Nary a word from the dominant cohort of gay Democratic activists over the choice of freshman Virginia Sen. James Webb to deliver their party's televised State of the Union response. Webb is a firm supporter of the armed services' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gay ban, about which he says, "in terms of the military, that that's a policy that's working."
Right, and if you believe that, you'll believe "an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy," in other words, working with the likes of Syria and Iran, is a good way to move forward in Iraq.
67 Comments for “Military Intelligence, or Not.”
posted by ETJB on
Apples and Pears.
BTW; I yet to see the cohort of gay Republican activists talk about the fact O.I.L. has brought Islamic fascists to power in Iraq…
The Iraqi War is a disaster. The amount of troops being sent into Iraq is not going to achieve victory. We would need a draft to get the # of troops needed to secure the nation.
We have to work with Iran and Syria because when we pull out they will step into back the Shiites and the Saudis will likely step into back the Sunnis and the Turks will step into kill the Kurds.
AND we are going to pull out. This is what you get when you do a war/regime change half-assed.
posted by grendel on
Steve, I just do not understand your need bash democrats. especially when you seem to go out of your way to invent reasons for doing so. Did Webb even mention DADT last night? I don’t think so. Nonetheless, gay democrats were supposed to issue some kind of statement just because a person to opposes GLBT equality was speaking, even though the speech itself doesn’t address any equality issues?
If that’s the standard, why don’t you apply the same one to Republican gays? Have they muttered any words of protest over the choice of speakers when an anti-GLBT republicans speak for the party on issues entirely unrelated to GLBT equality? I don’t think so.
Your whine (because that’s all it is) is no more convincing that some pro-lifer’s would be if they complained about if the republicans chose Sen. Spector to speak on some issue of his expertise unrelated abortion.
Does the fact that person disagrees with you on one issue disqualify them from speaking on any?
To be fair, there are positions so odious that yes, it does. I can’t imagine it ever would have been appropriate to give, say, Pol Pot, any national forum, even if he did confine his comments to flower arranging.
But if support for DADT automatically puts someone in that league, doesn’t that pretty much disqualify the vast majority of republicans from ever speaking on any issue?
And if so, where’s the gay republican outrage, cuz I haven’t seen any.
posted by kittynboi on
Working for what? How does DADT “work”? What does it accomplish? I have yet to hear anyone sufficiently explain why its needed, or how gays disrupte “unity” and “unity cohesion” and how the mere presence of gays lowers morale. Does this mean that the mere proximity of a gay person to a straight person is SO unbearable to the straight person that it puts them in an uncontrollable statle?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If that’s the standard, why don’t you apply the same one to Republican gays? Have they muttered any words of protest over the choice of speakers when an anti-GLBT republicans speak for the party on issues entirely unrelated to GLBT equality? I don’t think so.
No, by and large, they haven’t.
But the, as Steve put it “dominant cohort of gay Democratic activists” have screamed bloody murder when such events have taken place.
What Steve is saying, Grendel, is that since gay Democrats like yourself throw shit-fits over Republican speakers who you claim are homophobic, then you should throw them over your own homophobic and bigoted party members as well when they speak.
Now, will you say that gay leftist groups like HRC, NGLTF, and Stonewall Democrats, as well as gay Democrats, who throw shit-fits over Republicans speaking on topics unrelated to gay rights are wrong?
posted by thom on
To Stephen H. Miller/North Dallas Thirty:
Your comments are standard partisan vitriol, which serve no purpose, other than to perpetuate divisions and frustrate the development and implementation of sound public policy. Reflexive partianship is destructive. (Note that Grendel does not identify himself as a Democrat; you just assume that he is.)
Regarding “don’t ask, don’t tell,” there is now sufficient empirical evidence from the US and other countries to establish that allowing openly gay serviceman will not impact unit cohesiveness. Therefore, the basis for the policy has no support.
As for Iraq, it is clear to everyone except those blinded by partianship that our strategies to date in Iraq have failed, miserably. A new approach is absolutely essential, and Bush’s “surge” lacks any meaningful chance for success. His rationale is that we haven’t had enough troops to secure the neighborhoods in Baghdad from which terrorists have been chased out, so they come back after the US troops leave. Thus, if we have more troops, we can keep the terrorists out, provide stability, and the democratic government will suddenly flourish.
The first flaw with that theory is the assumption that the terrorists are the only reason why the Iraqi government is failing. The second flaw is that the plan does nothing to address sectarian-driven violence. And the third flaw is the reason why mocking diplomacy with Iran and Syria is wrong-headed: the US is not staying in these neighborhoods forever. We will leave, and then the terrorists can move back in, as will Iran and Syria. Therefore, one way or another, we will have to deal with Iran and Syria.
posted by John on
Well, the Republicans are hardly an alternative. It’s the Democrats, who will do more to stem the descent of the working class into poverty and all that that entails; a condition that is ever more driving bereft people into the arms of Christian fundamentalist churches, where ascribing to hatred of gay people is the price of admission or at least of staying. Corporate dominance in our society, which means money talks, severely constrains what the Democrats can do.
posted by John on
To be more clear the moneyed interests, the only entities with the resources to finance modern political campaigns, want every last bit of our country’s social net shredded because it seems no amount of wealth is enough. No tax cuts are big enough. A run-away process? Keeping up the Jones’s? I don’t know. Add to that their desire for an endless supply of cheap wages -depressing illegal labor and the collusion on the part of the Democrats, hoping to pick up their votes after amnesty, and we face the prospect of an increasingly desperate underclass increasingly under the sway of the religious right. An ominous sitution for gay people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The first flaw with that theory is the assumption that the terrorists are the only reason why the Iraqi government is failing. The second flaw is that the plan does nothing to address sectarian-driven violence.
So your belief is that US troops securing a neighborhood will stop terrorists from killing with impunity, but will allow sectarian militias to kill with impunity.
The simple fact is that more troops will allow suppression of both terrorists and sectarian militias, which is exactly what Iraq needs. However, the Democrats in leadership positions know that, and they also know that continued destruction in Iraq is what furthers their rise to power. Hence, their attempt to sabotage and block any actions that would help in that fashion.
And the third flaw is the reason why mocking diplomacy with Iran and Syria is wrong-headed: the US is not staying in these neighborhoods forever. We will leave, and then the terrorists can move back in, as will Iran and Syria. Therefore, one way or another, we will have to deal with Iran and Syria.
And of course, the belief there is that Iran and Syria will abide by diplomacy and not meddle in Iraq.
However, Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s continued meddling and obstructionism in Lebanon makes it clear that neither Tehran or Damascus will respond to diplomacy, even under the ultima ratio of it represented by the United Nations.
Again, though, the leftist Democrats refuse to acknowledge that fact and insist on “diplomacy” — because it is in their interest to foment more destruction in Iraq in order to hold on to power, and they know full well that diplomacy is no deterrent to either Iran or Syria.
And as for John, I think the juxtaposition of these two statements proves interesting:
It’s the Democrats, who will do more to stem the descent of the working class into poverty and all that that entails;
Corporate dominance in our society, which means money talks, severely constrains what the Democrats can do.
Thus, the Democrats’ solution is to punish and harass corporations out of existence in order to keep the people who they employ from falling into poverty.
Right.
The reason Democrats hate corporations so much is because the employed are singularly resistant to giving up the money that they earn and demand accountability of government. Those on welfare and dependent on the government will not bite the hand that feeds them.
posted by Robert Noven on
The choice of Webb is consistent with the indifference or arrogance of the Democratic party in relation to our community. I was personally offended by their decision to hold their convention in Denver. This is a reward to a state that voted not only to ban gay marriage in one referendum, but to ban civil unions and similar arrangements in another. Where is the sense of respect for a major constituent of the party?
posted by thom on
North Dallas Thirty ~
Thank you for so clearly illustrating my suspicion that you are a partisan, who is incapable of accepting any statements contrary to your party allegiances.
