I always hate it when Bush travels abroad, he is an excruciating embarrassment. Thank God this cretin is soon to be gone, it can't come soon enough.
Posted by paradox at February 25, 2008 05:03 PMWhenever I hear this business about how bad Bush is for not "interfering forcefully" in Darfur, I just want to scream!
IRAQ IS SEVERAL TIMES WORSE THAN DARFUR THANKS TO GEORGE BUSH!
get that?
IRAQ IS SEVERAL TIMES WORSE THAN DARFUR THANKS TO GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!
What part of that, and what it signifies, is not clear to people?
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 05:43 PM...There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.
If there is a God who is anything like we've been led to believe, I'm sure he finds nothing appealing about Bush. In fact, he probably cringes everytime Bush mentions His name.
Posted by Sharon at February 25, 2008 06:06 PMIf God was running for president, Bush would be banned from the Great Talk Express.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 25, 2008 07:13 PMIf God was running for president, Bush would be banned from the Great Talk Express.
I thought he was?
Posted by Seven of Six at February 25, 2008 07:17 PMIf you talk to God that's prayer.
If God talks to you that's insanity.
That there is an agreed upon difference between reality and delusion is the basic premise of mental health treatment. Somewhere in the last few years Mr. Bush, and many of his advisers, seem to have lost sight of this fundamental of sanity. No one has been able to insist that they resolve the many contradictions between their delusions and the real world view of everyone else.
Posted by clio at February 25, 2008 07:18 PMOn what evidence do you base that, Shirin?
And what is your definition of worse here?
Are there better ways to die horribly than others?
Is it worse to start a war wrongfully and cause the death of 200,000 (?) people and destroy an industrialized country, or is it worse to willfully allow the senseless slaughter by the cruelest of means?
How can you make that judgment, especially when BOTH could have been avoided by our Sociopath-in-Chief taking certain actions? How many troops would it take for a "surge" to work in Darfur against the Janjewi (?), as opposed to Iraq?
Or is it solely because Americans are being murdered for no good reason in Iraq, murdered to no purpose or gain?
Posted by Duckman GR at February 25, 2008 07:25 PMWell I hope it's a great lesson to all those Americans who voted for the dingbat on as many as two occasions. It's a damned pity they threw in their lot with such obviously damaged goods. Especially for 2004. I bet they'll think twice before choosing another train wreck of a man.....Oh.....shit!
19% are cool with whatever happens; but surely a significant percent must be gazing hard at their own navels right about now. Aren't they?...Aren't they?
There's a theory going around now, by a man called Tolle, that says (among other things) that one of the greatest vices of the ego is the need for enemies. I wonder if there is time for us to change, fundamentally, or will we simply topple over into the abyss?
Posted by Copeland at February 25, 2008 07:45 PMThe overwhelming majority of dingbats who voted for this mentally deranged psychopath plan on voting for the next Repub that is put in front of their faces---like their Dear Leader Bush, they have no first or second thoughts, and don't think that it was a mistake to support conservative Repubs and probably think that God has "requested" they vote Repub. They can't wait to do it again.
And with Hillary herself declaring the Dem front runner to be a hopelessly inexperienced, incompetent muslim (unlike the massive "experience" of our junior senator and professional First Lady), they know they can't do anything but vote Repub yet again. It's ordained by heaven!
Posted by euzoius at February 25, 2008 08:38 PM"On what evidence do you base that, Shirin?"
You're kidding, right?
"And what is your definition of worse here?"
Several times more dead people.
Several times more maimed people.
Many, many, many times more destruction.
Many, many, many times more refugees.
Want more? 'Cause there's lots more where THAT came from.
If Americans can cry and give money, and work on behalf of the victims of Darfur, where are their tears and their dollars, and their efforts for their own victims, the Iraqis?
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 08:48 PM"Is it worse to start a war wrongfully and cause the death of 200,000 (?) people and destroy an industrialized country, or is it worse to willfully allow the senseless slaughter by the cruelest of means?"
Make that 500,000-1 million people (the million figure is probably higher.
And your question is a joke, right? One is responsible for one's own actions. One is not responsible for the actions of others. Preventing oneself from committing atrocities is an obligation. Preventing others from committing atrocities is a good act (provided, of course, you do not, in the process make the situation worse).
And seriously, based on the track record of the United States in general and of George Bush in particular in these matters, do you honestly believe that if he "intervened forcefully" in Darfur he would notmake matters at least ten times worse than they are?
"How can you make that judgment, especially when BOTH could have been avoided by our Sociopath-in-Chief taking certain actions?"
Actually, that is not exactly true. The horrors in Iraq would have been avoided by your Sociopath-in Chief NOT taking certain actions. As for the horrors in Darfur, there is no way of knowing whether anything he might have done would have avoided it, but based on history, anything he might have done is more likely than not to make it worse.
"How many troops would it take for a "surge" to work in Darfur against the Janjewi (?), as opposed to Iraq?"
You know, I just love this idea that sending in troops will make everything just lovely - the idea of "humanitarian war", as if that were not an oxymoron. In any case, the chance that sending American troops would make things far worse is close to 100% because Americans don't know how to do anything except come charging in like a set of bulls being sent into a china shop. They are absolutely the wrong thing for a delicate situation.
