd be cute. You can be the bride. ;-)

Posted by: Robin Palm on July 23, 2004 12:24 PM

Matthew,

1. I have raised some of the very same points concerning Israel and Palestine, and can probably help you out with better facts from less biased sources. But not here, since Bush/Kerry has nothing to do with Israel. Associating 9-11 with 1948 is like saying the Pearl Harbor was caused by Kalkhin Gol; what you advance as a "cause" is more of an excuse used as a rallying cry in a different time and a different world.
2. Your analogy that hating Islam because of alQueida is the same as hating Christianity because the Nazis were Christian is seriously flawed on several levels. The first is that we're not fighting all of Islam, we're fighting some Moslems. Another is that the vast army arrayed to defeat the Nazis was at least 75% Christian, while almost no Moslems, outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan (and not even all of them), are helping to fight the terrorists and other fanatics hijacking their religion. I think fewer people would tar all Islam with the broad brush if the Moslems themselves were a bit more vociferous (hell, if they said anything at all!) in denouncing the terrorists.
3. Denny is quite correct when he says that jealously plays a large role in inciting the anti-US partisans in the middle east. Get a copy of "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis - a renowned middle east scholar - and read it (don't worry, it's a quick read). You still might not completely agree with Denny on how much of a factor jealousy is, but you won't be so quick to dicsount it.

Overall, I hope you and Robin both do a bit more reading and thinking before it comes time for you to vote; you have obviously been more than a little lazy intellectually. Stop using DU as a crutch. Get your own information, from primary sources where possible, and form your own opinions. (Note: By primary sources I mean people who were there. JF'nKerry counts, yes, but no more so (and arguably less so) than all of his commanding officers and other vets like Denny. Arguing with primary sources is a bad idea; by definition they know more about the topic than you do.)

Posted by: Grognard on July 23, 2004 01:00 PM

Robin, at least you have a sense of humor during your lashings here at GOC. I don't feel like talking shit today. Its a beatiful day here in Seattle. About 85+ and sunshine. I'm hopping in the Sea Ray today with my kids, a buddy, and beer this afternoon. And while I'm out on the lake, I'm gonna be wondering what all the poor people are doing today.

Go Bush!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Paul on July 23, 2004 01:17 PM

"We ended up having to do that to the Indians, since the wars never stopped right?" - Robin

*ahem* Speaking from the amerind half of my history and upbringing, nooo... ya'll "ended up having to do that to the indians" because every time we stopped fighting and agreed to a treaty, ya'll broke it immediately as if it had never existed. And evetually some of us redskins [generic "us"] like Cochise, Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Quannah Parker and others came to the conclusion there was no point in "peace" if all peace meant was a regrouping period for European invaded to encroach farther. The wars stopped a number of times. Almost invariably because of an agreement with the US government that was supposed to last "as long as the sun shines and the grass grows", and usually only lasted until a few months later.

Kinda like Israel vs the Palestinians, now that you mention it: every time Israel agrees to "peace", the Palestinians respond with further emboldened agression. [Oh - that's not the comparison you'd have drawn from that? You'd paint the Palestinians as the Amerind? My bad. *snicker*]

"Nope, I'm not well read on history at all." - Robin

Your admitted lack of historical knowledge shows when you have no apparent background in your own history, much less that of the ME or Africa.

You really need to quit while you're behind.

You especially need to stop making indian comparisons when you're discussing the Middle East and Palestine with Denny and his readers: last I checked, there haven't been any T'salagi blowing themselves up on busses filled with school children in downtown Oklahomah City.

You might end up annoying one of Denny's cherokee readers like myself with those compartive interjections.

Posted by: Ironbear on July 23, 2004 01:39 PM

"I think they would bomb George Bush, killer of 20,000 'innocent' iraqi civilians with no hesitation."

I'm sorry Robin, where did you get that number? This is why some of my readers insult you. This is the kind of crap they hear from Michael Moore and the other raving moonbats and that is why you are sometimes treated as one.

I for one, always give a new commenter the benfit of the doubt as long as he/she follows the rules I have posted over under the FAQ. You have been polite and civil and have not acted like a troll. You have to realize that my readers tend to be conservative and very intelligent. When they read sumpin' like your 20,000 civilians killed in Iraq that pegs their bullshit meters.

Another problem is the left's fascination with moral equivalence. Your argument that me taking out Osama bin Laden is equivalent to the deaths of 3000 innocent people is total bullshit. If our enemies believe that then that is all the more reason to want to destroy them with no more remorse than killing a rabid animal because in my eyes that is what they are and they should be exterminated. Imagine a philosophy like that during WWII. Why does Hitler hate us? It didn't matter why he, or the Japanese for that matter hated us. They declared war on us. In war it's kill or be killed.