In your last post, you suggest that Democratic leadership is fomenting the war in Iraq to ?further their rise to power? by blocking any actions that would diminish the destruction occurring there. In your partisan world, no Democratic leader could EVER be motivated by a genuine belief of the right course of action for our soldiers and country. Likewise, those Democrats could not be motivated by their obligation to represent the views of their constituencies, who as you know, as adamantly opposed to the war. The latest poll said that 60% of Americans are opposed to the ?surge.?
I can only assume that you believe that Colin Powell, Sandra Day O?Connor, Alan Simpson, Lawrence Eagleburger, Ed Meese, Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator George Voinovich have all secretly become Democrats, because how could they question and/or openly oppose Bush?s ?surge? when the sole reason to do so is to empower the Democratic leadership. I?m sure the DNC will be sending them their official ?Leftist Democrat? cards soon.
As for the few substantive arguments you make, here?s my response:
NDT: The simple fact is that more troops will allow suppression of both terrorists and sectarian militias, which is exactly what Iraq needs.
Perhaps that is true to a degree, but fails to account for the fact that: (1) we will eventually leave, (2) the government has already been compromised by sectarianism, and temporary stability will not restore confidence in it, (3) members of Iraq?s police and military participate in ?death squads,? which means that there is no such thing as ?suppressing? sectarian militias, and (4) PM Maliki has no political motivation to attack and/or control the militias, when they empower him.
NDT: Diplomacy with Iran and Syria will not work.
I agree that Iran and Syria are not good world citizens, and that diplomatic negotiations with them will be difficult. However, you implicitly suggest that there are military options, where there are none. Iraq is gone. Full-blown civil war is inevitable, as is partitioning of the country. The Bush Administration is responsible for this mess by failing to plan for what happened after the invasion, and failing to adjust when its policies were not successful. Now, it?s too little, too late. We, as a country, lack the military resources and public commitment to invade another sovereign country and attempt to create another friendly government. Thus, like it or not, it?s time to negotiate.
posted by dalea on
One thing left out of this little discussion is that Webb is pro-domestic partnership. And took a position against the Virginia initiative to some extent. Sooo he is not a total ‘phobe, like ND3xxx. Just a somewhat conservative dem who is coming along. This site is continuing to look like ‘mega gay dittos’ more and more.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One thing left out of this little discussion is that Webb is pro-domestic partnership. And took a position against the Virginia initiative to some extent.
Thank you for so elegantly demonstrating the point, dalea; namely, that stances that would get a Republican called “homophobic” and “hateful” get made excuses for by gay leftists when the individual who holds them is a Democrat.
Now, dalea, I want you to say publicly that it is not wrong to support someone who opposes gay marriage, supports DADT, and doesn’t believe that gays deserve full equality.
In your partisan world, no Democratic leader could EVER be motivated by a genuine belief of the right course of action for our soldiers and country.
Given that Democrats like Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi support Cindy Sheehan, who sent hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplies and cash to the very same terrorists who are trying to kill our soldiers, their judgment as to “what is best” is more than questionable.
Likewise, those Democrats could not be motivated by their obligation to represent the views of their constituencies, who as you know, as adamantly opposed to the war.
Because said constituencies were manipulated and misled by the Democrats, who openly and deliberately covered up the worst of Saddam’s abuses.
Be honest. Do you think the American public would have believed, as Democrats do, that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was “unjustified and unnecessary” had they known more fully that he imprisoned and tortured the toddler-age and infant children of political dissidents, or that he systematically committed genocide against the Shi’a, Kurds, and other groups in Iraq, or that he was even willing to destroy an entire ecosystem in order to eliminate a troublesome ethnic group (the Marsh Arabs)? Furthermore, do you think the American public would have reacted similarly if they had not been fed disinformation on Saddam’s brutality, as CNN admitted to doing, or had abuses covered up in the name of “waging peace”, as Scott Ritter did?
Americans had no problem with eliminating Slobodan Milosevic, or sending our forces into Darfur, and they bewailed the fact that we had not done so in Rwanda. Do you honestly believe they would not support similar actions against someone who was many orders of magnitude worse — if they knew about it?
I could respect you, Thom, if you would simply say the following: “Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who committed systematic genocide, defied the United Nations, threatened his neighboring countries, and starved, imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and killed millions of his own citizens, was unnecessary and unjustified because American casualties would result and it would cost Americans money and time.”
Now, to deal with the remainder of your argument:
Perhaps that is true to a degree, but fails to account for the fact that: (1) we will eventually leave, (2) the government has already been compromised by sectarianism, and temporary stability will not restore confidence in it, (3) members of Iraq?s police and military participate in ?death squads,? which means that there is no such thing as ?suppressing? sectarian militias, and (4) PM Maliki has no political motivation to attack and/or control the militias, when they empower him.
Your first two statements are conjecture.
Your last two statements can be dealt with very simply; unless ALL Iraqi police and military members are death squad members and Maliki has NO power without the sectarian militias, they are pointless arguments. Remember that Iran is next door to Iraq; they know full well what happens when sectarians and theocrats control their country, and they know that al-Sadr has exactly that in mind. It is in the interests of theirsurvival that they eliminate the militias and death squads, and we offer them the means to do it.
We, as a country, lack the military resources and public commitment to invade another sovereign country and attempt to create another friendly government. Thus, like it or not, it?s time to negotiate.
You do realize, of course, that you have just explained why Iran and Syria see no need to cooperate diplomatically?
For a Democrat, I understand your stance; after all, you have been brought up to believe that the military is inept, incapable, helpless, a large group of fools blundering about killing babies and so helpless that a Navy destroyer can be almost sunk by men in a dinghy with a few boxes of explosives. But, considering that it consists of over a million members with the latest in high technology and gear, with barely 200,000 of them tied up between Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we can hold our own, thank you.
As for “public commitment”, that’s easily managed; simply stop your poor-mouthing of the US armed forces, point out how they are the best-trained and best-equipped force in the world, and state honestly that we cannot allow a belligerent country like Iran, who has wilfully defied the authority, not responded to diplomacy in the least, who have publicly stated that their goal is to “wipe from the map” other countries, who have supported terrorist groups to do just that, and who are, in all defiance of international law, working to acquire the technology that would allow them to do it almost totally, to continue on its path, even if it requires military intervention…..then you’ll see “public commitment”.
posted by rick on
I do believe that diplomacy is the only answer to bringing an end to the conflict in Iraq, which by the way, George W., against all cautions from his advisors, and using falsified intelligence, got us into. His sidekick Dick and all of their cronies have benefitted by soaring oil prices and kickbacks from no-bid contracts, while over 3,000 American soldiers have been killed (more than died on 9-11 by the way), thousands have been maimed and injured, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed. As far as DADT, it keeps queer youth from even thinking about joining an institution whose sole purpose is to maintain the impbalances of power and wealth not only in this country, but globally. The connection between Iran and Syria and DADT is ludicrous. What about all of those anti-gay marriage amendments sponsored by the Republicans, or that nasty and divisive Constitutional Amendment sponsored by the idiot currently residing on Pennsylvania Avenue? Personally, I don’t care if it is a Democrat or Republican, and I don’t care about DADT, but I do care that this war has killed thousands and can only get worse unless we reverse the bull-headed course the Bushies have put us on. Our country is more vulnerable to attack than ever, because now more people have more reason to hate us.
posted by rick on
“…and state honestly that we cannot allow a belligerent country like Iran, who has wilfully defied the authority, not responded to diplomacy in the least, who have publicly stated that their goal is to “wipe from the map” other countries, who have supported terrorist groups to do just that, and who are, in all defiance of international law, working to acquire the technology that would allow them to do it almost totally, to continue on its path”
You just described the United States. Weren’t we the ones who were going to bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age (which wasn’t very far by the way, thanks to our constant intervention). Weren’t we the ones who snubbed our noses at the World Court and UN countless times? And as far as anyone pledging to wipe anyone off the map, the president of Iran did not say that about Israel, he was quoting an Imam who was talking about regime change, something, we, by the way, feel we have a right to do. Our philosophy seems to be, ‘do as we say, not as we do, and if you don’t we’re going to bomb you”. The US has become nothing but a big bully going around the world threatening everyone to give us their lunch money.
posted by James on
Just to go on record, so that future generations will know that there was at least one American citizen who got it right, here’s what would have worked in Iraq:
1. Keep Saddam in power.
2. Defang Saddam by putting lots o’ UN inspectors on the ground make sure there are no weapons programs or human rights abuses.
