Did you read Ward Churchill's post-9/11 reaction, "Some People Push Back"? It's not the incessant comparisons of Americans to Nazis that got me, or even the depiction of the 9/11 terrorists acting with "patience and restraint," but the more mundane, throw-away lines that nonetheless dripped with anti-Americanism.
"There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with," Churchill writes of contemporary Americans. "Getting 'Jeremy' and 'Ellington' to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little 'Tiffany' and 'Ashley' had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords." What else but compulsive hatred explains such prose?
Today, Churchill resigned as the chairman of the ethnic studies department at the University of Colorado. Hopefully the controversy will get people to question the whole idea of ethnic studies, rather than just one lunatic subsidized by such illegitimate departments. In two days, Hamilton College will host this man afflicted with a case of anti-American Tourette's. Hopefully the controversy will get alumni to question the whole idea of pouring their money into institutions that attack their values.
Dan,
I think the best thing to do is observe that, in likeness to David Horowitz's work on the subject, the casting of Americans as NAZIs is straight out of the Marxist handbook. This is a attributed to the repressive "death throes of Capitalism", ala Marx.
It was inspired by the Kremlin, forwarded by the CPUSA, and parrotted by quasi-Marxists.
It simply is no more impressive than quoting the Bible to an unbeliever. I think it is much better to say "Americans as NAZIs? Gee, we've never heard of that one before!" as sarcastically as we can muster.
They've been saying the same things over and over for about 60 years now. It's time to "move on".
More of Ward's greatest hits:
Ward Churchill calls for overthrow of America by force; "more 9/11's may be needed".
An America hating liberal academic? No!? So rare.
The Right Hates America: Exhibit A: Timothy McVeigh
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial9/mcveigh/
this dude isa total f@*king scumbag and should be shot for treason.
Reader, dude, McVeigh is about as liberal as you are. He's just liberal about a different cause, that's all.
The Right Hates America: Timothy McVeigh???? Is that all you can come up with???? Ive got a whole goody bag full of Liberal Idealists I can spew at you that have done a hell of a lot worse damage than McVeigh!
Timothy McVeigh was a conservative. He voted Republican, he was anti-tax, he wanted a smaller federal government. He served in the U.S. Army. He is one of yours.
Interestingly enough, Al Qaeda is also conservative. The organization shares essentially the same beliefs as the religious right--there is too much junk on television, not enough attention is paid to moral values, the culture is in decline, etc. Read Robert Bork's "Slouching to Gomorrah." It is essentially the Al Qaeda platform written by an American conservative.
Sea King: your post is too stupid to merit a thoughtful response.
James: I "came up with" (your phrase) both Timothy McVeigh and Al Qaeda. These two entities have done far more damage to America than Ward Churchill.
Last I checked Al Qaeda is not conservative, they are just plain ANTI-AMERICAN. They may vote republican(as you say, but I know they cant since they arent american citizens...duh), but I dont give a $hit...they still kill innocent Americans. Interestingly Communists love Democrats, Democrats love Communists. Do I see a trend here. Mao...The Kmer Rhuge...Stalin....Castro...Kim Jong Ill...Jane Fonda....John Kerry....Ward Churchill, and how about all the people who have stolen top secret info from our government and sold them to the Russians, Lybians and anybody who is the highest bidder and want to destroy our way of life. These people ive listed have done 1000X the damage McVeigh and Al Qaeda have put togather.
James: First, you need to check again. Al Qaeda is extremely conservative. They share most of the same beliefs as the American religious right.
Second, please re-read my post. I wrote that Timothy McVeigh voted Republican--not that members of Al Qaeda vote Republican. Go to http://www.hookedonphonics.com. The company has an entire reading system designed to help people like you comprehend written words better.
Third, your assertion that "Democrats love Communists" is idiotic. Where did you learn about this "trend" (your word)? Sean Hannity? Ann Coulter?
Finally, you need to get your facts straight. Al Qaeda committed the largest terrorist attack ever perpetrated on American soil. Timothy McVeigh blew up a large federal building in Oklahoma and killed hundreds of people. No one from the left has ever caused as much physical damage to the United States. The Right Hates America.
You didnt get my point. THE TALIBAN DOESNT CARE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN THEY HATE ALL AMERICANS THE SAME! The liberal leaning communist left hates America. Everybody will soon learn this.
'nuff said. I have spoken.
