"So by all means investigate Haditha. Try and convict any who broke the rules of war, and sullied the honor of the U.S. Marine Corps.
But please spare us the scripted outrage that is simply cheap cover for wanting Iraq to end as Vietnam, as there appear ten stories on Haditha for every one about either an American victory over terrorists or help for Iraqi civilians. Any true moralist who cares for the Iraqi people should pray that this war doesn’t devolve into helicopters on the embassy roof — followed by the old predictable liberal silence when the real killing begins."
2006-06-09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
IS HE SAYING THE REAL KILLING HASN'T STARTED YET???
Ask the Iraqi people if the killing has started. Ask American soldiers if the killing has started.
THERE IS NO GOOD NEWS COMING FROM IRAQ!
Any progress that American corporations have made after destroying Iraq's infrastructure and killing thousands of Iraqis is negated by the fact that they are reconstructing things that the US military destroyed in an illegal war in the first place!
You can keep preaching about the good but all you are doing is trying to sell the death and destruction that you have wrought with your own hands.
Slinger, you, Paul and Victor Hanson should go to Iraq and fight this damn war yourselves. Then you can get down to THE REAL KILLING.
Nobody wants Iraq to end as Vietnam did, though it already is being run like Vietnam.
The point is that neither war should have been started in the first place.
US troops should be unilaterally withdrawn from Iraq. Now!
That will prevent Iraq from turning out like Vietnam.
===Nadir===
IS HE SAYING THE REAL KILLING HASN'T STARTED YET???
===========
If the anti-democrats win, and the Americans leave, the casualties caused by Americans will surely pale in comparassion to the killing by people who target civillians as a matter of their highest honor.
Consider Vietnam, before the Americans left and after. The troops there received then the same depiction that the US press and liberals now apply to US troops in Iraq. When the US troops left Vietmam, they had to scrape horrified Vietnamese off their boots, who were begging to leave with them. Then massive killings and suppression began, much worse than 1,000 Mai Lais. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese subsequently fled Vietnam, thousands dying in the ocean, their favorite target: the evil, wicked, racist, the-poor-stay-poor US.
Compare the lot of post-US Vietnam to that of South Koreans, where the evil US troops triumphed. Did the US establish there puppet governments, exploiting its people to the brazen benefit of US fatcats?
Nadir: Please explain how US "businesses" benefit by destroying Iraq's infrastructure and killing its people. Can dead people purchase ipods? Can people without running water purchase Dell computers?
The anti-democrats started winning when Bush violated international law by invading Iraq. The anti-democrats won because the majority of the world was against that illegal deployment, but you war mongers invaded anyway.
Vietnam is a great analogy for you right-wingnuts to keep using. Keep it up.
The Vietnamese were fighting for self-determination after ridding themselves of French colonial control. The US should have stayed out of that country.
The war was unwinnable. That's why US troops were there for 20 years.
The US presence caused all Vietnamese to take sides. Like all people who don't want to die (the Iraqis included), civilians pledged their allegiance depending on who is pointing a gun at them at a particular time.
When the US troops left, those who sympathized and cooperated with the Americans were left in danger. The same is true now as evidenced by the attacks against Iraqi puppet government institutions.
The massacres at Haditha and My Lai are symptomatic of the racism and elitism at the root of the American psyche.
South Korea is still under US occupation. That very fact has and is impeding the reunification of Korea - a reunification that both sides want because it would be beneficial to all Koreans.
Vietnam is unified, and your government has normal diplomatic relations with them. So I guess it has worked out fine for them. Probably better than it has for the North Koreans, who have to manufacture nuclear weapons to feel safe from US attack. Better than it has for the South Korean people who want the US to leave their pennisula, but are held at gunpoint by US forces.
"Nadir: Please explain how US "businesses" benefit by destroying Iraq's infrastructure and killing its people."
I refer you to the post below for just one example.
http://reformedleftist.blogspot.com/2006/05/how-bush-administration-deconstructed.html
My father served two tours of duties in Vietnam. I've seen the photos that were his "war trophies". Don't tell me that REAL killing doesn't happen when US troops are around.
You don't know shit about it.
Nadir: Have you seen photos of the "war trophies" taken by the VC and ARNV, before and after Siagon fell?
Nadir: Why did so many Vietnamese try to immigrate to the nation from which men like your dad hailed?
Nadir: I concede that you have a point with your reference to the "Reconstructed" article. You may remember that article had an impact on me, and one that lingers. I agree that it does demonstrate how a particular US business can profit from having US forces destroy infrastructure: a specified US business then charges US taxpayers to rebuild the destroyed structure, with an incentive to prescribe the most elaborate remedy, and an incentive to not finish the job. However, the overall longterm on the the US economy would be negative.
"Have you seen photos of the "war trophies" taken by the VC and ARNV, before and after Siagon fell?"
No, but I'm certain that both sets would show "REAL" killing and not "imagined" killing.
"Why did so many Vietnamese try to immigrate to the nation from which men like your dad hailed?"
Men like my dad were following the orders of the assholes who wanted to control Vietnam's mineral wealth and political conditions. My dad was a pawn, and I would suspect the Vietnamese people whom he befriended there (there are pictures of them as well) had no problem with him as a person, especially if they were to meet under different circumstances.
"However, the overall longterm on the the US economy would be negative."
Absolutely. In fact, the short-term effect has been negative for the general economy.
Those US businesses that have seen short-term benefits are:
- Weapons Manufacturers who saw an increase in orders once there was a shift from a post-cold war military to an active war military.
- Oil companies who have taken the speculation and shifts in the petroleum commodities markets and logged record profits, though production levels of crude oil have not been reduced.
- Finance companies who are loaning the US the money to buy more weapons. Many of these companies are foreign companies though.
- Security firms who are supplying mercenaries to the US military effort in Iraq.
- Military and oil services contractors of which Haliburton is both. They are rebuilding (or not rebuilding, as the case may be) Iraqi infrastructure and both temporary and permanent US bases in the country.
One observation that I have been making since before the war: the Bush family has ties to ALL of the above industries. Imagine that!
Bush started a war that has been negative for the US economy, has sullied the reputation of the United States among friend and foe alike, and has made the world a more dangerous place. But his friends and relatives have made millions in profits since the buildup toward the war.
Nadir: You have claimed that "war is good" for economies, but here you recognize that this one is bad for the US economy overall, though good for a few companies. Surely the wickedly evil Bushies could not have hoped to win reelection with a war that damaged the economy overall, while benefitted a few companies.
Post a Comment