I always loved how they try to gain sympathy by chatting in a foreign language and waving a foreign flag.I just wonder how much longer it's going to be before we start waving a foreign flag on the lawn of the White House."I pledge allegiance to the flag of the [fill in the blank]..."
these people that are demonstrating in this video are not demonstrating because they want to be Americans... no, they want to bring Mexico to America.and the judge along with their supporters are basically handing it over to them.
OFIR + New Nation = Racists
ANON 11:28 PMChe = murderer of woman and children. You should not breed, you are too stupid.I can't see how anyone would think Che is such an idol. He murdered women and children. I guess that is the mexican way. Rape and murder women and children. Robin, it will be the mexican flag that will be pledged to. I think we need to finish the mexican-American war. That time is long overdue. Mexico has committed too many acts of war within the last few years. We can take their oil and gas resources and a bonus will be their nice beaches. We can then deport all mexicans in North America to south of that border.
Why does Oregonians for Immigration Reform have a page on 'New Nation'? http://www.newnation.org/OIR/oir.html
Dave, Che was Cuban ... Robin, in a real democracy, we wouldn't pledge allegiance to anything.
Actually Che is Argentinian.
ANON 12:06 AMChe was not cuban. He was an argentinean. He was a mass murderer.We are a republic, not a democracy.Anon 11:26 PM, why have you not denounced obama, holder, the new black panthers and the democratic party for their racism? The fact that you don't denounce all racists means that you are a racist and a bigot. Keep throwing the word racism around and soon it won't mean shit. It already has lost a lot of its power through overuse. Keep using it. By the way, OFIR is not racist. You might want to stop smoking dope, it's making you very stupid. You also need to get out of y our mother's basement.Where is the evidence of racism from OFIR?
Only brainless morons think the illegal alien issue has anything to do with racism. We'd feel the same way if a majority of Canadians snuck into our country and did the crimes these jerks do.
Ok, he was Argentinian. I was responding to this:"I can't see how anyone would think Che is such an idol. He murdered women and children. I guess that is the mexican way. Rape and murder women and children."The "mexican way?"Also, are you truly recommending we annex Mexico?
anon 9:44 AMI'm sorry, that was a bad sentence. I simply want the land, not the people. Most of the people have a third grade education and they have a lot of diseases. They should forfeit some of their property to repay us for the money we have spent on their citizens. They should also financially compensate the American victims for the crimes committed by their citizens. This sound reasonable to me. Such actions would also force what was left of mexico to force their citizens to act responsibly and stop committing crimes against Americans.
Dave: American soldiers murder women and children (and other innocent civilians, sometimes even Americans) all the time. This has been thoroughly documented and is ongoing in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Either you do not care what is done in the name of your country and flag and with your tax dollars, or you are not paying attention.
Wrong, 4:28: He doesn't care, and he's not paying attention.
Anon 4:28,You are a despicable liar. And a cowardly one at that; since you decided to post your bile anonymously, without links.Since when do American soldiers murder innocent women and children "all the time"? Where is your documentation? The very fact that you would use a broad, sweeping phrase such as "all the time" is indicative of your dishonesty.Do you even understand what the word "murder" means? And how can our military be running around, murdering innocents and causing mayhem, when recently we had four Navy SEALs face assault charges for the mere crime of allegedly roughing up a terrorist? Apparently, you aren't familiar with the current Rules of Engagement. They're very restrictive. If what you say is true, then we would be seeing a lot more court-martials, and they would be all over the news.Conveniently, you leave out the fact that the so-called "insurgents" we are fighting over there in Iraq and Afghanistan routinely hide behind women and children during warfare, using them as human shields. They even go so far as to strap bombs to women and children and send them into civilian areas to blow themselves up and take out as many people as they can with them. Does our military do that? Tell me, who was it that sawed off the head of Daniel Pearl, a civilian, with a dull knife? Who was it that murdered Nicholas Berg by beheading? Who was it that flew two planes into the World Trade Center and sent almost 3,000 innocent civilians to a grisly death? Is that done by our military?However, if the enemy's going to be a bunch of cowards and hide behind women and children just to save their own backsides instead of putting on a uniform and fighting like men, then the blood of those women and children will be on their heads, not ours. Does our military hide behind innocents? Does our military send children to blow themselves up around civilians? And don't tell me that we have only kids in the military; they are all of age, and they have signed up of their own volition.And they certainly don't need scum like you spreading lies about them or their mission.In war, there will always be collateral damage. It's unavoidable. But just because it happens does not mean that it is done indiscriminately. Friendly fire also accounts for casualties, but you make it sound like we're firing on our own people on purpose. If anything, we try to minimize the killing of civilians to the best of our ability, often to the detriment of the mission. It's the current ROE. That's not how war has traditionally been carried out. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to come here and accuse our military, who put their lives on the line, of murder, despite the facts listed here that are easily verifiable.Take your libel elsewhere.Anon 8:22,You know not of what you speak. 'Tis better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt.