Timothy McVeigh didn't care if the people in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building were Democrats or Republicans. He hated all Americans the same. The Right Hates America!!!
theres a hell of a lot more muslim taliban and muslim al qaeda then there is 1 mcveigh. left has always and will always hate america. now shut up...i have spoken!
Saying that Al Qaeda and American Christians are the same because they both have conservative religious beliefs is like saying a giraffe is the same as a lion because they're both from Africa.
Ward Churchill is speaking truth with regards to the situation of 9/11. I commend his bravery and intelligence. Maybe if you people realize that Americans are not the be all end all of our world things would be a bit better. What gives us the right to kill others on their soil, then when they turn around and hit us with an attack that is not even slightly as bad, we go off and act like it's the end of the world? Oh, and what's more important, murdered innocents or Jeremy and Ellington's soccer game? The fact that you take offence to that statement shows that you have absolutely NO respect for human suffering. You will all start calling me anti-american and a communist for sure, and I am. Is there something wrong with believing ALL people are the same and deserve fair treatment, whether they are born in America or in Iraq? I don't think so. If you do than I would pray for your soul if I still believed in God. And no, I don't like Marx, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or any of the other "communist" dictators and jerks that you will probably all say I look up too. All leaders are tyrants, whether they be capitalist or "communist" and all leaders should be abolished.
P.S. Reader, maybe you should be shot for f@$#%ing stupidity? Learn to make more logical arguments. By the way, exercising the 1st ammendment is not treason.
If your Anti-American, stop spongeing off this society by receiving a paycheck here, sucking up my oxygen, and badmouthing this great country of ours. If you dont like this country, get the F@ck out!
If your Anti-American, stop spongeing off this society by receiving a paycheck here, sucking up my oxygen, and badmouthing this great country of ours. If you dont like this country, get the F@ck out!
That's funny... would you have told people fighting for civil rights in the 1950s and 60s to just 'get the f@ck out' since they don't 'like this country'? If everyone that "didn't like this country" just left, then slavery would still be the norm and women wouldn't be able to vote. Instead of fighting to make this country BETTER, everyone wanting to improve the country ought to leave. Tell us James, is there anything you would like to change about this country? Or is it simply perfect as it is? I'll tell you what I would like to change: government is inherently coercive and greed is a primary motivation. "All leaders should be abolished."
You Liberals are all alike, always have to throw the "race card" in the conversation. Ya'll need to find some other topic to argue with besides "race".
Sorry reader, I just realized that the name comes after the post and not before. What I should have said is "James, maybe you should be shot for f@#$ing stupidity." BTW I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical--liberals are weak and whiny, just like you. Also, maybe you weren't paying attention, but ALL tyrants suck, whether they are in America, Europe, Iraq, or Africa. Where then should I move to? ALL TYRANTS SUCK! Moving somewhere with another tyrant does nothing to improve the situation. And since when has the Earth's oxygen belong to you? I don't remeber selling you any of OUR oxygen. Get a clue. I also see that you have yet to learn to make logical arguments--you still prefer making aggressive attacks on people who disagree with your point of view. Oh, and so as to keep from playing the "race card" as you put it how about this--what about when white male christians such as yourself (at least I assume you are male due to your name and lack of coherent thought, and yes I am a male too and have the right to say that) were being screwed during the industrial revolution right here in the good ol' US of A? Do YOU still want to work 16 hours a day in a dangereous factory for not even enough money to feed your family (if you're lucky enough to have a job anyway). Should the people have just left because they were unhappy? Hell no! You fight to make things better, just like the women did in the 10s and 20s, just like the blacks did in the 50s and 60s, and just like the gays (and pretty much everyone else) are still doing today. I have spoken!
Ward Churchill is a typical freedom hating, blame America first socialist. His kind shouuld be thrown in jail. His ramblings are filled with trason, and sedition. If this collegecommie keeps shooting off his mealy mouth, he might find someone using his skull for a chamber pot at the next frat house toga party.
youre probably gay too, you queer! i have spoken! now be gone with you!
>yaaawn
im wasting my time talking to the likes of you ignorant people...goodbye
To James: Learn to make better arguments--"yawn" and "you queer" don't do anything to further your cause. Of course I broke that rule earlier in this post, but you deserve it. You call me ignorant yet you have yet to truly respond to any of my questions. Just because you can say nasty things to me doesn't make you smarter. I think you should consider having a civil conversation. Anyone can throw around insults, but few can actually argue, and yes there is a difference. BTW: What is wrong with playing the "race card" anyway? Race is an important issue, and unless you are nazi scum (in which case you better hope I never see you in real life) you should be concerned with it. Also, what is wrong with being queer. I have half a mind to cuss you out on this forum, but I at least have some amount of coherent thought.