3. Wait until Saddam dies of natural causes.
4. While waiting for Saddam to die, fill Iraq with McDonalds, Starbucks, Nike, Kelly Clarkson, ER, and all those wonderful examples of Western capitalism and excess. How can you hate the West with a soy milk cappucino in one hand and a remote flipping past the Food Channel in the other?
5. After Saddam dies, put a telegenic capitalist in his place.
Voila! The West has conquered Iraq without bloodshed.
posted by Tim on
McDonalds, Starbucks, Nike, Kelly Clarkson, ER, and all those wonderful examples of Western capitalism and excess. How can you hate the West with a soy milk cappucino in one hand and a remote flipping past the Food Channel in the other?
Some people want to retain their own culture and not get our crappy culture. That tend to piss them off.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you, Tim and Rick, for demonstrating the gay leftist view of the United States; we’re evil, we’re awful, we’re a bully, we have crappy culture, etc.
Personally, I happen to think we do pretty darn well — and we certainly do far better than the Taliban, than Saddam Hussein, than Iran, than Syria, and than the European governments who are all too willing to enable all of the above for sufficient lucre and gifts to their politicians. Furthermore, whining about legal bans on gay marriage, which even John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Jim Webb support, seems rather petulant in the face of the fact that it is a capital crime worthy of execution to be gay in Iran and Syria, and was in Ba’athist Iraq and Taliban Afghanistan.
It’s a pity the gay left has to tie being gay to being anti-American and contemptuous of our country’s government, culture, and people.
posted by Mark on
North Dallas, I’m not a leftist and I believe the government of the United States IS evil. If that be treason, so be it. Starting an unprovoked war which has destabilized the region and has cost hundreds of thousands of lives IS evil. Were the Iraqis consulted as to whether they wanted their country invaded?
And what exactly is the alternative to diplomacy in Iran? War? I’m sure Mr. Miller and his warmongering friends are salivating at the prospect.
posted by Mark on
BTW, there is no “moving forward” in Iraq at this point. Just get out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Starting an unprovoked war which has destabilized the region and has cost hundreds of thousands of lives IS evil. Were the Iraqis consulted as to whether they wanted their country invaded?
Considering that it was a capital crime worthy of execution to even tell a joke about Saddam Hussein, Mark, and that your toddler-age and infant children could be imprisoned, tortured, and murdered because you disagreed with the Ba’athists……what exactly were you expecting them to say at the time?
I will simply ask that you say a similar thing to what I asked thom to say: “Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who committed systematic genocide, defied the United Nations, threatened his neighboring countries, and starved, imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and killed millions of his own citizens, was ‘evil’ because it might destabilize the region and cause thousands of casualties, both American and Iraqi.”
Also, I want you to say that we should NOT have gone to war in Kosovo, that we should NOT go to war in Darfur, and that we were right to NOT militarily intervene in Rwanda — since all of them were acts of genocide and human rights abuses on a scale far smaller than what Saddam Hussein was managing, and thus were “unprovoked” and “evil” to wage.
Furthermore, Mark, I want you to also say that you would rather Iran get nuclear weapons, as they are obviously managing despite the worst that the UN can throw at them, rather than take any military action to prevent it.
That is what Democrats and leftists believe. They would rather Saddam kill millions of people than risk American casualties or for it to cost Americans money. They only care about genocide when it’s white Europeans or when it’s black Africans — because Iraqi-Americans and Arab-Americans don’t wield the political power that white leftists and African-American groups do within the Democratic Party. Finally, they would rather Iran have nuclear weapons than risk a single American life, even if it gives Iran the capability to, as they have promised to do, utterly wipe Israel from the map.
No one here, myself and Steve Miller included, is particularly keen for war. But when one sees the consequences of ignoring and trying to paper over abuses as epic as Saddam’s in the name of “peace” and “diplomacy”, it underscores the old saying that all evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
posted by Mark on
Frankly, your claim that Saddam killed “millions” of his own citizens shows you have no grasp on reality, North Dallas.
I believe in a policy of foreign non-intervention on the part of the American government. Unless a country directly attacks us, the American government should stay out. I would have had no objections to Iraqis deposing Hussein.
And I am opposed to both the United States and Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons.
posted by Mark on
North Dallas, the goal of yourself and your friends is total world domination by the United States, isn’t it?
And, of course, nobody ever says they like war. There’s always some rationale for it.
posted by ETJB on
(1) The world is full of really nasty and un-democratic people. We certainly cannot go after every aging, two-bit dictator.
(2) If we are going to go after some of them, something I have no problem with in theory, then you really better know what you are getting into. Know the history of the nation. Know its ethnic, social, economic and political clevages. Much of what happens in Iraq is because the administration either didnt know or didnt care.
(3) Having enough freaking troops on the grounds to maintain security. I am sorry people, but the only way to actually “win” this war would be to bring back the draft. We need far more troops then what Bush is sending to basically do some rather nasty police business against insurgentes and militas.
(4) Since no one powerful “hawk” is even seriously talking about the draft, what is going on is stalling for time and dumping it onto the next President.
(5) Since we do not have enough troops on the ground and no one has plans on staying too long, the Bush Administration has really, really, f*$## America.
When we leave, Iran will get involved (more then it has) and Syria will follow. They will go after Sunnis and Iraqis deemed to be heretics; feminists, liberal intellectuals, gays, etc. The Saudis will get involved to “protect” the Sunnis.
Turkey will get involved to “handle” the Kurds.
The regional Middle Eastern war between the two major Islamic sects will mean that China and India will have to use “our” major oil suppliers to fuel their industrial growth and urbanization.
posted by ETJB on
Also; the two major militias are a part of the Iraqi government. They are fundamentalist Shiites enforcing a legal code similar to what exists in Iran. They are part of powerful & popular religious-political factions in the government.
Iraq’s official legal code is decades old and the elected government does not want to touch it because then they will have to deal with the role of Islamic law in the legal system.
The militias have been filling in this vacume.
U.S. troops can get rid of them. It will be nasty and painful but possible, but not without a draft.
We would have to become the police force, and the Iraqi government would have to come up with some sort of criminal code to work with.
The Iraqi government is not likely going to turn on such powerful people. The Iraqi people handed them a majority of the seats in the last election (i.e. SCIRI).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Frankly, your claim that Saddam killed “millions” of his own citizens shows you have no grasp on reality, North Dallas.
Please note what I said about Saddam Hussein, Mark:
“a brutal dictator who committed systematic genocide, defied the United Nations, threatened his neighboring countries, and starved, imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and killed millions of his own citizens”
Please, for the public record, state that the entirety of that is false and that Saddam Hussein did nothing of the sort.
Next:
I believe in a policy of foreign non-intervention on the part of the American government. Unless a country directly attacks us, the American government should stay out.
Very good. Then you should have no trouble saying, as I challenged you to do previously, that we should NOT have gone to war in Kosovo, that we should NOT go to war in Darfur, and that we were right to NOT militarily intervene in Rwanda — inasmuch as we were not attacked in any of these cases. Indeed, you can even make the argument that Democrat Cindy Sheehan does, that we should not have invaded Afghanistan because “they” technically didn’t attack us.
And finally, to this:
North Dallas, the goal of yourself and your friends is total world domination by the United States, isn’t it?
The simple fact of the matter, Mark, is that the United States does, from several different angles, already “dominate the world” — economically, politically, socially, and militarily. It’s not a question of wanting to dominate; it’s one of how we use the dominance we already have wisely.