FP, you're as naive as a 4-year-old who believes in the tooth fairy. The difference being: the 4-year-old will eventually realize there is no tooth fairy. How many hours a day do you spend marinating your brain on FOX News and/or listening to Lars/Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly? Why the hell should I bother helping you wade through your own sea of stupidity with "links"? As if that would help. I'd suggest that you take your own advice, but what with your laughably indignant rant, that horse is out of the barn. But hey, check under your pillow in the morning ... you might find a quarter!
4:28,You can make all the excuses in the world, but at the end of the day excuses are no substitute for sound argumentation. Neither are condescension and arrogance. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims, and you haven't done the first thing to make yourself credible. You can attack the messenger all you want, but it doesn't detract from the veracity of what I've said.Unlike you, I can back up my claims. It's time to put up, or shut up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Ka7y8XrPc&feature=youtube_gdataWatch this! If they want to become Americans this sure is hell is not the way to do it. This is BULL SHIT! I do not support these idiots or their 'cause' they can go back home and repair their own country not soil mine.Pinkie French
I can't attack the "veracity" of what you said, because there is none. You might as well ask me to prove or document that the sun came up this morning. Either you are aware of what is actually going on in the world, or you aren't, and you definitely are clueless. I can't help it if the global narrative you seek out every day is one that narrowly and neatly conforms to your hysterical paranoia and jingoistic John Wayne fantasies. Oh, wait ... I'm sure if some of our God-fearing, Mom-and-apple-pie lovin' all-American boys over there had done anything the least bit wrong, FOX News and Lars would have been all over it! Then you'd be awash in links galore!I refuse to argue with an idiot who is determined to remain ignorant. If you can find your way to this blog, then you have the ability (but not necessarily the will, of course), to find exactly what I'm talking about, within seconds. Open up a fucking newspaper for Chrissakes.
FP, are you aware of anything Wikileaks has released this year? Try that for starters, if you care.
Anon 10:38,More excuses from our resident coward. Merely declaring that my statements have no truth doesn't make it so. Back it up.The sun rose at 5:56am this morning in Portland, Oregon. It's documented and easily verifiable. If ordinary events such as this are documented, then surely documentation for your claims exist, don't they? It is up to you to prove your claims, not up to me to look them up. I'm not going to enable your laziness. Furthermore, why should I believe anything you say? Are you telling me that your authority is enough to establish veracity? I directly addressed your claim; so far you haven't done anything to refute it.Now, if I can make a claim (when the sun rose) and back it up with a link, then you can do it. Or are you trying to hide your incompetence with arrogance and name-calling?SP,From the New York Times:In a telephone interview from London, the organization’s [Wikileaks] founder, Julian Assange, said the documents would reveal broader and more pervasive levels of violence in Afghanistan than the military or the news media had previously reported. “It shows not only the severe incidents but the general squalor of war, from the death of individual children to major operations that kill hundreds,” he said.Wow. That's some revelation there. That war is hell and that innocents get killed.Are you going to tell me that war has never been this way until now?