We are fighting WWIV and it is kill or be killed. The only way to deal with a fanatic is to kill him. It's as simple as that. What scares me is that there are a lot of people in this country who do not realize that, including most members of the Dimocrat Party. That is why they cannot be trusted with foreign policy (or domestic policy either since their aim is socialism). Just like during the Cold War they will be running around saying "Why do they hate us" or "if only we force Israel to make a lot of concessions, everything will be OK" and will extend the War on Terror just like they extended the Cold War. I wish the world worked like you see it, but it doesn't.

To quote Thomas Sowell: Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.

The same could be said for appeasement and accomodation.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 23, 2004 01:57 PM

Grognard - I've been meaning to ask you this. Do you think the Palestinians are on the verge of a civil war? It's beginning to look like as soon as the Israelis pull out of Gaza all hell is gonna break loose. It's a shame since a lot of innocent Palestinians (and I agree with you that there are some, they've just suffered from incredibly incompetent and corrupt leadership)are gonna be caught in the crossfire. Over at Rantbug they're talking about setting up the lawn chairs and popping up some popcorn so they can "watch the fun".

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 23, 2004 02:05 PM

Denny, it's been interesting reading the interplay and responses on this thread, and thank you to all who have responded so eruditely to Matthew.You questioned the 20000 dead in Iraq number. It's easy to find that number in many reports on the war. It seems to be self referential, and there are numbers from 500 to 'over 20000'. I'm not saying it's true, but there is no defnitive body count from any source I can find. There are lots of reports saying the Pentagon refuses to give a count. Perhaps someone can give us a source to the true number.

Posted by: Dayvon Goodsell on July 23, 2004 02:36 PM

Ummm... Ironbear. Sarcasm= A useful humor device where the ACTUAL meaning is the OPPOSITE of the LITERAL meaning. Thanks.

As to the American Indians, I know the White guys kept breaking the treaties. That's why I said there were guilty of near Genocide. No other way you can spin that one. That only 'comparison' i was making is that genocide is what is going to happen if we continue the cycle of violence. I'm not saying either the Isrealis or Palestinians are equivalent to the American Indians. Just using the example of Genocide.

Denny: WWII and the "War on Terrorism" are two different beasts, and can't be really compared. I think stopping terrorism means giving people less reasons to hate you, or more reasons not to do anything about it. Do you think anyone with a wife, kids, steady job in a stable country is gonna go out and blow himself up with a bus? Prolly not. The trick is to have people have lives worth living, instead of having lives that are worth throwing away with a bomb. That's just a thought of mine.

The 20,000 number is everywhere. Is it perfectly true? I dunno. I haven't gone and counted the bodies. But if around 900 U.S. Military are dead, I'd be a little dissappointed in the ability of our fine armed forces if the count was less than 20 to 1.

Posted by: Robin Palm on July 23, 2004 03:21 PM

robin
your civilian casualty number is grossly inflated. have you ever reasoned that if the iraqis had risen again, as they did in 1991, against saddam they would have sustained vastly higher civilian deaths trying to procure their freedom? how many kurds did saddam gas? how many young iraqis died in his decade long war with iran? how many civilian deaths in kuwait occured in his little adventure there? how many iraqis would be dead this past year under saddam's reign if it hadn't ended?

if you add up the numbers on saddam's column of dead citizens over 25 years, us casualties are a tiny footnote. as saddam was the weapon of mass destruction on his people, i think we will be forgiven by them for liberation.

The reason I insist on trying to understand our enemy, is because if we don't, the violence will never end.

understanding is futile in many scenarios. i understand OBL's point of view quite well. he wants to kill me. period. reasoned violence(war) ended slavery, communism, fascism and a host of other smaller scourges in this world. letter writing campaigns just won't end oppression or bad people.

you need to read more history from a wide variety of good sources, robin. emotionally focusing on the small details within a much larger context tell me that you don't have a historic content in which to draw reasoned, not emotional, conclusions.

Posted by: onecent on July 23, 2004 03:22 PM

Robin:
"I think stopping terrorism means giving people less reasons to hate you, or more reasons not to do anything about it."

Great rhetoric. How do you do that? You've already side-stepped the problem that most of the Islamic world who hates us that much thinks they're going on to BETTER things in the afterlife for killing us infidels. Hard to beat that.

Additionally... How do you do that? Hand over money? Like we do to Egypt? The Palestinian Authority - under which the massive handouts have caused poverty of the average person in the West Bank and Gaza to skyrocket (But Arafat and his cronies are getting rich).