Of course, I understand your point; we should defer to other cultures, given that ours is inferior. How about we accept the policy towards gays preached by countries like Iran, for example, since theirs is obviously superior to ours? How about we modify our culture so that women are treated the same way here as they were under the Taliban in Afghanistan? After all, the French and other European governments that you worship have said that we must give way before Islamic radicalism and other such things since to do otherwise would be “intolerant” and “insensitive to the cultures of others”.
posted by Mark on
Congratulations to all of the people who brought us the War with Iraq. Before we had a secular 5th rate dictator who killed a a few of his political opponants now and then, but generally kept order and prevented civil war.
Now, it’s impossible to step outside in Bagdad without fear of geting killed, and the country is on its way to becoming a full scale Islamic Republic.
Good work, folks!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Before we had a secular 5th rate dictator who killed a a few of his political opponants now and then, but generally kept order and prevented civil war.
Really? The US State Department rather disagreed, as also, it points out, did the UN.
And before you start whining, note the date on that report and tell me what administration was in power when it was made.
Furthermore, to pull one statistic from that report as entertaining, it talks about how nearly 900,000 people had been forcibly displaced because of their religious or ethnic belief — while at the same time, we were waging all-out war against Slobodan Milosevic because 500,000 people were being displaced.
And again, Mark, since you believe that the United States should never intervene in foreign affairs unless we are attacked, why are you so seemingly frightened of saying that the war in Kosovo, that intervention in Rwanda, and that intervention in Darfur would have been, are, or would be wrong?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The simple fact is that more troops will allow suppression of both terrorists and sectarian militias, which is exactly what Iraq needs. However, the Democrats in leadership positions know that, and they also know that continued destruction in Iraq is what furthers their rise to power. Hence, their attempt to sabotage and block any actions that would help in that fashion”.
The idea that Democrats would oppose any action they honestly thought would help is ridiculous. You’ve just demonstrated that regardless of reality you’ll do anything you can to demonize people you don’t agree with. Democrats see the similiarity here with the war in Vietnam and have historical reason to believe an escalation isn’t going to do any good.
Northdallass said “As for “public commitment”, that’s easily managed; simply stop your poor-mouthing of the US armed forces, point out how they are the best-trained and best-equipped force in the world, and state honestly that we cannot allow a belligerent country like Iran, who has wilfully defied the authority, not responded to diplomacy in the least, who have publicly stated that their goal is to “wipe from the map” other countries, who have supported terrorist groups to do just that, and who are, in all defiance of international law, working to acquire the technology that would allow them to do it almost totally, to continue on its path, even if it requires military intervention…..then you’ll see “public commitment”.”
That’s incredibly naive. By your logic the only reason the U.S. failed in Vietnam was too many people badmouthed the U.S. military. The fact of the matter is the people who live in a country are much more motivated to fight for a longer period of time than the people who don’t. The U.S. is great at winning in the short run but hasn’t got what it takes to be there for the long haul..
Northdallass said “toddler-age and infant children could be imprisoned, tortured, and murdered because you disagreed with the Ba’athists”
How positively hypocritcal of you. When your god does this you go through incredible contortions to justify it. You’ve got no credibility condemning Sadam for this when you praise your god for doing the same.
Northdallass said “I want you to say that we should NOT have gone to war in Kosovo, that we should NOT go to war in Darfur, and that we were right to NOT militarily intervene in Rwanda — since all of them were acts of genocide and human rights abuses on a scale far smaller than what Saddam Hussein was managing, and thus were “unprovoked” and “evil” to wage.”.
The idea that there was worse genocide in Iraq than Rwanda is an outrageous lie, which as we’ve seen is typical of you. James raised a lot of valid points about Iraq at January 25, 2007, 9:57am. The presence of weapons inspectors and economic sanctions would have eventually brought Iraq in line and during that time period its unlikely as many Iraqis would have been killed as have been since the U.S. invaded. Plus the U.S. would have been able to force negotiations with a credible military threat to countries like Iran, Syria, and Korea, which it most certainly is not now.
Northdallass said “Of course, I understand your point; we should defer to other cultures, given that ours is inferior. How about we accept the policy towards gays preached by countries like Iran, for example, since theirs is obviously superior to ours? How about we modify our culture so that women are treated the same way here as they were under the Taliban in Afghanistan? After all, the French and other European governments that you worship have said that we must give way before Islamic radicalism and other such things since to do otherwise would be “intolerant” and “insensitive to the cultures of others”.”.
Again with the lies, you just never stop, do you? No one said you should defer to those cultures because your’s is inferior. European governments never said we must give way to Islamic radicalism. If you ever go a single thread without lying I’ll be floored. It just proves you don’t care about reality, you create it as you see fit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As I have already pointed out, Randi, you constantly accuse me of lying, regardless of what the facts are. Furthermore, as I have also pointed out elsewhere, your attempts to quote the Bible as proof of your points should be considered in the light of your open admittance that you ignore any passage that does not fit your preconceived notions.
Furthermore, an excellent example of your duplicity can be seen in this statement here.
The idea that there was worse genocide in Iraq than Rwanda is an outrageous lie, which as we’ve seen is typical of you.
But, amazingly enough, that’s a significant change from before:
I want you to say that we should NOT have gone to war in Kosovo, that we should NOT go to war in Darfur, and that we were right to NOT militarily intervene in Rwanda — since all of them were acts of genocide and human rights abuses on a scale far smaller than what Saddam Hussein was managing, and thus were “unprovoked” and “evil” to wage.”.
As a duplicitous leftist, you bring up Rwanda because, thanks to popular movies like “Hotel Rwanda”, you believe that you can successfully argue that Rwanda was worse than Saddam’s genocide — a statement which, as Saddam’s treatment of the Marsh Arabs, not to mention the Kurds and the Shi’a, is not supported by the facts.
Furthermore, your statement for “inspectors” as a solution is fatally impaired by the fact that leftists like yourself and your governments voluntarily and deliberately removed inspectors from Iraq to placate Saddam and the United Nations and repeatedly argued that sanctions should be WEAKENED on Iraq because they were killing hundreds of thousands of children — which also neatly ends your claim that sanctions and inspections would have resulted in less loss of life. In addition, given the fact that Iraq was openly and blatantly bribing UN officials responsible for its oversight specifically to keep them quiet and blind to Saddam’s abuses conveniently collapses the argument that a UN solution was really any solution at all.
Finally, Randi, what is infinitely amusing is that you hate God for allegedly ordering the death of innocents, but do nothing but spin and make excuses for why putting a swift and immediate stop to Saddam Hussein doing it was wrong.
Lastly, what you and your fellow gay leftists continue to make obvious is your complete and utter contempt for the United States military. Rest assured that, if need be, we are more than capable of doing what needs to be done; however, what our enemies have figured out that the best gun in the world is of no use if you lack the will to shoot it. Thus, they manipulate anti-American leftists like yourself into doing the dirty work for them.
posted by James on
While at the same time having the world’s greatest military, we also have the world’s greatest capitalists. I’m serious when I suggest that having a Starbucks on every corner would do more to bring Iraq into the modern world than any type of military plan. People really want our music, our jeans, our coffee, our movies, our cable. I am not against the military–I am against using the military when other options are available. Iraq could have been solved with a combination of diplomacy and greed. And Saddam could have been overthrown by simple old age–probably from a heart attack. propped up in a recliner, flipping between Lifetime and the History Channel with a bag or Doritos in his lap. That’s a video that would never have made YouTube.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Finally, Randi, what is infinitely amusing is that you hate God for allegedly ordering the death of innocents, but do nothing but spin and make excuses for why putting a swift and immediate stop to Saddam Hussein doing it was wrong.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, Northdallas, I got that ONE wrong. However, you can’t explain away where you lied in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
where at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. Or in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31151.html#commentform
where at January 11, 2007, 5:14pm you told the whopper and said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified” or at January 11, 2007, 5:06pm where you lied and said “you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian.” or at January 13, 2007, 11:27am where you lied again several times in that post – I didn’t defend suggestions that the christian bus driver be abused, I said the wrong was mitigated by the bus drivers hateful actions; I didn’t claim that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, I said they were no more likely to than gays; I didn’t claim that because I’m gay I know your god is evil and the buy-bull is crap, I know it because of the words in your buy-bull itself. Words you cannot defend as I pointed out in my post at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm. At January 13, 2007, 11:27am you lied and said “gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either” – I said no such thing. At January 15, 2007, 3:22pm you lied saying “After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link [regarding Minnesota law]is a lie” – I never said it was a lie but that what you said was an allegation to me as I didn’t read the link.