FP, my final comment to you:No, I did not say "that war has never been this way until now." No one on this thread has made such a claim, so that fact that you actually ask the question (and think that my answer is going to somehow prove you right) serves only to illustrate your ineptness. I'm not going to hold your hand. I know from having studied intensively politics, history and current events for 30 years that I am on solid ground when I make the statement that:American soldiers murder women and children (and other innocent civilians, sometimes even Americans) all the time. This has been thoroughly documented and is ongoing in Afghanistan (and Iraq).I don't need to convince you or anyone else to know that the facts (99 percent of which are not reported on the "news" sources you very likely use) are ABSOLUTELY on my side, and in plain view for anyone who cares to take the time to look at them. But: If the reality illustrated by those facts happens to fall outside your field of vision because you've got your nose up Glen Beck's ass, that's not my problem. It's your problem, and if it makes you feel superior (and that you've "won") to dismiss my perfectly reasonable statement by saying that I haven't proved it, I don't give a flying fuck. Go for it. Don't sprain your arm patting your fool self on the back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Ka7y8XrPc&feature=youtube_gdataPROOF IS IN THE PUDDING..WATCH THIS AND DEFEND YOUR POINTS YOU COWARD DOUBLE TALKING DIPSHIT. Pinkie French
In Miglavia, a You Tube video of a few Latino protesters desecrating an American flag is "proof" that American soliders do not kill innocent civilians abroad.Welcome to Miglavia, and a big shout out to Pinkie French for this valuable insight into Miglavian "reality."
ANON 4:28 PMIt's called a war and innocents always die. Do you remember a town name Dresden in Germany? We burned that fucker down. We killed several tens of thousands of civilians. Why are you not crying about that town and those murdered civilians? Civilians will always die in war. I would rather their people die than Americans. Don't forget, thousands of civilians died in the twin towers. They started it. I hope we finish it.It's only murder because somebody calls it that.Maybe they would have less civilian dead if the civilians got more involved in fighting the taliban and al queada. The big problem with the Obama's cut and run policy and leaking the military files is that the natives will stop supporting us. They know we are gone soon and the taliban and al queada will be there waiting when we leave.For your fact, we have rules of engagement that currently put our military at big risk. Don't worry, there will be less dead civilians and more dead American troops for you to gloat over with our current ROE.All the sacrifices of blood and treasure will be for nothing. This will be another Vietnam. We win most of the battles but lose the war. If this happens again, just nuke the fucking country. Fuck them all.
What's amazing to me is how conservatives who are otherwise (rightly) suspicious of government basically turn off their bullshit detectors when it comes to the US military, which historically has demonstrated itself to be one of the most flagrantly dishonest institutions in the country. If the Wikileaks documents show anything, they show that the military has been lying about both the extent and frequency of civilian casualties. And has anyone forgotten how the military swung into full Bullshit Mode in when Pat Tillman was killed by "friendly" fire? How many times has the US military, in the last 40 or 50 years, claimed that "X is not happening" or that "X did not happen," only to have it be revealed later by the press, eyewitness accounts and their own documents that X did, in fact, happen, or that X is, in fact, happening? Only a drooling moron (like FP, Dave, Pinkie, etc.) would put ANY trust in ANYTHING that ANYONE in the US military says, and yet his comments show that he has completely internalized the lies, bullshit, and mythology of the US military propaganda machine, repeating patently absurd crap like "collateral damage" and other nonsense. Probably learned everything he "knows" about the Marines from watching Rambo.
FP will not be responding; he has his nose stuck in Glen Beck's ass. LOL!
557 so you have twisted this entire post to some crap about our military. YOU are too stupid to understand our military. This was about protecting our borders and I will be damned if I allow the likes of you to disgrace what our military has faught and died for. THE FREEDOM FOR YOU TO ACT LIKE A JERK. Pinkie FrenchAnd just so you know dumbass our military has done way more good then bad or wrong. So why dont you just go sit down to pee you little sissy and shut the hell up about what you know nothing of.