"Do you think anyone with a wife, kids, steady job in a stable country is gonna go out and blow himself up with a bus? Prolly not."

Prolly? How about a mother with 2 young sons?

"Reem Al-Reyashi, who blew up four days ago are the Erez Crossing and killed four Israelis, was forced to carry out the suicide attack - as punishment for cheating on her husband.

A few hours after the suicide attack the Hamas published the will of the 22 year old mother who became a terrorist. ...
According to this information this is not a cold blooded terrorist, steeped in faith and madness, who chose out of free will to turn her two young children into orphans [Addison - stupid press. They're only half-orphaned] - but instead a woman who was forced to carry out the act.
According to military sources, the terrorist paid a cruel price for being involved in an illicit love affair and was forced to sacrifice herself in order to clear her name and the honor of her family.
Al-Reyashi's husband, an activist in the Hamas organization, not only knew about his wife's plans in advance - but even encouraged her to carry out the suicide attack.... the person who was chosen to recruit the 22 year old Al-Reyashi to carry out the suicide attack and equipped her with the explosive belt was none other than the lover with whom she cheated on her husband. The British Sunday Times reports in this morning's edition that the husband even drove his wife to the Erez Crossing.
In contrast to previous female suicide bombers, Reem Al-Reyashi had no family member who had been hurt in the course of the Intifada. She is the daughter of one of the established families in Gaza. Her father was the owner of a large factory for the production of batteries in Gaza that markets most of its production in Israel. "

(Robin again:)
"The trick is to have people have lives worth living, instead of having lives that are worth throwing away with a bomb. That's just a thought of mine."

The "trick" there is that people can't be *given* that or willed it or wished it. Only THEY can do that - witness the incredible transformation of Israel - and the arabs *in* Israel, compared to the lands around it. Same opportunies, wildly different results.

You've never stated why they hate us - and I've asked you before. So *why* do "they" hate us? And what's realistically fixable about it?

Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 23, 2004 03:34 PM

Robin, I think Ironbear took your sarcasm literally because you've displayed an astounding level of ignorance; though, admittedly, it could be blinkered prejudice and denial masqerading as ignorance. You may be well read, as you claim, but you do not appear to be well informed. What kind of history courses did you attend in college?

Posted by: Grognard on July 23, 2004 04:42 PM

I haven't been keeping up too much with the ME recently, Denny, but from what I've read I think President's first domino may be about to fall.

President Bush has demonstrated strength, he has demonstrated that he will not deal with Arafat, he has demonstrated that he is willing to help the Palis (the carrot), and he has demonstrated that US force can and will be applied to terrorist problems (the stick). That, and the wall, have brought greater and greater crowds out against HAMAS et al. The Pali public sees the US grinding the terrorists in Iraq to dust, and at the same time they see new arabic TV stations popping up in Iraq every day and on those they see the booming Iraqi stock market. They see, in short, images of the two paths from which they much choose.

The loss of Iraqi, Saudi, and Syrian financial support is probably eating into Arafat's support base, too, since you know he's not going to spend his own money. What few resources he would have gotten from others to keep his regime afloat are probably being burned instead against the US in Iraq. (As we'd planned, of course.)

I don't know whether there'll be a civil war or not; I don't think Arafat and his clique are sane enough to go peacefully like in Prague's Velvet Revolution. It'll go down ugly, but I don't think it'll be a war. I figure it'll be more like the French Revolution, with a fair amount of blood spilled in the initial uprising, followed by an even more bloody purge.

Posted by: Grognard on July 23, 2004 05:20 PM

One Cent: That number is from last year. Do you read the articles you send? they always seem to contradict you.

"At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll - if it is ever tallied - is sure to be significantly higher."

That's during a 'month' of war. How long have we been there? 15 months now? While the 20,000 number may or not be inaccurate, I think it's pretty reasonable estimate.

(other) Addison:
I did just list 6 possible reasons why they hate us, and also said I don't know completely. I don't have all the answers, and unfortunately, neither does Washington. This war... certainly doesn't give anyone more reason to like us. I definitely would expect another 9/11 scale attack because we are pursuing this war. All i'm saying here is that the Iraq war has made them hate us more.

Are you disagreeing with the point that making the region more stable and people lives better would reduce terrorism?

How we go about doing that, yeah different story, and would take pages of things can do to help the problem. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to write that kind of report from my desk here.

Will the posters here quit saying I'm "ignorant"? The definition of ignorance is not "one whose opinion is different than yours".
If I was ignorant, I wouldn't care about what was going on today, and wouldn't be aiming my life to improve our world. Certainly my desire to raise skeptcism about reasons for war and why we are fighting it should not count me as ignorant.