To Jim Jones:
Ward Churchill is a typical freedom hating, blame America first socialist. His kind shouuld be thrown in jail. His ramblings are filled with trason, and sedition.
Wow, are you a hypocrite. You call him freedom hating yet say he should be thrown in jail. Can you say "freedom of speech"? The sedition and espionage acts were repeled you know (you probably didn't notice that though). Also, the red scare is over. You sound like a fascist trying to say that anyone who expresses opposition should should be jailed or killed. I think you should ask yourself if you truly love freedom. I think you are a "typical freedom hating" conservative--anyone who dissents should be jailed/beaten/killed etc. How do you think our democracy (so-called anyway) got started? People dissented against the British. Do you think Washington and Jefferson should be thrown in jail too? The reason we dissent is because we LOVE freedom, not hate it. As an anarchist I probably love freedom much more than you. Also, can you actually give me a definition of "socialist" because I doubt you have any clue what that means, otherwise you would call him a freedom hating socialist. That is a contradiction of terms. Also, what is your definition of "freedom"? I'm reminded of the lyrics of a song:
Some of the phrases in that rhetoric you're stuttering
must mean the opposite to you than it does to me.
yeah being scared and confused I guess is a part of freedom
is that what you wanted me to get out of that speech?
"The Expatriate Act" by World Inferno Friendship Society.
You and I have VERY different ideas of "freedom" and I doubt yours is anywhere near the actual definition. I think your definition is closer to the word "slavery" than it is to "freedom". Just some food for thought.
As posted by "somebody smarter than you": "As an anarchist I probably love freedom much more than you...." I seriously doubt that. Anarchists are terrorists who fight against freedom. so called freedom in their eyes are just like what the Taliban had. Women being beaten, children violated, terrorist acts against peaceful nations.
How dare you make a comparison of such patriots as Jefferson and Washington, to the likes of terrorist coddling Churchill. Churchill is a fraud, a charlatan. He has falsified his background, his credentials, and is no more of an American Indian than Osama Bin Laden. And Churchill has met with Kadafi in Libya. And we are supposed to give "freedom" to a known seditionist who is hell bent on destroying our nation simply because he can't get over the loss of his komrade in arms, John Kerry.
So are we to take any cosideration from an admitted anarchist,who would probably work to destroy this country simply because they ccan't have their way, or do we take words from someone who loves this country, and what this country was founded upon, and would defend her against enemies foreign and domestic.
Ward Churchill is a homegrown Anti Semite, Anti Christian, Anti Freedom, Socialist, Domestic Terrorist. His words only gives the terrorist murderers of Sept. 11 any viability.
Obviously you have no idea what anarchist theory is about. Anarchists are staunch feminists, so women being beaten in the streets is quite unlikely. Also, few anarchists are terrorists and the ones that are usually only destroy property, which honestly is a lot less valuable than the human and animal life we are liberating. I personally know nothing of Churchill other than what he wrote in Some People Push Back. From that I see no reason to label him an anti semite or anti freedom. I seriously doubt he supported Kerry either, I sure as hell didn't. Anti Christian maybe, more like anti religion in general. BTW Jefferson and Washington were murderers and slave owners, so to say they loved freedom is quite absurd. Our nation was founded not to foster democracy but to foster economic prosperity, look it up in a government textbook (I read it last night in fact). Also, try to tell an anarchist that they are like the taliban and see what they say. Let me stress this one last time--AS AN ANARCHIST I HATE ALL TYRANTS!!! Whether they be christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson or Muslim fundamentalists like bin Laden, or atheistic so-called communists like Lenin or Stalin, I hate them. They are the only people in the world I do hate, tyrants. Whether they are tyrants over land, money, govenment, or religion, they suck. Also, even if Churchill's credentials suck (which I do not have any info on) it does not affect the message he brings. His ideas in the essay in question are sound and important for us to heed.
Why wasn't Ward Churchill foaming at the mouth over genocide in Rwanda, Kosovo, Irag, and a few dozen other places?
The issues surrounding Ward Churchill are more important and complicated than anything this shake-and-bake leftist has said. As an academic myself, I'm concerned that this situation will serve as an opportunity for right-wing attacks on, and wild assertions about, all of Academe and especially the institution of tenure.