Anon 4:06,if it makes you feel superior (and that you've "won") to dismiss my perfectly reasonable statement by saying that I haven't proved it, I don't give a flying fuck.Nice attitude, slick. How is it possible for me to dismiss your "reasonable statement" while requesting proof of said statement? My entire rant was in response to your "reasonable statement".I don't need to convince you or anyone else to know that the facts (99 percent of which are not reported on the "news" sources you very likely use) are ABSOLUTELY on my side, and in plain view for anyone who cares to take the time to look at them.And what are these facts, anon? It's easy to come here anonymously and spout inanities about "facts", make allusions to "facts", and crow about how self-evident these "facts" are, yet you can't seem to find it within yourself to put forth the effort to actually name any of these facts from a reliable source when asked.I will grant that you answered one of my questions:Are you telling me that your authority is enough to establish veracity?Your answer:I know from having studied intensively politics, history and current events for 30 years that I am on solid ground when I make the statement that...American soldiers murder women and children (and other innocent civilians, sometimes even Americans) all the time.It almost goes without saying that, in a word, your response was a resounding Yes!In other words, your 30 years of study are enough to make accusations. You are your own authority. When challenged, you react with self-righteous indignation and contempt. To you, everything you've read or watched from approved sources is true, and all the truth you know is self-evident. Verification and proof are distractions. Anyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot.That's quite an article of faith you have there. Convenient, isn't it? It saves you the trouble of actually having to show your work. I already know what you believe; I just want to know how you arrived there. So far, to put it diplomatically, you've been coy.FYI: I don't listen to or watch Beck. So there goes another one of your unsubstantiated assertions. And even if I did, so what? How does that refute anything I've said?Anon 8:24,How does it feel to be wrong?
ANON 6:22 PMYou call our military one of the most flagrantly dishonest institutions in our country. You are such an idiot. You must think congress is one of the most honest and noblest institutions in our country. I bet you think obama, pelosi, reid, rangel and waters are the most honest people on the planet. You might want to keep your mouth shut when you don't have any knowledge on the subject. Our military does what it is told to do by the civilian government. That means obama has told them to do that. You either have forgotten how our government is run or you failed grade school.
Ah, Dave, my old friend Dave. What a piece of work you are. The only way you can respond to one of my comments is to insert into my mouth a comment I didn't even make in the first place and then attack the veracity of that. Pretty lame, Dave. Not unexpected, but lame.Let me walk you through this. No, it does not follow, contrary to your Miglavian attempt at "logical" deduction, that I "must" think Congress "is one of the most honest and noblest institutions in our country." In fact: I think it by far surpasses the military in terms of flagrant dishonesty, if only because its members spend so much time talking. And sure, I'll take you up on your bet that I "think obama, pelosi, reid, rangel and waters are the most honest people on the planet." You lose the bet. In fact: I think that Obama, et all, are among the most dishonest, hypocritical and shameless bullshitters American politics has ever seen.So what do I win? Never mind. Believe me, you've got nothing I want or need. Some friendly advice, though: Stay away from Vegas.Well ... shit. I actually came back here to respond, finally, and against my better judgment, to the idiot FP, to take the poor sap's hand and give him the "links" he so desperately craves, since he's spending so much time looking up sunrise data at Accuweather. Now after dealing with your silly ass (Dave), I'm not in the mood to deal with idiots anymore tonight.Maybe tomorrow.
Anon,Quit whining. You've wasted many keystrokes evading your responsibility to provide documentation for your specious claim.The more you bluster, the more I'm convinced that your arrogance and condescending attitude are a cover for your incompetence.
OK, FP. Let me explain to you words that should have been perfectly clear, words referring to a reality that is perfectly obvious. And just so we’re clear, once again, the words, in response to Dave’s 8:47 post:American soldiers murder women and children, and other innocent civilians, sometimes even Americans, all the time. This has been thoroughly documented and is ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Murder” is the unlawful killing of human beings with premeditation. I am not going to waste time and space citing umpteen references to the fact that the killing of civilians in warfare is illegal and considered a crime under international laws, laws that the U.S. is a both a signatory to and (when it suits its own purposes) an aggressive supporter of. I’m not interested in quibbling over semantics. I should have simply said “killed” because that is what I meant. However: While there is no question that both apply, if you have it fixed in your head that “murder” doesn’t and are going to rest your case on that flimsy proposition, then “kill” certainly does, and if you think it doesn’t, then this conversation truly is over. While we’re on semantics: No matter how many examples and links I give you, you’re surely going to come back and say “collateral damage.” I have studied military history. I know what collateral damage is. I know that it is inevitable. It is my opinion that the stated policies, tactics and weaponry that is used by the U.S. military in both Iraq and Afghanistan is such as to ensure not only that collateral damage is inevitable, but that it will occur in far higher numbers