Writing your opponent off as ignorant only makes you look stupider when they defeat you.

"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"
-Sun Tzu

Posted by: Robin Palm on July 23, 2004 05:52 PM

I know we've been in South Korea forever, but like I said it's obviously better off as a result of our intervention. You said it was "lucky" they transitioned to democracy -- from what I can tell (and there are obviously some exceptions) Communist dictatorships tend to have a stronger hold on power than other types. And we did achieve our goal of containing Soviet Communist influence, dictatorship or no.

I'm no expert on the war but I do know that even though we had UN approval and international support it was our troops who did the majority of the fighting (obviously Europe spends a lot more money on social deals and the US spends a lot more money on military.) You're probably right that the South Korean government was more stable than the South Vietnamese, I'll give you that.

Personally, I don't see how you're supposed to emphathize with your enemy when a war's already raging/a country's being invaded. Of course it's different now with al-Qaeda because they're scattered and we don't exactly know when they'll attack. We do know that if they had the chance, they'd establish Islamic "republics" in the entire Middle East. Somehow I don't see us changing the minds of these fanatics. So we have two options: 1) take an active role in ending this conflict OR 2) pull out of the Middle East and appease these guys (which obviously ain't gonna happen.)

If we aren't going to work to remove certain repressive and potentially dangerous governments, what exactly do we do? How do we have any impact on changing the general opinion of the Middle East? Emphathizing with the enemy may sound nice but it may also get us nowhere.

Posted by: Eric on July 23, 2004 06:50 PM

And about Iran. People in Iran hated us before the Iran-Iraq War, and quite possibly before their little Islamic revolution. While the shah wasn't exactly the greatest guy, I think he's preferrable compared to the anti-American extremists that head the country today.

Let me show something their "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Khamenei, had to say about the hostage-taking in Iraq:

"We seriously suspect the agents of the Americans and Israelis in conducting such horrendous terrorist acts and cannot believe the people who kidnap Philippines nationals, for instance, or behead U.S. nationals are Muslims."

Just how do you "emphathize" with someone like that? I wouldn't be surprised if he's said stuff about us oil imperialists as well, so that they can conveniently blame their shortcomings on us.

Posted by: Eric on July 23, 2004 07:07 PM

Robin - They are not necessarily insulting you when they are calling you ignorant. Ignorance can be cured.

So you want to give the people in the Middle East a better life. Just what do you think we are trying to do in Iraq? We are trying to set up the first Arab democracy. We are trying to fix the "root cause" of terrorism. The Iraqi people were incapable of overthrowing Saddam so we did it for them. Unfortunately you, and the rest of the people on the left don't want to see us succeed. You would rather see George Bush lose the election so John Fonda Kerry can throw away any and all gains that we have made. I hated Bill Clinton, but I did not want to see our foreign policy fail so he would look bad.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 23, 2004 11:29 PM

--Are you disagreeing with the point that making the region more stable and people lives better would reduce terrorism?--

You want to make their lives more stable and better?

Get rid of the thugs who are ruling them.

Anywhere.

Africa's not poor because of resources, they're ruled by thugs who take the money.

Mexico- thugs and Spain/France colonial legacy. There is absolutely NO reason, with oil, tourism and other natural resources they should be such a basket case.

Canada- Brit/France colonial legacy.

NK- murderous thug -

Central/South America - thug

---

We killed all the Indians?? Then why am I here?

----
ME - major religious thuggocracy.

Mutated monarchy - ruled by the unelected 1 or the brusselsprouts, still the same.

We made it for 2 reasons - we were far, far away and we cast them off in short order, world timeline, so to speak.

We were left on our own.

And the ME will NEVER improve if it insists the women are never allowed to work outside the home (although the Saudis do look the other way.)

$10 billion UN for terror/palaces deal.

--To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"--

Yes, that worked so well for Japan and Germany, didn't it?

Socialism kills, free markets feed.

--

You want to try and understand them? jihadunspun.org

jihadwatch

or you could read the unvarnished Koran, not some "edited, white-washed" version.

Is it really true that when Mein Kamf was released in America, all references to the Jews were removed?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-07-24&id=4835

Even some English are getting it.

Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.

‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’

Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.

Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ‘Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’

---

Did you know that America is an Islamic country?

True, they were here long before some others. It's being taught in some of their books. Seems Australia is, too. And as we know, anywhere they've been, it's a traditional Islamic land. All the way to the gates of Vienna.

And if you want to give them less reason to hate you, which of your inalienable and enumerated rights are you willing to give up?

Because it's not just them, it's "the world." We are to give up what we are to be liked and get along.