Tenure does serve a crucial role in ensuring that faculty feel comfortable in pursuing and speaking the Truth -- lofty as that sounds. But there's a two-way commitment. The faculty member in turn is assumed to be a professional who deeply and passionately loves a discipline, loves it enough to stay current in it, loves to talk about it and teach it, and to contribute in meaningful ways to it -- and this includes contributing work that can stand up to scholarly scrutiny from colleagues in the discipline. One certainly does have to wonder how Ward Churchill ever achieved tenure at a flagship state university. Given the very real possibilities being bruited about that he isn't even who he says he is, and hasn't done what he claims to have done in his life, you have to wonder as well if the hiring process broke down. The hiring committee was probably made up primarily of other ethnic studies faculty. But there had to be administrative approval up the line (been there and done that myself for several years). Did no one thoroughly check his references? And again, during the tenure process over a few years, probably no one but his own department was reviewing his work. And for the life of me, I can't figure out how a unversity hired a guy into a tenure-track position, and not only tenured him but allowed him to chair a department, without his having a doctorate. Curioser and curioser. Bringing politics into the classroom...hard to judge in a "discipline" like ethnic studies, which is usually an advocacy bull session rather than a serious research/teaching unit. Many colleges and universities have language in their faculty personnel policies about using instructional time appropriately, or something to that effect. Advocating for certain political viewpoints or actions rather than teaching about a subject would seem to pass beyond what a professor is hired to do and how classroom time is being spent. That may be one way to get at grounds for his dismissal. And if he in any way misrepresented himself as a minorty or lied about his credentials in employment forms, there is usually language on some of the personnel forms that would allow the institution to fire him for lying.
But let's not jump to damning conclusions about all of American higher education. One university for whatever reasons dropped the ball in its duty to hire, evaluate, and supervise a faculty member appropriately. Letting the sunshine in on Churchill hasn't actually been so bad. Let his irresponsible rants be publicized. Let it be pointed out that he's a hypocrite for taking good pay from the very democratic, capitalist system he would like to see destroyed, while cloaking himself in one of its noblest concepts, freedom of speech. Better yet, do what the universities did well for centuries: set up a series of debates at the Colorado campus -- or anywhere else -- between Churchill and scholars in real disciplines who can take him apart on the illogic and historical inaccuracy of his assertions.
As an anarchist you HATE ALL TYRANTS? Heh, you mean the ones that people like you coddle and appease? Please, if it weren't for American freedom fighters, which you hate ipso facto, all of Europe would be a satellite of the Third Reich and would be devoid of all minorities, the Middle East would be controlled by A TYRANT, you idiot, and southeast Asia would be controlled by imperial Japan, maybe with China and North Korea vying for control. Give me a f(_)cking break. Let's check this out:
Anarchism - Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).
You would rather remove the idea of government control mechanisms, like a functioning military and police force, because you find them coercive? Well, you dumbass, what about the other countries/cultures/groups that won't follow your rules, will build up a superior force, and oppress everyone with whom they disagree? Peace can only be cultivated through and fostered by the strength of nations of good will. Get your head out of your worthless ass and read some Kant, bitch.
The middle east is controlled by a tyrant. Several of them actually. Also, maybe you should look into history a bit more. Anarchists were the first ones fighting against the fascists in Europe. Look at the Spanish Civil War. In fact, the government forces were the reason Spain fell to Franco. They refused to support the anarchists early on in the struggle, leaving them out to dry. We all know what that led to. Many brave American freedom fighters defied American government orders and went to Spain to fight fascists anyway. Don't tell me the American government is the reason Europe is free of Nazis ad fascists, the area is free in spite of the American government's all too late actions to stop the spread of tyranny. Oh, and what about the American fascists who jailed Japenese Americans. Don't tell me our govt gives one iota about freedom. Many American capitalists offered support for the Nazis (Ford being a good example) and our government did't do a damn thing.
If other countries want to attack, that doesn't mean we can't mobilize a military for our defence. Once people experience true freedom they will not let others take it away.
Susan, there never was a tenure process for Churchill; he was hired with tenure, without a PhD of course! Nor was this a case of anyone having "dropped the ball." There were thirty-nine applicants for the position to which Churchill was appointed, and it is curious, to say the least, that none of them could be given preference over Churchill on the basis of academic credentials. You state:
"Better yet, do what the universities did well for centuries: set up a series of debates at the Colorado campus -- or anywhere else -- between Churchill and scholars in real disciplines who can take him apart on the illogic and historical inaccuracy of his assertions."