than is necessary, legal, or moral. But the point of all this is not my opinion. It’s fact: American soldiers murder/kill women and children, and other innocent civilians … all the time. That said, go to:www.iraqbodycount.org This is a reputable organization that tracks civilian deaths. It is exhaustively researched, in many cases going so far as to provide the names of those killed. Yes, you are correct that in any war, there is collateral damage. But when the numbers of innocent killed in what was supposed to be a cakewalk military operation numbers over a hundred thousand, it's not "collateral damage," bud. It's policy. See also:http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htmSee also the following Wikipedia article about the Lancet study of civilian deaths in Iraq. While I have read the study in full myself, I unfortunately cannot post a link directly to it because (last time I checked, anyway) it was at a subscription only site, and I don’t have a subscription. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualtiesSo here: You have literally tens of thousands of examples of how you are wrong. How's it feel? These people were not killed all at once, or all during the first week of the war. They were killed on the first day, the second day, the second week, the second month, the second year, last year, this year. All the time. I swear that not more than a day or two goes by when the newspaper doesn't have an article about some U.S. bombing where scores of innocents were killed. Enough of this. Between all this and the Wikileaks material cited by the anon above, you've got plenty of material to study, chock full of data that raises a shitload of questions that totally undermine your laughable and utterly naive defense of our allegedly lilly white military. That's not to say there aren't other sources to study, but if you were to seriously take the time to read this material, all of it, to give them the attention they deserve, you would be busy for long time. I have no illusions that you will, but I will not be surprised in the least if, in spite of that self-imposed state of ignorance, you come back with a half-ass response.
I want to say one more thing:An anon above mentioned the case of Pat Tillman. Here you have an instance where the forces of the government and U.S. military were marshalled to shamelessly lie, lie, lie, to go so far as to invent a complete fiction for the sake of a good PR story/recruiting tool. That's your tax dollars at work, FP.Interesting that you have not addressed that shameful affair, one that totally undermines the very institution you are bent on defending. But I, on the other hand, am a "despicable liar."
Dave said:This will be another Vietnam ... Hello? HELLO? HELLO!!! That is exactly what war protesters SAID would happen before we went there, dumbshit.
Not that I was expecting anything in the way of a serious response from FP, but I figured I'd at least be given the courtesy of being called an anti-American socialist. I guess there really isn't much he can say. Tens of thousands of dead civilians are pretty hard to hide, especially in those cases when their slaughter shows up on video:http://www.collateralmurder.com/The information I've provided is solid; he can't refute it, so the best he can do is trot out the tired old arguments (provided courtesy of those trustworthy souls with the U.S. government that conservatives claim to be suspicious of) about "collateral damage" and "rules of engagement." Which translates to, "I don't give a shit." But then, I already knew that.Another Miglavian "argument" bites the dust.
FP can't respond, he's too busy eating apple pie and hugging his mommy while watching a baseball game perched under an American flag.
4:28,Finally. You responded with some documentation. We could have gotten this over with sooner if you had dispensed with the huffing and puffing and gotten down to business.It is my opinion that the stated policies, tactics and weaponry that is used by the U.S. military in both Iraq and Afghanistan is such as to ensure not only that collateral damage is inevitable, but that it will occur in far higher numbers than is necessary, legal, or moral.And you arrived at this conclusion simply because there are civilian casualties? Have you forgotten that there's actually an enemy we're fighting over there? An enemy that not only hides behind civilians, but targets them as well? Where is your outrage toward them?I looked at the website iraqbodycount.org. There is an interactive graph on the bottom of the page where you can find out who it is that's killing civilians. Guess what I found out? From the period of January 2003 to December 2009, coalition forces killed 15,213 civilians, while anti-coalition forces killed 14,547 during the same period.So far, your opinion holds up... but not by much.However, there is another category of people killing civilians, and they are unknown agents (which, by definition, are not U.S. forces). From the website:The difficulty of reliably identifying many of the perpetrator groups behind civilian deaths in Iraq's post-invasion conflict (with the exception of uniformed forces) means that most of the deaths recorded by IBC are assigned to the Unknown agent category. However even from the minority of incidents where perpetrators could be positively identified, it is apparent that 2009's violence profile remains one where “anti-occupation” activity continues to play a central part in the deaths of Iraqi civilians and, most obviously, police or Government-allied targets (police forces members accounting for 1,172 (25.2%) of the deaths recorded by IBC in 2009).Guess how many civilians they killed from 01/2003 - 12/2009? 76,450. Remember, these were civilians that were NOT killed by the US Military.Add that number to the number of civilians killed by anti-coalition forces, and the total is 90,997, which is about 85% of the civilians killed in Iraq. That means the US Military has accounted for only 15% of civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003.And you still want to maintain that we kill civilians "all the time"?