I'm not that desperate to be liked or get along, this isn't a popularity contest.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 24, 2004 12:20 AM

Time to start your education:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.homa.org/

And start visiting Bjorn Staerk's blog. There's a couple of recent postings you might be interested in, especially from a European perspective.

And leave a message for "Ali Dashti." He'll be happy to give you an overview.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 24, 2004 12:25 AM

And also read Mahmood's Den - current post:

A snippet:

The current situation in any Arab country is miserable. Walk in any Arab street, go into any Arab office and you will be faced not with a proudly displayed copy of the "bill or rights", or even an extract of the Qur'an, but rather with large pictures of current rulers, their forebears and descendants who in some cases are just started having wet dreams, all of whom are elevated to the status of Gods whom the populace are directed in no uncertain terms to worship. They are the all-wise and all-benevolent....

---

Be wary of any country which has posters of rulers everywhere.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 24, 2004 12:33 AM

"Robin, I think Ironbear took your sarcasm literally because you've displayed an astounding level of ignorance" - Grognard

*grin* Grognard, I took Robin's "sarcasm" literally because so far, he hasn't displayed any talent for humour or sarcasm in any statement he made. ;]

I think the "I was being sarcastic" was a nice albeit ineffective cover though. Been my observation that "you missed my sarcasm tags" is a frequent resort from the humourless when someone takes them seriously - people who have the talent don't need the "tags".

I've never had to reread one of Denny's, Hendrix's, or Porretto's wisecracks and ask "Is he being sarcastic?": when they are, it shows.

"As to the American Indians, I know the White guys kept breaking the treaties." - Robin

Yeppers. The BIA was this countries first Left-Liberals, and ya'll have continued the practice on into all other areas of politics between then and John Kerry. ;]

"That's why I said there were guilty of near Genocide." - Robin

Nooo... you said they were guilty of near genocide because it was a nice nifty and cheap anti-America shot you could take, one requiring not even a minimum of research beyond popular leftist-sociohistory, and it added a handy touch of liberal guilt association to your views. And I decided to not let it slide. I don't believe your "sarcasm" defense any more than I believed you were being - or were capable of - sarcasm in the first place.

We don't need you to approriate our history to bolster your arguments and talking points, thank yew. We don't need you or any other liberal to strike a blow against the "Evil US Imperialsts" in our name with our pasts. I don't need or want you to use my history to score your cheap shots, boy. You want to prattle about genocides, then do it with one that you and your compatriots have bloody hands from: like the boneyards in Cambodia.

I do so hope we are level on this.

"Will the posters here quit saying I'm "ignorant"? The definition of ignorance is not "one whose opinion is different than yours"." - Robin

*shrug* You keep stating over and over in posts that you "have no information or knowledge" etc etc when someone brings up information that refutes one of your disinformation points.

You are correct: the definition of ignorance isn't one whose opinion is different - the definition of ignorance is "Lacking in knowledge and/or experience".

We are using the term correctly in regards to you as evidenced by your continued avowal of lack of knowledge and experience.

That's kind of the long version of saying "We'll quit calling you ignorant when you demonstrate a lack of ignorance."

Denny is correct: so far, none of the posters here have been particularly insulting to you. I've come closest... and I may owe Denny an apology for that disruption of his comments. I find myself of late not inclined to pull punches dealing with liberals and leftists.

You'd like to observe the difference, try taking this discussion over to Misha's and see what insulting and flamewar can *really* be like. ;)

Posted by: Ironbear on July 24, 2004 12:43 AM

"The 20,000 number is everywhere. Is it perfectly true? I dunno. I haven't gone and counted the bodies. But if around 900 U.S. Military are dead, I'd be a little dissappointed in the ability of our fine armed forces if the count was less than 20 to 1." - Robin

Just a point of information for you to mull over: in Counter Insurgency Warfar [CI], a ratio of 10-1 is considered "optimum" for the side prosecuting it. That's "Ten insurgents for every one of our losses" in military arithmetic.

It's also been noted by a number of military historians that CI forces very seldom achieve optimum ratio of kills.

The odds are pretty good based on previous history that even if one adds in civilian casualties, 20-1 is probably an inflated number. That's just common sense - but I'll grant you that you'd have to know a bit about CI warfare for the high ratio to kick off the BS detector. The US has been extraordinarily careful about avoiding civlian casualties/collateral damages in this war, so it's doubtful that civilian casualties would inflate the ratio that high - unlike collateral effects in WWII.

"Do you think anyone with a wife, kids, steady job in a stable country is gonna go out and blow himself up with a bus? Prolly not. The trick is to have people have lives worth living, instead of having lives that are worth throwing away with a bomb. That's just a thought of mine." - Robin

I am going to ask you flatly: do you think that the Iraqi people had lives that were worth living under Saddam Hussein? Do you think that people are having lives that are worth living under Arafat?