I can admit where I made that ONE mistake. Now its your turn to admit where you’ve lied again and again.
Northdallass said “As a duplicitous leftist, you bring up Rwanda because, thanks to popular movies like “Hotel Rwanda”, you believe that you can successfully argue that Rwanda was worse than Saddam’s genocide — a statement which, as Saddam’s treatment of the Marsh Arabs, not to mention the Kurds and the Shi’a, is not supported by the facts.”
You’re the one lying here. Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed in Rwanda, not to mention all who were displaced. The link you gave merely mentions that most Marsh Arabs were displaced and does not mention the numbers killed.
http://en.wilkipedia/wiki/rwandan_genocide
Northdallass said “Furthermore, your statement for “inspectors” as a solution is fatally impaired by the fact that leftists like yourself and your governments voluntarily and deliberately removed inspectors from Iraq to placate Saddam and the United Nations and repeatedly argued that sanctions should be WEAKENED on Iraq”.
Again you lie. I never advocated that weapons inspectors be removed or that sanctions be weakened. I was adamantly against that and your suggestion that people “like me” would do so is a bald faced lie.
Northdallass said “Finally, Randi, what is infinitely amusing is that you hate God for allegedly ordering the death of innocents, but do nothing but spin and make excuses for why putting a swift and immediate stop to Saddam Hussein doing it was wrong.”.
There’s no allegation about it. Your bible clearly has your god saying he punished a whole nation for the wrongs of one person. Your god clearly orders the killing of innocent women, children and babies. Your god orders the killing of all the eldest Egyptian sons. Your god floods the earth killing virtually all its inhabitants, innocent or otherwise. The trouble with your spin on Sadam is that the war didn’t put a swift and immediate end to the killing of innocents. More innocent Iraqis have died since the war started then were killed in a similar time frame during Saddam’s rule.
And of course you lie when you say I have complete and utter contempt for the American militarty. While it was a huge mistake for G.W. to start that war under false pretenses, now that its happened I want you to win the peace. You made this mess and now its your responsibility to stay there and do what it takes to clean it up no matter how long that takes. Frankly I support the addition of some 20,000 odd troops, in fact I doubt that’s enough, 100,000 more is more like what is going to be needed. I hope you do, but I doubt you have the will to see it through.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James at January 25, 2007, 4:15pm.
James, for once I agree with you. Iraq was the most secular of Arabic nations and gays were safer under him than they are now. A continuing westernization of the country would have been the best strategy, unfortunately its too late for that now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, Northdallas, I got that ONE wrong. However, you can’t explain away where you lied in this thread.
Or in other words, even though you admit you were wrong when you called me a liar, you insist you’re not wrong now when you do the same thing.
What is patently clear is that you accuse me of lying when there is clear, quotable, referenceable evidence to the contrary. There is simply no way that you could have missed Carl’s statement cited unless you were grossly incompetent and negligent; therefore, it must be assumed that you made your statements out of deliberate untruthfulness and utter malice.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to demonstrate that you will stop being malicious or hateful and a vast quantity to demonstrate that you will continue to do so; therefore, your attempts to cite me must be taken in exactly the same manner as your admitted falsehood above.
Now, to your attempts at argument.
You’re the one lying here. Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed in Rwanda, not to mention all who were displaced. The link you gave merely mentions that most Marsh Arabs were displaced and does not mention the numbers killed.
First, the link I provided previously claimed that sanctions against Iraq resulting directly from Saddam Hussein’s actions and defiance alone had killed 500,000 children. Another one from 1999, also cited above, demonstrated that Saddam had forcibly displaced approximately 900,000 people.
Furthermore, your attempt to minimize what Saddam did to the Marsh Arabs is laughable. Why do you ignore not only his killing people directly, but his destroying an entire ecosystem, causing repercussions across all of southern Iraq, for the sole purpose of starving out and displacing those he DIDN’T kill directly?
Then you try to babble this:
Again you lie. I never advocated that weapons inspectors be removed or that sanctions be weakened. I was adamantly against that and your suggestion that people “like me” would do so is a bald faced lie.
LOL….that requires me to believe, Randi, that someone like yourself who goes to enormous lengths to minimize and excuse what Saddam was doing still felt the need for him to be under any type of inspection or sanction requirement. That’s like insisting that someone isn’t a criminal, but demanding that the police watch their house 24/7 to prevent them from committing crimes; it makes no sense.
And I love this statement:
More innocent Iraqis have died since the war started then were killed in a similar time frame during Saddam’s rule.
First, it’s amusing that you cannot admit that Saddam caused more death than the invasion ever did overall.
Second, why are you crying over Iraqi innocents when, as I made obvious above, you didn’t care that 500,000 children alone starved to death?
The problem here, Randi, is that you don’t want to admit that your leftist “peace” was a living hell for the Iraqis. You rationalize and rationalize, ignoring the fact that you preferred a “peace” in which half a million children were starving to death, nearly a million people were being displaced, and hundreds of thousands more were being killed outright, not to mention the millions who were tortured, imprisoned, conscripted into the armed forces, and regularly harmed.
Furthermore, leftist, did you support military intervention in Kosovo, or do you support it in Darfur?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is really why gay leftists like Randi are dangerous.
Iraq was the most secular of Arabic nations and gays were safer under him than they are now.
Uh huh.
That’s one of my favorite articles, because it demonstrates so nicely the mindset of leftist gays; the interviewee, Ali Hili whines about how bad it is for gays in Iraq, but lets the following slip:
?In the late ?80s and early ?90s there were a couple of gay clubs in Baghdad,? Hili explained, ?but they were all shut down in 1993 after sanctions were imposed against Saddam?s regime and Iraq. We had a weekly gay nightclub in the Palestine Hotel that became the gathering place for gay people, especially for actors and others in the entertainment world, but it, too, was shut down. I was arrested three times for being gay, and tortured. After several attempts, I finally was able to escape the country, going first to Dubai, then Jordan, then Syria, and finally reaching England.?
Or, in other words, Iraq was so wonderful under Saddam that leftist gays didn’t mind in the least being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, murderered, or, if they were lucky, being forced into exile, assuming they COULD escape.
posted by thom on
To North Dallas Thirty ~
Do you possess any self-awareness at all? Are you capable of recognizing that your analysis is motivated nearly entirely by partisanship and bitterness? Can you accept any argument or fact that does not comport with your preconceived partisan-dictated views?
My point in engaging you wasn’t so much to win the argument on the best policy in Iraq, but to demonstrate that you are hopelessly entrenched in partisanship, and therefore have little to contribute to an “independent” forum discussion. Again and again, you have proven my point.
Let me start with your attack on me at 11:12 p.m.
You said: ?For a Democrat, I understand your stance; after all, you have been brought up to believe that the military is inept, incapable, helpless, a large group of fools blundering about killing babies and so helpless that a Navy destroyer can be almost sunk by men in a dinghy with a few boxes of explosives. But, considering that it consists of over a million members with the latest in high technology and gear, with barely 200,000 of them tied up between Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we can hold our own, thank you.?