I agree in principle, however, what you call for will not happen in practice. There will not be a debate because very little debate regarding political matters actually takes place on American campuses. At most what one can see are shouting matches between protestors and counter- protesters of various sorts. The "debate" then consists in the exchange of slogans. Few if any professors would be inclined to "take him apart" because they are a) in agreement with him, b) more concerned with their own narrow fields of study, or c) afraid that any response to Churchill might support right-wing calls for the abolition of tenure, which they most assuredly do not want. Indeed, the professors of CU have already demonstrated their lack of interest in the matter. The essay "Some People Push Back" was written over three years ago, and it is telling that only now is Churchill being subjected to criticism for the essay's content, not by other faculty members of CU, but by right-wing commentators! The worst part of all this is that this essay should be criticized at length by those less ignorant than Churchill or his detractors in the media. His reference to "Little Eichmanns" is offensive to some, but he can successfully argue in defense of it by labelling the victims of the WTC attacks as "technocrats" and no one in the media is calling him on that argument. Indeed, people seem so obsessed with the relatively unimportant "Little Eichmann" reference that they do not challenge him on the array of other false and misleading statements that he makes in this essay.
The middle east is controlled by a tyrant. Several of them actually. Also, maybe you should look into history a bit more. Anarchists were the first ones fighting against the fascists in Europe. Look at the Spanish Civil War. In fact, the government forces were the reason Spain fell to Franco. They refused to support the anarchists early on in the struggle, leaving them out to dry. We all know what that led to. Many brave American freedom fighters defied American government orders and went to Spain to fight fascists anyway. Don't tell me the American government is the reason Europe is free of Nazis ad fascists, the area is free in spite of the American government's all too late actions to stop the spread of tyranny. Oh, and what about the American fascists who jailed Japenese Americans. Don't tell me our govt gives one iota about freedom. Many American capitalists offered support for the Nazis (Ford being a good example) and our government did't do a damn thing.
If other countries want to attack, that doesn't mean we can't mobilize a military for our defence. Once people experience true freedom they will not let others take it away.
Posted by somebody smarter than you at February 15, 2005 07:13 PM
Let me address your post point by point, even though you didn't offer me the same courtesy when responding to my post. You failed to even touch several things I said in my post, specifically the last paragraph. The reason for this is because you have no way to logically refute the point that was made in my last paragraph.
Firstly, bleating "The middle east is controlled by a tyrant. Several of them actually." isn't teaching me a thing, and is incredibly condescending. I'm fully aware that the Middle East has been oppressed by its own leaders and colonial powers for centuries, thank you. The fact you fail to accept is that if it hadn't been for military intervention, American military intervention, a huge swath of the Middle East would be controlled by a malignant narcissist TYRANT. Do you get it, fool?! If we hadn't stopped Saddam in the early 90's and again in 2003, the Middle East would be more oppressed, which is something you claim to hate, but obviously don't because you hate the war in Iraq more than a tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Let me show this to you in a very simple equation. I must do this because liberals like you are too right-brained, too busy painting pictures of flowers and quoting Rilke, than you are learning basic logic and achieving to help humanity.
Several Tyrants - 1 Tyrant = Fewer Tyrants = A Good Thing
Now, to touch on your beautiful non sequitur..."Also, maybe you should look into history a bit more. Anarchists were the first ones fighting against the fascists in Europe. Look at the Spanish Civil War. In fact, the government forces were the reason Spain fell to Franco."...Not once did I ever disrespect any freedom fighter, whether they were self-styled anarchists or were retroactively classified as anarchists. I have a profound respect for anyone, regardless of their ideology, proactively fighting against tyranny. Not whining, not moaning, not bleating, not bitching, but proactively fighting tyranny and oppression. Sadly, all the post-modern American left can do is bitch and moan, and offer no positive, proactive solutions for helping those being oppressed.
Later in the paragraph you state, "Many brave American freedom fighters defied American government orders and went to Spain to fight fascists anyway." Firstly, good job to those brave American and European freedom fighters who defied government orders to help those in need. People like W.H. Auden deserve praise, and I am not ignorant of the fact that what you state occurred. This, unfortunately for your argument, is the only valid point you made, however.