Posted by: Ironbear on July 24, 2004 01:00 AM

I still wanna know how WE are supposed to create that optimal Middle East Robin's talking about, where people are generally happy.

Posted by: Eric on July 24, 2004 01:48 AM

"The casualties from insurgent attacks are increasingly Iraqis. A report by two US-based think tanks estimated that, as of 16 June, 11,317 Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition action and militant attacks during and since the 2003 war. " - the BBC
[dont give me that biassed crap. You want biass? go watch fox.]

Posted by: matthew g on July 24, 2004 12:49 PM

blockquote>"dont give me that biassed crap" - Matthew

Why not? And, like, what are you gonna do about it if we do? Hold your breath, turn blue, and type all in caps? ;]

"The casualties from insurgent attacks are increasingly Iraqis."

That seems to puncture the idea that the "insurgents" are predominately aiming at the US and Coalition, doesn't it? Attacks aimed predominately at Iraqi's look to be an attempt to discourage the formation of a westernised Iraq.

And continual use of "insurgents" in place of "terrorists" does point to BBC bias: in favor of the terrorists. Kind of like Michael Moore caling them "Minute Men".

"11,317 Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition action and militant attacks during and since the 2003 war."

Major drop between 11,000 and 20,000, no?

And which think tanks? Pentagon? Military Intel? Berkeley? What's the ration of civies killed by militant attacks to those killed by coalition actions?

That's the interesting thing about the media: they drop figures with few or no verifiable links, and rest their claim for the figure's accuracy on "higher authority" without naming the authorities. FOX included, generally.

"I still wanna know how WE are supposed to create that optimal Middle East Robin's talking about, where people are generally happy." - Eric

PFM, Eric. Pure fucking magic. ;]

Actually, I'd hazard a guess that the recipe goes like this:

1) Withdraw completely from the middle east
2) Apologise to the UN and let them resume the Oil for Food programs.
3) Apologise to France
4) Vote Kerry into office.

*Poof!* Instant happy Middle East.

;)

The recipe I'll bet doesn't run like this: "Remove the opressive governments there one by one, and give the citizenry an opportunity to create prosperous and free societies..." That would be like, a Bad Thing.

Posted by: Ironbear on July 24, 2004 01:34 PM

Matthew - So we have one network (Fox) that you claim is biased versus all of the other networks BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, CBC that we know lean so far to the left that they may as well be house organs for the Dimocrat Party and two newspapers The Washington Times and Wall Street Journal versus The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, the LA Times and just about any other big city major daily and let's not forget Al Guardian in the UK that lean further to the left than Fox leans to the right. Here's a little test: contrast the coverage of Sandy Berger pilfering papers compared to the coverage of Condi Rice if she had purloined the documents. I guarantee you that if Condi had done what Berger did it would be front page news for weeks. All the major news outlets have buried the story. Don't talk to me about media bias. Fox is much closer to the middle of this country than any other news outlet in the country. That is why they are killing CNN in the ratings even though they are in less homes than CCN. Didja know that Canada is gonna allow Al Jazeera to broadcast in Canada but will not allow Fox to? Talk about gummint censorship. I bet I can site many more examples of left wing bias on the major networks than you can on Fox. Here's a blatant example: During the 2000 election Dan Blather actually slippled up and said "We're winning (in one of the blue states. Can't remember which one.)"

Now the truth comes out. American soldiers are being blamed for all the deaths of Iraqi citizens when actually it is the insurgents who are doing the killing? I guess that's OK since everything wrong in the world, according to leftists, is the fault of the United States. Now I understand the 20,000 casualty figures. Silly me.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 24, 2004 01:48 PM

Al Guardian? the bbc far left? I think not. the recent film, outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/) is said to exposee fox's bias, although I havent seen it yet. save for the hutton enquiry - the findings of which, to some extent, Lord Butler overturned - no such objections have been levelled at the networks you list as leftist. it seems that they, rather than fox, are "fair and balanced".

Posted by: matthew g on July 24, 2004 02:37 PM

I think this is a Navy saying, possibly a quote but I could not tell you who (I was an Army man myself). These 3 little words make more sense to me than anything else I was ever told or heard in the military or in civilian life. That is especially true post 911.

Honor the threat.

That's it. That's all you need. Forget root causes. Forget dialog. The threat has been issued. These people have made their intent perfectly clear. To not honor the threat in this situation would be more than irresponsible.

Dubya is honoring the threat. No Dim (short of possibly Lieberman) would. Certainly not Kerry.