I never said I?m a Democrat, you merely assumed that because I disagree with you and the ?surge? plan. In fact, I was raised in a Republican household, helped my father (who is a Korean War Vet) win election three times as a Republican, and have voted for Republicans in national, state and local elections since I was eighteen, and as recently as the last election. I belong, however, to no party as I prefer to vote based on an intelligent analysis of policy, rather than rely upon a party groupthink or a talk radio pundit.
Your comments about my beliefs about the US military are again, ridiculous assumptions driven by your inability to believe that anyone other than ?leftist Democrats? could possibly criticize George W. Bush and the US government. Given that my long-term boyfriend is a Lt. Colonel in the US military who just returned from a year in the Middle East, your statement that I believe that our military servicemen are ?inept, incapable, helpless, a large group of fools blundering about killing babies? is not only ludicrous, but offensive.
For the moment, I?ll skip responding to the little substance in your response to me, and focus on other clear examples of your partisanship.
In your response to Mark, in a post dated 1:39 p.m., you said: ?Of course, I understand your point; we should defer to other cultures, given that ours is inferior… After all, the French and other European governments that you worship?.?
Mark made no suggestion that the US culture is inferior, or that he is fond of European governments. Your false accusations are caustic hyperbole, driven by your need to pigeonhole everyone into a category. You are providing an excellent example of ?you?re either with us, or against us? thinking. In your partisan world, any criticism of US government policy means that the maker of that criticism must be leftist Democrat who hates American and loves European cultures. Do you realize you?re doing this? Does your bitterness justify the blatantly un-American view that any dissent with the government is treasonous?
With respect to your exchanges with Randi, he?s a liar and a ?duplicitous leftist.? For both of you, in this forum, I suggest you state a fact and post a link to the site you believe demonstrates or evidences that fact. Likewise, where you believe the other has falsely stated a fact, provide the links to demonstrate that, and leave the ?liar? allegations out of the discourse.
In response to Mark, you said: ?That is what Democrats and leftists believe. They would rather Saddam kill millions of people than risk American casualties or for it to cost Americans money. They only care about genocide when it?s white Europeans or when it?s black Africans — because Iraqi-Americans and Arab-Americans don?t wield the political power that white leftists and African-American groups do within the Democratic Party. Finally, they would rather Iran have nuclear weapons than risk a single American life, even if it gives Iran the capability to, as they have promised to do, utterly wipe Israel from the map.? Wow, not much really needs to be said about this comment. I guess in your view, American Jews have no voice in the Democratic Party?
Analyzing the totality of the substance of your various responses on the topic of the appropriate policy in Iraq, there are only a few points worthy of discussion.
1. In response to the argument that diplomacy is needed in the Middle East because our military options are limited, your response was to accuse me and others of hating the military and to deny that the military is overtaxed.
As I mentioned above, my boyfriend is an officer in the military. I can assure you that I have no hatred of the military, and am motivated more by concern for the safety of our servicemen and the best interests of the United States. My belief that our military is overtaxed is informed by discussions with my boyfriend and other officers in the military, as well as the testimony of Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army?s chief of staff, who warned in recent testimony before Congress that active-duty Army ?will break? under the strain of today?s war-zone rotations. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121400803.html.) Note that our military leadership questioned the wisdom of the surge plan. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html.) Engaging Iran in war, while simultaneously trying to maintain order in Iraq, will require manpower redistributions that will leave our interests vulnerable in other parts of the world.
2. In response to your suggestion that Democrats are behind the opposition to the surge, I pointed out that a number of high-profile Republicans are opposed to it as well. Not surprisingly, you had no response, most likely because your partisan mind cannot simply process this information. It does not fit within your worldview, so you ignore it, rather than adjust your views. Your suggestions that any opposition to the surge is generated by media manipulation by Democrats are also effectively nullified by the strong opposition to the plan by these Republicans. Do you now assert that these Republicans are no longer supporters of America and the military, and motivated solely by their desire for political gain? (See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/politics/main2393312.shtml).
3. You challenge me and others to say that: ?Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who committed systematic genocide, defied the United Nations, threatened his neighboring countries, and starved, imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and killed millions of his own citizens, was unnecessary and unjustified because American casualties would result and it would cost Americans money and time.? You go on to challenge us to deny that statement, without accounting for, you assume, our support for human rights interventions in Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur. Apparently, you believe these statements will lock those of us who criticize the surge into a box from which escape is impossible. Not so much?
A. First, the discussion here was about the surge, and not the justification for the war itself. My concern is about the wisdom of the surge, in light of the CURRENT conditions in Iraq, our military capabilities, and long-term planning for Iran and stability in the Middle East. Saddam is dead. His human rights violations are irrelevant to the soundness of implementing the surge versus other options with respect to the lives of Iraq?s citizens today.
B. Second, the fact that Iraq?s citizens benefited from the removal of Saddam and his regime does not mean that the US is not accountable for those Iraqis who have died from our ineptitude in managing the post-war political regime change. Our analysis of the current policy choices should be driven by balancing our ability to improve conditions for the Iraqis against the potential loss of American life. Exposing more Americans to injury and death with a small military surge that is not likely to help the Iraqis because it?s coupled with inadequate political adjustments serves neither American nor Iraqi interests.
C. Third, since you ventured off topic? you are attempting to rewrite the reason for invading Iraq. Colin Powell did not appear before the UN to decry Saddam?s human rights violations (which had been going on for years and years), but instead, to claim an imminent threat from this development of WMD as justification for war.
D. Fourth, again on your off topic point? your logic that one must support the war in Iraq (and presumably, the surge (though there is no logical connection)), if you have ever supported intervening in a country where human rights violations and/or genocide was occurring is hopelessly flawed. By your own logic, should we presume that you are prepared to state that the US must invade and overthrow the government in any country in the world where such abuses are occurring? China? North Korea? Despite our grand and noble intentions, the US has never done that, because we have always ? sometimes with horrifying results ? balanced those good intentions against our national interests. While the all or nothing approach has a certain appeal to me, and depending on the day, it could be all or nothing, I recognize that policy decisions are not a matter of black and white? unless you?re a partisan.
posted by dalea on
NDxxx, as one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the gay right, deserves his own name. From now one, I shall refer to his illuminating intellect, his scintalating prose, his overwhening view as: fecal matter. Which strikes me as an appropriate reference that does not feed the trolls.
In any event, as I said before: IGF=affirmative action for dumb people. A statement that seems more true with each passing post.
posted by thom on
dalea ~
Your comments are not helpful.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thom, let me demonstrate something to you here.
Your statement:
With respect to your exchanges with Randi, he?s a liar and a ?duplicitous leftist.? For both of you, in this forum, I suggest you state a fact and post a link to the site you believe demonstrates or evidences that fact. Likewise, where you believe the other has falsely stated a fact, provide the links to demonstrate that, and leave the ?liar? allegations out of the discourse.
A quick lesson for you, Thom; hyperlinks are those odd groupings of words that are underlined and a different color than the text surrounding them; when you roll your pointer over them and click your mouse or touchpad button, they will direct your browser to bring up the page on the Internets that they reference.
Hyperlinks are endemic in my posts, such as here, in which they outline facts concerning Saddam Hussein’s abuses and reference sites specifically related to them, and here, in which they provide the link to the posts in question to demonstrate that Randi is in fact stating matters falsely.
Now, what seems to be clear here is that you refuse to recognize those hyperlinks and insist that I am not providing links, even though they are plainly obvious throughout my posts.
Furthermore, in reading over your attempt to prove your case with links, I notice something; instead of citing what our military leadership is saying today, you cite examples from December, which are not relevant to their current position.
Why? Because they support the surge. They asked for the surge to be implemented immediately. They made it clear that opposition to the surge was giving encouragement to the enemy.
In addition, if one actually reads Shoomaker’s argument, one sees immediately that his main problem is in rules that restrict and unnecessarily bind the National Guard from training and deploying in the manner in which they were intended when our active-duty forces were reduced in favor of more Guard units.