Don't tell you the American government is the reason Europe is free of Nazis and fascist Italy? Sorry, but if I didn't I would be withholding the truth, which is lying. The American military, thanks to express orders of congress and the Roosevelt Administration, is the reason Europe is not a satellite of Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but if you can't accept this historical fact, that even modern-day Germany accepts, then you are akin to a holocaust denier. So sad, coming from a post-modern liberal.
"Don't tell me the American government is the reason Europe is free of Nazis ad fascists, the area is free in spite of the American government's all too late actions to stop the spread of tyranny. Oh, and what about the American fascists who jailed Japenese Americans. Don't tell me our govt gives one iota about freedom. Many American capitalists offered support for the Nazis (Ford being a good example) and our government did't do a damn thing."...This, sadly, is one of the worst displays of rational thought and is a total and absolute affront to logic. This takes logic, bends it over, and spanks it's ass really hard. This is the worst kind of vile and venomous sputum ever produced from an ignoramus. First of all, stating that the area is free in spite of American military intervention is totally stupid. HITLER WAS THE ONE ATTACKING AND OPPRESSING EUROPE! Do you get that?! Saying it is free in spite of America is like blaming America for the Third Reich and the Holocaust. You post-modern radical left-wind idiots are the most illogical and stupid kind of debaters known to man, which is why you will continue to lose elections and watch right-of-center candidates win elections and govern the country. Unfortunately for the left-wing lemmings, all they can ever do is BLAME AMERICA FIRST, for everything known to man. This is a perfect example. You whine and squeal, "Oh, and what about the American fascists who jailed Japanese Americans?" Well, what about it?! It was a horrible injustice and bad behavior. However, you CANNOT USE BAD BEHAVIOR TO JUSTIFY BAD BEHAVIOR. Just because one entity does morally unjustifiable things, doesn't give anyone else the right to do so. This is logic 101. Maybe you should take a class at your local community college on Philosophy or Logic? I could point to bad behavior all day long:
1. Imperial Japan's infamous "Rape of Nanking" in which Japanese soldiers mercilessly slaughtered 800,000 Chinese in ONE WEEKEND, and raped 30,000 Chinese women.
2. Stalin slaughtering over 27 million of his own people.
3. 1.3 million abortions per year in America.
Gee, isn't this fun, pointing to bad behavior?! Wowee, what fun! Unfortunately, talking about things like this does nothing to justify lame arguments.
Lastly, you state, "If other countries want to attack, that doesn't mean we can't mobilize a military for our defence. Once people experience true freedom they will not let others take it away." No disagreements here, but again, this does nothing to enhance your arguments. Like I said, read some Kant, quickly.
Ok, I will address everything I missed and further clarify things. When I say Europe is free in spite of America, I don't mean to say Americans were the ones oppressing Europe. I mean that we didn't give a damn about the fact that they were being oppressed and did not get around to fighting until it was too late. This is inherent in a system based on self-interest, we never fight when we need to, and when we do it is too late and for the wrong reasons. If the American, Spanish, British, French and other such govts had actually listened to the anarchists and other like-minded people, fascism would have been nothing but a discredited idea that never took hold.
In terms of the US removing a brutal tryant in the form of Saddam, you are right we did. But we did it merely for oil profits and don't give a f*ck about the people there. If we did we wouldn't have given him the components to build WMD's in the 80s or turned a blind eye when he gassed Iranians and Kurds. I do not deny that Saddam was evil (actually I don't believe in evil, more like a real assh*le) and I hope he gets executed for his crimes (and I'm typically oppossed to the death penalty). However, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton and Reagan (who is luckily dead already) deserve exactly the same fate for what they have done to the third world. Oh, and there is not one less dictator in the world, since chances are whoever ends up leading Iraq next will be screwed up too.
I don't have time to address everything else right now, but I will later.
Ok, I will address everything I missed and further clarify things. When I say Europe is free in spite of America, I don't mean to say Americans were the ones oppressing Europe. I mean that we didn't give a damn about the fact that they were being oppressed and did not get around to fighting until it was too late. This is inherent in a system based on self-interest, we never fight when we need to, and when we do it is too late and for the wrong reasons. If the American, Spanish, British, French and other such govts had actually listened to the anarchists and other like-minded people, fascism would have been nothing but a discredited idea that never took hold.