Its really that simple.

Posted by: SC on July 24, 2004 02:42 PM

Ironbear - Yup! PFM. Just like the casualty numbers. Someone makes a number up, say, 20,000, and the rest of the media runs with that number until no one can remember where it came from in the first place. An example of that is Jesse Jackson saying, just last week, that there were 1,000,000 blacks kept from voting in 2000. Poof! PFM! The numbers came out of thin air. They investigated down in Florida and they did not find one instance (That means none, zippo nada, zilch, zero, zed, didley-dip point shit)of any black being denied the right to vote, but we will hear that 1,000,000 figure (and it will probably get higher) over and over between now and the election. Count on it.

This is just like when Major Owens went on the floor of the House and stated that 200 million blacks were thrown over the side of ships during the slave trade. Sharks still patrol the trade routes looking for dark meat. Rush Limbaugh ran the numbers and it turned out that it would have to be about ten shiploads of slaves (I can't remember the exact number so I'm just guessing what I remembered. Works OK for the liberals.) a day being thrown overboard. Owens went to the floor of the House the next day and changed the number to 20 million, which once again would have been an impossibility. Poof! PFM!

At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll - if it is ever tallied - is sure to be significantly higher."

So by your reasoning, if we had 10 hurricanes during the month of July that means in 15 months we will have 150 hurricanes? Yeah. Makes perfectly good sense to me. And I guess the death of "insurgents" and Sad Boy's militia are in that count also? When I talk about civilians I mean noncombatant bystanders. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of civilian is.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 24, 2004 02:49 PM

"The casualties from insurgent attacks are increasingly Iraqis. A report by two US-based think tanks estimated that, as of 16 June, 11,317 Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition action and militant attacks during and since the 2003 war. " - the BBC
[dont give me that biassed crap. You want biass? go watch fox.]

Posted by matthew g at July 24, 2004 12:49 PM

Okay. Dont y'all get it? (And Robin, it is y'all, not ya'll. Surely your bookstore has some reference guide to provide that.)

We have taken the battle against terrorists (not terrorism, but terrorists) to Iraq. Thank God someone from the administration (Cheney?) finally said the truth - "we fight them in Iraq today so we don't have to fight them in the U.S. tomorrow." Thats it. They're not "insurgents" (except maybe Bathhist remnants), they are foreign terrorists who know in the long run their battle is lost if the people in Iraq can govern themselves, and democracy takes hold. Not a western culture, but democracy in some form. Thats why they are targeting Iraqis - to go after their will to be independent.

On a side note, ever notice how liberals attack Fox for its "bias", but they won't admit the bias of their media? Sorta like they are les inclined to admit they are "liberal", as opposed to "conservatives" who willingly claim their title? The Gray Lady has been exposed, and her reputation forever destroyed.

Posted by: Daniel on July 24, 2004 04:03 PM

That's during a 'month' of war......

Right, Robin. The actual war only lasted a month. The occupation has been everything after that. Occupations are police ground actions. They rarely involve air support where most of the civilian casualties occur. Are you claiming that thousands died after the the heavy fighting and bombing ended?

While the 20,000 number may or not be inaccurate, I think it's pretty reasonable estimate.

Think of the illogic of what you are saying, while the number "may or may or not be accurate", it's "pretty reasonable". Facts count. You've shot yourself in the foot.

Robin, for a person of your intelligence, you don't seem to verify things.

The 20,000 number is everywhere. Is it perfectly true? I dunno. I haven't gone and counted the bodies. But if around 900 U.S. Military are dead, I'd be a little dissappointed in the ability of our fine armed forces if the count was less than 20 to 1.

The bottom line is that you really want more civilians dead because you've got an agenda you're fixated on - Bush and the military are evil - and you are going keep pandering guesses with no hard facts to support your position.

Posted by: onecent on July 24, 2004 04:10 PM

--You want biass? go watch fox.]--

Now that IS an ignorant statement by someone w/internet access.

Where have you been w/in the last 2-3 weeks or so, matt g?

There's a study published about bias in the news. One prof from the U of Chicago and I think from KY did it.

It's out there, you'd be surprised.

And as to outfoxed - well, you also don't follow ratings. FoxNews viewership is less that 1% of the population of America. And in many part of the country, unlike CNN, FoxNews is a premium channel.

And you'd better also bone up on FoxNews viewers' stats.

And the lefties are spending beaucoup bucks, killing lots of trees and polluting by spilling lots of ink and spewing hot air to try and crush FoxNews' dissent.

You'd better start getting your facts straight.