As for your challenge, I say yes, emphatically; those Republicans who are in opposition to the surge, most notably Sam Brownback, are more concerned with political gain than anything else.
As are you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you were eager and able to point out the one time I was wrong about you lying but not the other 8 lies of yours I mentioned at January 25, 2007, 5:31pm. That’s because you know you lied and you can’t prove otherwise or as we’ve seen you wouldn’t hesitate to do so.
You have failed to demonstrate that Saddam committed genocide on the same scale as the massacre in Rwanda. Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 were killed there not to mention all who were displaced. The link you gave on the Marsh Arabs mentions that most were displaced but not how many were killed. The 500,000 children who died was not a result of genocide but the link you provided blames it on sanctions. In any event the children were not intentionally killed.
As we can see here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
between 540,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the less than three years since the war started. That is more than were killed during any similar time period during Saddams rule. At this rate by the time the war goes on for a few more years undoubtedly more Iraqis will die than did during Saddam’s rule overall. Clearly on a day to day basis Iraqis are worse off now than they were during any time during Sadam’s rule.
Northdallass said “why are you crying over Iraqi innocents when, as I made obvious above, you didn’t care that 500,000 children alone starved to death?”.
Again you lie. Of course I care about everyone that has died there. What concerns me is that on a day to day basis more people are dying there now then did during anytime during Saddam’s rule.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, your statement for “inspectors” as a solution is fatally impaired by the fact that leftists like yourself and your governments voluntarily and deliberately removed inspectors from Iraq to placate Saddam and the United Nations and repeatedly argued that sanctions should be WEAKENED on Iraq”.
You lied. I never advocated that weapons inspectors be removed or that sanctions be weakened. I was adamantly against that and your suggestion that people “like me” would do so is a bald faced lie.
Northdallass responded “LOL….that requires me to believe, Randi, that someone like yourself who goes to enormous lengths to minimize and excuse what Saddam was doing still felt the need for him to be under any type of inspection or sanction requirement. That’s like insisting that someone isn’t a criminal, but demanding that the police watch their house 24/7 to prevent them from committing crimes; it makes no sense.”
I didn’t say Saddam wasn’t a criminal and I didn’t excuse his actions. Your insane assertion that my position is the opposite of what I’ve told you demonstrates the extremes you’ll go to to deceive.
Fortunately you don’t fool anyone with that kind of stupidity.
At January 25, 2007, 6:44pm Northdallass provided a link to supposedly counter my point that gays were better off under Saddam than they are now. Laughably, the link shows what I said to be true and disproves Northdallass’s assertion that the opposite was the case. He quotes Ali Hilli talking about bad times during Iraq but typical of his duplicitous nature fails to include the sentence immediately following that quote:
“Now, Hili says, he is heartbroken to see that, three years after Saddam?s fall, life for gay people in Iraq is even more unbearable than before.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Thom said “With respect to your exchanges with Randi, he?s a liar and a ?duplicitous leftist.? For both of you, in this forum, I suggest you state a fact and post a link to the site you believe demonstrates or evidences that fact. Likewise, where you believe the other has falsely stated a fact, provide the links to demonstrate that, and leave the ?liar? allegations out of the discourse.”.
For starters Thom, I’m a she, not a he. I take your statment very seriously because I never knowingly say anything thats untrue. How about you follow your own advice and provide a link, or as I did thread address, time stamp, and quote of where you think I lied. In case you didn’t notice, that’s exactly what I did with Northdallass. It was he who failed (of course) to provide quotes of me demanding public sex, or “tearing down normal and married couples as “stepford wives”. And who are you to be calling me a liar and then suggesting I don’t use the same terminology?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I said “between 540,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the less than three years since the war started” in my post at January 26, 2007, 2:35pm.
That should have been: “between 540,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the less than four years since the war started”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is quite interesting.
As we can see here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
between 540,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the less than three years since the war started.
All one can say is that “between 540,000 and 600,000” is a very interesting way to interpret that particular counter.
As for the Ali Hili thing, what you obviously missed is the interesting statement that Hili believes gays were better off being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and killed under Saddam. While I admire Hili’s commitment to the Ba’athist regime that arrested and tortured him on a regular basis, one must wonder exactly why he holds it in such high esteem — and why he thinks it is so much better, especially since he conveniently ignores the fact that the messages he is supposedly getting from Iraq were impossible to send under Saddam Hussein’s iron control.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, that is rather embarrassing. Seems I added an extra zero in there.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
However, a study published in the Lancet does estimate 650,000 deaths in Iraq since the war started in 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, Randi; after all, we shouldn’t expect you to stick with a source that doesn’t prove what you already believed in the first place.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Northdallass, we shouldn’t expect you to admit you’ve lied when its obvious you have.
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
where at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. Or in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31151.html#commentform
where at January 11, 2007, 5:14pm you told the whopper and said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified” or at January 11, 2007, 5:06pm where you lied and said “you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian.” or at January 13, 2007, 11:27am where you lied again several times in that post – I didn’t defend suggestions that the christian bus driver be abused, I said the wrong was mitigated by the bus drivers hateful actions; I didn’t claim that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, I said they were no more likely to than gays; I didn’t claim that because I’m gay I know your god is evil and the buy-bull is crap, I know it because of the words in your buy-bull itself. Words you cannot defend as I pointed out in my post at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm. At January 13, 2007, 11:27am you lied and said “gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either” – I said no such thing. At January 15, 2007, 3:22pm you lied saying “After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link [regarding Minnesota law]is a lie” – I never said it was a lie but that what you said was an allegation to me as I didn’t read the link.
I can admit where I made mistakes. Now its your turn to admit where you’ve lied again and again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, Randi, you miss the point.
As I made clear here, you can’t accurately read your own sources.
As I made clear here, you can’t accurately read other peoples’ quotes.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
No, Northdallass you miss the point. I’m imperfect and I’ve admitted where I make mistakes. You are a habitual liar and you won’t admit it although its plain for all to see.
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
where at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. Or in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31151.html#commentform
where at January 11, 2007, 5:14pm you told the whopper and said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified” or at January 11, 2007, 5:06pm where you lied and said “you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian.” or at January 13, 2007, 11:27am where you lied again several times in that post – I didn’t defend suggestions that the christian bus driver be abused, I said the wrong was mitigated by the bus drivers hateful actions; I didn’t claim that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, I said they were no more likely to than gays; I didn’t claim that because I’m gay I know your god is evil and the buy-bull is crap, I know it because of the words in your buy-bull itself. Words you cannot defend as I pointed out in my post at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm. At January 13, 2007, 11:27am you lied and said “gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either” – I said no such thing. At January 15, 2007, 3:22pm you lied saying “After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link [regarding Minnesota law]is a lie” – I never said it was a lie but that what you said was an allegation to me as I didn’t read the link.
I can admit where I made mistakes. Now its your turn to admit where you’ve lied again and again
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..Randi, again, what you forget is that what got you into this mess in the first place is when you falsely accused me of lying.
Then you just made it worse by falsely citing a clear source.
So, in short, you’re trying to cover up the fact that you’re wrong by repeating the same behavior that got you into trouble in the first place.
And that really lays bare your problem here; you lack the self-esteem to admit that you were wrong without having to tear other people down in the process and try to make them look bad — so you don’t look as bad in comparison.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Actually, Northdallass, if you check the timestamps I gave you earlier you’ll see you started the mess with your lie that I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives” and when you lied saying “sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified”. An honest person would have to admit they lied or quote me demanding public sex and tearing down married or normal couples as “Stepford wives”. You do neither because I didn’t say anything of the sort and you’re not honest enough to admit it. All your left with is the pathetic hope that if you harp on the couple of mistakes I freely admitted that people won’t notice you can’t back up these words you falsely attributed to me with actual quotes.
posted by dew on
Randi, did you actually read thom’s post? I did. I don’t see how he called you a liar. He listed the things that northdallasthirty said about other people, including you, and asked both of you to stop calling each other liars. Am I missing something?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You do neither because I didn’t say anything of the sort and you’re not honest enough to admit it.