(Continued from last post.)This is from one of the websites you provided. We are not responsible for the majority of civilian deaths over there. Apparently you have forgotten that there are other agents that blow up innocents.And the Lancet study? I'll let iraqbodycount.org do some of the talking:We would hope that...serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed....All that has been firmly documented as a result of the Lancet study is that some 300 post-invasion violent deaths occurred among the members of the households interviewed.Doesn't seem like they're too enamored of the Lancet study, do they? Remember, this is from a website you provided. And they're basically in the same camp as the Lancet people regarding the war:Do the American people need to believe that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed before they can turn to their leaders and say "enough is enough"? The number of certain civilian deaths that has been documented to a basic standard of corroboration by "passive surveillance methods" surely already provides all the necessary evidence to deem this invasion and occupation an utter failure at all levels.Exactly how does exaggerating the numbers to a factor of ten help your cause? If you feel the need to lie, then maybe your cause really isn't worth defending.From the UK's Times:A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset…Roberts said this weekend: "In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research."Yeah, there's no conflict of interest, is there? BTW, the article referenced above mentions that Soros himself is anti-war.I await your response.
I will respond later tonight, or tomorrow morning. Thanks for a serious response that sticks to issues.
FP,I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.I also think there is bitter irony in the fact that your lengthy post in which you attempt to downplay the role of the U.S. military in civilian deaths was posted on the 65th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, in which 80,000 civilians were instantly incinerated. If you choose to wait a couple more days to respond to this, you can reply on the 65th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Nagasaki, in which 40,000 civilians were instantly killed. Of course, if you realize that the death toll in those cities eventually rose to approximately 250,000. Civilians.You are also surely aware of the atrocious history of U.S. military action against civilians in Vietnam. Whether we are talking about My Lai, or Operation Speedy Express or any number of other actions, civilian deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands. So now we’re in the 21st century, and you apparently want to rest your argument that the U.S. military does not kill civilians on the proposition that, according to the best face you can put on it through numbers at Iraq Body Count, the U.S. has killed only 15,213 civilians (in Iraq) during a 7-year period!You have no argument.The statement that the U.S. military regularly kills innocent civilians is indisputable. We can quibble over numbers. You can try to shift the argument by saying that “the other guys” kill more. My comment was not about what the other guys do. It’s about what we do. And what we do is indisputable, and documented throughout history. Another observation:This entire discussion began because of my response to something Dave said: He claimed that Che was “a murderer of women and children.” “He murdered women and children. He made this accusation without offering a shred of evidence or documentation. It is worth noting that you did not demand that he prove his statement. I guess you have selective criteria for when you insist that a person back up incendiary statements. Dave gets a pass; I don’t.I attempted to verify Dave’s statement myself. I found numerous examples of right-wing ideologues (like him) making the exact same claim, but they all had one thing in common. None of them cited any evidence. What I eventually did find was the following comment by Jon Lee Anderson, an investigative writer who has written what is widely considered to be the definitive biography (800 pages) of Che Guevara. In an interview on PBS, he made the following statement:"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."I did have some comments about Lancet, but it seems moot at this point. I was fully aware of the disputes and arguments regarding it when I posted it, it was hardly a surprise. If you are interested, I’ll direct you to some further material on it tomorrow, but honestly, I don’t see the point. Even if one throws out the entire report, you cannot throw out 1) Nagasaki, 2) Hiroshima, 3) Vietnam, 4) 15,000 + civilians in Iraq. 5) And you didn’t even get into Afghanistan. You are entitled to dismiss the significance of U.S.-caused civilian deaths throughout history. You are entitled to not care. You are even entitled to argue that they are necessary and just. But you are not entitled to dismiss the FACT of their existence, of their ongoing occurrence. Yes: All the time. You are not entitled to call me a “liar” when I allude to those facts. In this case, the facts are on my side, not yours. And if you actually want to argue that the U.S. military is not responsible for the regular killing of innocent civilians, then you are the one who is lying.