For those of us who actually pay attention, whenever FoxNews is mentioned, it just goes to show what sheep some people are.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 24, 2004 08:25 PM

.....it seems that they, rather than fox, are "fair and balanced".

Wrong. Bias in the media is heavily liberal/leftist.

So Fox is successful as right of center, a good thing, or would you prefer there be no marketplace of competing ideas?

the recent film, outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/) is said to exposee fox's bias, although I havent seen it yet.

Matthew, please........movies are just movies. Commercial entities, driven by profit by the entertainment industry regardless of their genre. If the source of your values and ideas has an admission ticket, you aren't a serious thinker.

Posted by: onecent on July 24, 2004 11:34 PM

I don't really notice a HEAVILY liberal bias in the mainstream media, myself, just one that's noticeable at times. I think CBS probably has it the most, but I don't watch nightly news everyday.

Whether or not Fox is conservative slanted (which I think it's pretty clear that it is) doesn't really have anything to do with whehter or not the other networks are liberally slanted, though.

Posted by: Eric on July 25, 2004 01:20 AM

I should clarify, I'm basically referring to NBC, CBS, and ABC nightly news, which is most of what I watch through the so-called mainstream media. Don't get the NYT or other supposedly left-leaning papers besides the SF Chronicle.

Posted by: Eric on July 25, 2004 01:24 AM

Oncent - while most films are indeed comercial enterties, they are forms of art. Hollywood high concept films are mede purely for entertainmeent, bbut some films are made for purposses of entertainment. Indeed, books are made to entertain, yet they are often considered artifacts of inteligencia: I thus resent the fact that you say I'm not a serious thinker.

Moreover, your refutal of robin's suggestion that it is necesarry to know thine enemy I believe shows an unwillingness to think on your part. Aparently, rather than tryinng to understand Al Qa'ida's motivations, you would rather simmply dismiss them as evil and try to make war on an organisation as slippery as water. This is a three demensional problem you try to view in two: good and evil. Yet this isn't Tolkein, and bin laden, fell as he may be, has motives we see as grounded in good. We need, therefore, to adress these motives, rather than trying to kill him. Were we to kill bin laden, as things stand I fear we would produce many more. this is a war we cannnot win.

Posted by: matthew g on July 25, 2004 07:55 AM

According to that recent study, FoxNews is CENTER right.

Look at any of those sites I gave, MG?

You can start your education there.

Posted by: Sandy P on July 25, 2004 02:18 PM

Great thread!

Matthew - Let's talk about bias. To counteract Outfoxed, let me presant Ann Coulter. But she's far right you say. Right and Outfoxed was made by someone on the left who has an agenda. I suggest you read Bias by Bernard Goldberg. He is a liberal who actually admits that the lamestream media is biased. I also suggest you go to the Media Research Center for daily examples of blatant media bias. Sure it's a conservative site, but as I pointed out Outfoxed is a leftwing hit piece.

I'm sure the reason you don't think al Guardian and the BBC don't have a liberal bias is because they represent your views which are liberal. For the Guardian I offer up Robert Fisk who has a blogging writing style named after him.

Let's talk about Fox. Fox is not availabe in as many markets as CNN but Fox is still kicking ass in the ratings. What this tells me is that when the average American has a choice Fox wins out over CNN. That would mean that Fox reflects the views of middle America more than CNN does. So, either middle America is moving to the right or Fox is more centrist than CNN. The ratings of ABC, CBS, And NBC news have been dropping every year, So, all that being said, I will admit Fox is right of center. But liberals insist that the major networks are balanced when all evidence shows otherwise. Tabulate how many times the networks refer to someone like Newt Gingrich as a far right conservative to how many times the networks refer to someone like Nancy Pelosi as a far let liberal. Heck just tabulate how often far right conservative is used versus far left liberal. The major networks lean much further to the left than Fox leans to the right. They just won't admit it.

More data. 92% of the Washington press corps voted for Bill Clinton. In a recent survey, less than 10% of journalists defined themselves as conservative. Over 35% said they were liberal. The rest said they were centrists. I daresay more of those centrists were liberals than conservatives.

Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 25, 2004 06:13 PM

I checked out the media research centree. haveing grown up in a family where the scientifric process is valued, Ii saw little evidence of true academic research on that ssite - no benchline studies; no descriptions of research procedure; heavy evidence of the Hawthorn effect. this site can therefor be dismissed.

however, most of the media is indeed left of centre due to the fact thhat most people see the centre left, which preaches tolerance, understanding and progress, as more suitable for the modern multiethnic world than the right, which is associated with xenophobia, reactionism, bible-bashing and, frankly, ignorance.

Posted by: matthew g on July 26, 2004 11:35 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?