In terms of the US removing a brutal tryant in the form of Saddam, you are right we did. But we did it merely for oil profits and don't give a f*ck about the people there. If we did we wouldn't have given him the components to build WMD's in the 80s or turned a blind eye when he gassed Iranians and Kurds. I do not deny that Saddam was evil (actually I don't believe in evil, more like a real assh*le) and I hope he gets executed for his crimes (and I'm typically oppossed to the death penalty). However, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton and Reagan (who is luckily dead already) deserve exactly the same fate for what they have done to the third world. Oh, and there is not one less dictator in the world, since chances are whoever ends up leading Iraq next will be screwed up too.
I don't have time to address everything else right now, but I will later.
Posted by somebody smarter than you at February 16, 2005 06:28 PM
Oh no, here we go. I'll just respond to what you said, I'm too tired and upset to do much else.
>>>
Yeah, and neither did the people within those countries give a damn. It was Germany's responsibility, it was Spain's responsibility, and it was Italy's responsibility to stave off the rise of fascism WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. You know what? They didn't. That is NOT America's fault. You have to remember, pre WW2 America was NOT the pre-eminent world power that it is today. I believe we had the 12th strongest military in the world, and Germany by objective standards had the strongest and most technologically advanced military and society in general. We didn't have the sphere of influence back then that we do now, and it was up to other imperial powers like France and Britain to stand up. They failed miserably. Too late and for the wrong reasons? You just undercut your argument! Remember? We were attacked and responded. I'm quoting you here:
>>>
See, you just invalidated your argument.
The rise of fascism WAS NOT AMERICA's FAULT. This nutty logic is what galls me so much. You BLAME EVERYTHING ON AMERICA FIRST.
>>>
I essentially addressed this before, but I'll add something else. Anarchy was a well-known idea, and individuals within certain countries rejected it. They didn't have to adopt fascism in its stead, but they chose that form of government. The blame must be placed on the individuals who DIRECTLY acquiesced in this, ie citizens of those nations. Again, you bleat and bleat that America is to blame, and your logic makes no sense.
Now to turn to Iraq. You wrote,
>>>
Do you purposely choose to live your life in ignorance? Did you not know that the UN controls Iraqi oil money as a proxy for Iraq? The US doesn't profit from Iraqi oil. You've been listening to the Michael Moore fanboys so long you can't keep track of the truth. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." Get your facts straight before you post cliched liberal propaganda like this.
>>>
Again, more pathetic, illogical, finger-pointing at bad behavior to justify bad behavior. Should we have given Saddam weapons? In retrospect, we should not have. Even in this case, however, we are not DIRECTLY responsible. Your logic is so flawed that you direct your anger towards America, instead of those DIRECTLY responsible, in this case Saddam. More misguided emotion from the Blame America First cult.
>>>
This portion of your post is probably the low-point in terms of rational discourse and logic. You are against the death penalty, unless you FEEL like it should be used, which shows you lack the courage of conviction, like most Michael Moore cliched liberal fanboys. I'm not surprised that you disbelieve evil. The last part is where you show just how pathetically flawed your logic is. Firstly, if we follow your pathetically misguided thought process, Carter should be lumped in that group as well. Do you know your Middle Eastern history? Carter helped fuel the Iran/Iraq War, which resulted in 1.5 million deaths. Again, however, you place blame on those who are not directly responsible, instead of those DIRECTLY responsible. This is an aggregious display of illogical thought. To put the Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan in the same category as Saddam shows just how unbelievably idiotic and illogical you are. All 4 of those administrations made mistakes, but they are not criminals. The international criminal court, which is total crap anyway, doesn't even think they are criminals, but your blind devotion to your idiotic Blame America First ideology will not be stopped with facts and logic and the truth. Do you really stand by the statement that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush deserve the same fate as Saddam. I just can't believe that a rational human being, who supposedly does not believe in the death penalty, would say something so hateful and illogical. Well, now I should, because I've witnessed some of the stupidest arguments I've ever encountered.
>>>
As of now there is, fool, and Iraq has democratically elected a parliament. You can't logically speak for the future...oh wait, you've disregarded logic this whole time, nevermind.
Suppose you discovered that a member of your immediate family was a serial killer. Would you then suddenly hate that brother, wife, mother, son?
Churchill counts himself among the great mass of Americans who share some of the guilt for the crimes our government has committed.
Ted Bagg,
Do these alleged crimes warrant a death sentence? What exactly is your point? Bad behavior, and in this case alleged bad behavior, NEVER justifies bad behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right. Will you cognitively impaired liberals ever grasp this concept?