No response, FP?
4:28,I've been working on a response as time allows. I won't be responding any more on this thread as it is pretty much dead.When did I dismiss the fact that civilians get killed in war? Where did I say the U.S. military does not kill civilians? To quote me:In war, there will always be collateral damage. It's unavoidable.Sounds to me like an explicit acknowledgment that civilian casualties occur. However, the issue is not the fact that civilian casualties occur. To quote you:It is my opinion that the stated policies, tactics and weaponry that is used by the U.S. military in both Iraq and Afghanistan is such as to ensure not only that collateral damage is inevitable, but that it will occur in far higher numbers than is necessary, legal, or moral.Your statement in bold is the issue. What, in your opinion, is the threshold for determining what is necessary or moral regarding civilian casualties during war? And what exactly is the legal threshold for civilian casualties? If we've crossed it, where is the indictment from an established legal body? Sorry, but the “court of international opinion” doesn’t count. If, in your opinion, the threshold for what's necessary, legal, or moral has been crossed by the U.S. military, then it's been crossed several times over by other agents and by every other military in the world, past or present, and it renders such standards virtually meaningless. I find it interesting that in your rebuttal, you left out the fact that agents other than the U.S. military killed over five times the number of civilians than coalition forces in the current conflict. So, why do you single out the U.S. military for derision? If greater atrocities are being committed by other parties, shouldn't a proportionate amount of criticism be drawn to it? Or are you admitting to a double standard when it comes to what you consider to be moral? What you lack is perspective. In other words, you criticize any actions taken by the U.S. military without putting into context the evils perpetrated by our enemies in any war. Or have you forgotten the war crimes in WWII committed by Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, and Mussolini's Italy? Have you forgotten the war crimes committed by the communists during the Vietnam war? Not only were any atrocities committed by our side amplified and hyped by the media, any communist atrocities (which was standard operating procedure for them) were either deliberately downplayed or ignored. What about atrocities being committed by radical Islamists in the current war, some of which are put on videotape (like the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg, both innocent civilians) and circulated on the internet? Any atrocities we've committed pale in comparison to atrocities committed by our enemies, an example of which I demonstrated with the much higher numbers of civilians killed by agents other than the U.S. military during the current conflict. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but deliberately and obsessively focusing on atrocities committed by the U.S. military while ignoring atrocities committed by any other party is not only lacking context, but is intellectually dishonest.It's not that I don't care about civilian dead, it's just that I find it unproductive and dishonest to harp on how immoral it is to kill civilians, yet ignore the even greater immorality of aggressive acts committed by our enemies that led to wars which caused the death of those civilians in the first place. It is, as you say, missing the forest for the trees.
My original statement: American soldiers murder women and children (and other innocent civilians, sometimes even Americans) all the time. Your statement: (that is relevant to the statement above): In war, there will always be collateral damage. It's unavoidable.FP, I stand corrected. Clearly, you completely agreed with me and this argument has been a waste of time.
Anon,What is it I'm not getting?Aren't you the one that came up with that oh-so-witty, yet irrelevant riposte to Dave's comment about Che?Do you not care about the over ninety-thousand dead civilians in Iraq, who were killed by someone other than the U.S. military? Is that little fact just too inconvenient for you?I suppose you don't even care that the late Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which was the terrorist wing of the Democrat party, yet served as a senator for over fifty years? That's about as relevant as the pope being a Nazi at one time, huh?And in the spirit of your comparison between Che and our troops: what do you think of all those union thugs and administrators who covered up and continue to cover up pedophilia in the public school system all the time?What was it you said? Oh, right:Either you do not care what is done in the name of your country and flag and with your tax dollars, or you are not paying attention.Substitute the phrase "your country" with "education" and that pretty much sums it up for you, doesn't it?Come to think of it, for a pretty evil bunch, the U.S. military strikes me as being rather inept. I mean, c'mon: they can't even kill half as many civilians as the enemy.
Sorry... posted in the wrong thread.
Post a Comment