Actually, it’s more because you’ve already demonstrated that you are not competent to read them or understand them.
But go ahead and think what you want. I understand that your self-esteem is so fragile that you must, absolutely must continue this behavior of tearing others down. I can handle continued verbal abuse from your direction; there’s no need to completely crush you publicly, given the havoc it could wreak on both you and your sex partners.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Dew, did YOU read Thom’s post? At January 25, 2007, 9:00pm the 11th paragraph in he said “With respect to your exchanges with Randi, he?s a liar and a ?duplicitous leftist”. How is that not calling me a liar?! What part of “he’s a liar” don’t you understand?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, now your projecting. My self esteem is fine, unlike you it isn’t so weak that I can’t admit when I’m wrong. I point out that you lied when you said I “tear down married and normal couple as “Stepford wives” and that you lied when you said I demand public sex and I’m supposed to be the one tearing you down – that’s rich. Its not tearing you down to demand that you admit you lied because you can’t quote me saying such things. Out of the eight lies of yours I pointed out at January 27, 2007, 1:48pm you have failed to deal with a single one of them because you don’t know what honesty and right and wrong really mean.
And then to top it off in your last post you can’t resist lying yet again by saying I have sex “partners“. I have one sex partner. I’m telling the truth about you but in your twisted world its too much to ask you to do the same for me. We are that monogamous LGBT couple you keep complaining doesn’t exist, but instead of acknowledging and celebrating that you have to lie to tear us down instead. You’ve proven again and again that you don’t care about reality, you’ll just keep lying about LGBTs because you get a twisted thrill antagonizing the innocent – much like that “god” you worship.
posted by ETJB on
(1) Iraqi gays were going to FU no matter who runs things in Iraq. In Iraqi the situation for women and gays started to decline in the 1990s. But perodic crack downs are perhaps preferable to a daily death squad. Yes, it would be preferable to avoid either situation. But it is not going to happen, and the pro-Iranian Iraqi government is likely to become obsessed with sexual morality.
(2)
posted by dew on
Randi, in thom’s post, the paragraph you mentioned, he’s talking about what northdallasthirty said about you. It’s not what thom’s saying, but what northdallasthirty said. Are you incapable of understanding context? Seems like your desire to label everyone else a liar overwhelms your ability to actually read things plainly. Get a grip.
posted by thom on
To Randi Schimnosky ~
Although the following is probably a wasted effort, let me try one more time to help you understand what I said in my January 25, 2007, 9:00 p.m.
First, please note to whom the post is addressed: “To North Dallas Thirty ~” It’s not addressed to you. Can you see that? Do you understand, therefore, that the statements contained therein are NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU?
Second, the first few paragraphs explain that I am engaging North Dallas Thirty for purpose of illustrating that he is hopelessly partisan. I then go on to cite examples of his behavior, such as assuming that I’m a “leftist democrat” who hates the military, accusing Mark of loving European governments, and calling you a liar. Anyone reading my post, apparently like “dew,” can see that I’m listing various inappropriate statements made by North Dallas Thirty, and am in no way calling you a liar. (Nor did I call North Dallas Thirty a liar either — that’s the point, since you’ve seem incapable of getting it.) I then go on to ask both of you, which is the fair thing to do (even though my entire post is devoted to illustrating North Dallas Thirty’s partisanship), to refrain from calling each other liars, and instead, state your facts, provide links and let us decide who’s lying.
With your amazing intellect, did it not occur to you that the reason I did not cite examples of your “lying” was because I wasn’t calling you a liar?
Moreover, did you ponder why I would deny calling you a liar, if I had so publicly done so?
And on that score, I do not appreciate your conduct in emailing me privately. and then posting my response with my full name in this public forum. That was completely wrong. I have no problem with you posting my response, but including my full name is a breach of blog courtesy and etiquette.
For that, and for your ongoing mischaracterizations of my post (i.e., thom called me a liar), you owe me an apology. I won’t hold my breath though. It’s clear now that you’re no better than North Dallas Thirty — hopelessly partisan and incapable of hearing anything that doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions of the world.
thom
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Randi, again, you miss the point; you whine that your self-esteem is fine, but then keep trying to tear other people down who expose that you cannot read or understand sources.
I do feel somewhat bad that I didn’t warn Thom of your habit of sending hate emails to people who disagree with you; however, it seems he’s learned the hard way that any response can and will be used against you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Dew and Thom, of course I am aware you were talking to Northdallass. In the statement in question you said “With respect to your exchanges with Randi, he?s a liar and a ?duplicitous leftist”. If you were quoting Northdallass you should have added the words “you said” and put that whole statement in quotes itself. Now surely you can see that because you failed to do that I naturally interpreted that as you telling Northdallas I am liar. I will accept that that was not your intent but I owe you no apology for your poor grammar giving me that understanding.
I am sorry I put your whole name in my post, that was wrong.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, my pointing out your lies isn’t tearing you down anymore than your pointing out my mistakes is tearing me down. You just have to accept reality that if you lie about people they’re going to point it out – you don’t have any right to do that without being criticized for it.
At January 27, 2007, 11:14pm you lied by referring to me having sex “partners” when I only have one. At January 27, 2007, 1:48pm I posted a mere eight of the perhaps 100 lies you’ve told about me. If you can’t (and you can’t) quote me making those statments you’ll just have to accept the reality that your lies have been exposed and that that is who you are. If that crumbles your self-esteem then the solution is not for me to reward your evil by failing to point it out, but for you to start being honest and stop making stuff up about LGBTs like me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi, here’s the problem (emphasis mine):
If you can’t (and you can’t) quote me making those statments you’ll just have to accept the reality that your lies have been exposed and that that is who you are.
In short, you’ve already made up your mind that it happened.
Just like you’d already made up your mind that I lied here and that your source said something else here.
Now, you obviously read the website you quoted. You obviously read Carl’s quote that I cited. Yet in both cases you flagrantly and completely misrepresented what was there.
Again, Randi, you expect us to believe that a leftist like yourself would be so ignorant and negligent as to screw up quotes and sources that are that blatantly obvious?
Simply put, that’s twice now you’ve been shown the obvious and ditched it in favor of your own fantasies and accusations. What on earth do you think would make us believe you’re not doing it now — especially given, as the incident with Thom demonstrates, that you will do any number of hateful things in an attempt to smear someone? Your revealing Thom’s identity may have just outed Thom’s boyfriend and forced him to resign from his career — all so that you could take hate-filled revenge on a blogpost.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, if I had made up my mind and was immovable about being wrong, I wouldn’t have admitted I was wrong in that particular point as I did. Obviously I admit when I’m wrong, and you do not. So that’s twice now you’ve pointed out I’ve made a mistake and twice that I’ve admitted it. However you have (obviously) failed to point out where I was wrong when at January 27, 2007, 11:14pm you lied by referring to me having sex “partners” when I only have one and at January 27, 2007, 1:48pm when I posted a mere eight of the perhaps 100 lies you’ve told about me. No matter how you whine and wail and point fingers elsewhere it doesn’t cover up the fact that you can’t quote me making those statements because I didn’t – you lied, habitually and unrepentantly.
posted by thom on
Randi and North Dallas Thirty ~
I have a suggestion. How about we let this go, close out the discussion on this topic, and move on? This horse has been beat to death.
thom
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Thom, as soon as Northdallass admits his mistakes as I have I’ll be happy to let this go. He repeatedly posts those mistakes I freely admit but then asks people to believe he’s not posting quotes of me demanding public sex or “tearing down normal and married couples as “stepford wives” because I won’t admit when I’m wrong or because he wants to spare my self esteem – puhleeeze, if I was wrong about that he wouldn’t hesitate to demonstrate it and would never let me forget it as we’ve seen.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Fine by me, Thom.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yeah, Northdallass, just like the lying coward you are you leave without acknowledging your obvious lies.