"Or is it solely because Americans are being murdered for no good reason in Iraq, murdered to no purpose or gain?"
Pardon me, but Americans are not being murdered. When you send your armies to conquer a foreign country with bombs and tanks and automatic weapons and other instruments of death, they are the murderers, not those who kill them in self defense.
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 09:20 PMI have cut off relatives and friends who like Bush. I'm so embarrassed by them!
Posted by Jeffersonia at February 26, 2008 05:05 AM...There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.
sorry people, his higher father is not God (unless you consider Satan to be a god)
and let's face facts, about 1/3 of our fellow citizens would joyfully burn the Constitution out of their love for Dear Leader
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 26, 2008 05:22 AMYes, they are being murdered, by Bush, not the Iraqi's. And indeed, not invading Iraq would be one of those certain actions.
I realize that no actions taken by Bush actually work towards the good, that isn't within his capabilities, so of course a Bush led intervention in Darfur would indeed go to shit. Going into that China shop with all of those vara's in your back will not solve the problem, but protecting the civilians from these bullies could certainly be accomplished with judicious use of force.
Or do you think that armed intervention cannot ever work, Rwanda was inevitable, Pol Pot was inevitable, the Holocaust was inevitable? (not wanting to rehash WWII please)
Is there a certain level of death after which we can be outraged? Is 100 brutalized okay while a 1000 is not?
Don't think for one second that there is any good about Bush's illegal and corporate war in Iraq, and don't you dare call that asshole MY Sociopath-in-Chief, if you're thinking is that I support him or his actions, his family, his beliefs, his friends (ha, that is a joke, you see), his manipulators, anything about him.
I just don't see how you can label one atrocity worse than another which such absolutism, and I challenge that assertion.
We will see how Evil Hillary or Saint Barack get to deal with genocide in Darfur, war in Kosovo, war in Kurdistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and decide which horror is worse than the other horror
Posted by Duckman GR at February 26, 2008 07:23 AM"Yes, they are being murdered by Bush, not the Iraqi's."
Rhetoric is nice and all that, but only if it reflects reality.
"And indeed, not invading Iraq would be one of those certain actions."
ONE of them?! No, that's it. Don't commit aggression against other countries, and things will automatically become better in the world to a significant degree. It's amazing how well that works!
"I realize that no actions taken by Bush actually work towards the good, that isn't within his capabilities, so of course a Bush led intervention in Darfur would indeed go to shit."
Based on the United States' track record, ANY American intervention in Darfur or any other similar situation is virtually guaranteed to make things worse for the victims and broaden the problem in the short term, and go completely to shit in the long term. It's just a question of degree.
"Going into that China shop with all of those vara's in your back will not solve the problem, but protecting the civilians from these bullies could certainly be accomplished with judicious use of force."
Oh, really? Specifically how? What KIND of force? Used in what way? Against whom? When? How much? For how long?
"Or do you think that armed intervention cannot ever work, Rwanda was inevitable, Pol Pot was inevitable, the Holocaust was inevitable?"
There is no such thing as a humanitarian war. The term is an oxymoron.
"Is there a certain level of death after which we can be outraged? Is 100 brutalized okay while a 1000 is not?"
We can be outraged at any time and any level over anything we like. A single death is an outrage as far as I am concerned. But being outraged does not require you to take action that is virtually certain to make matters worse in the short term, and to have even greater, more widespread, and often unforeseen negative consequences in the long term.
"Don't think for one second that there is any good about Bush's illegal and corporate war in Iraq, and don't you dare call that asshole MY Sociopath-in-Chief..."
Pardon me, but you referred to him as "our Sociopath-in-Chief", so don't you dare get on me for calling him "your Sociopath in Chief". If you don't want me to use the second person in addressing you, then do not use the first person to begin with and we will both be fine.
"if you're thinking is that I support him or his actions, his family, his beliefs, his friends (ha, that is a joke, you see), his manipulators, anything about him."
I don't know what you support. I was merely responding to the language you used.
"I just don't see how you can label one atrocity worse than another which such absolutism, and I challenge that assertion."
I explained why it is worse. More people killed, more people maimed, millions of lives destroyed, many times more destruction - entire major cities destroyed (Falluja is about the size of Cincinnati, if that helps you to understand the scope I am talking about when I say entire cities) - far broader-reaching and longer-lasting consequences, and so on and so on and so on.
And, in fact, the systematic killing and destroying in Iraq at the hands of the United States has been going on for seventeen years, over three presidencies, including eight years of hell from the Clinton administration. During that time Iraq has gone from an emerging first world country to what we are seeing today. And if seventeen straight years of systematic killing and destruction is not genocide, then what do you call it?
The idea that every horror and every tragedy is the same as every other in scope and severity is as mindless and new agey as the idea that there is no fact only perception, and is often used by the powerful in an effort to "level the playing field" and deny reality. I am an old-fashioned, practical, imperial thinker, and yes, one million dead and an entire country systematically destroyed by an overwhelmingly powerful force over five (or more accurately seventeen) years is a greater atrocity.
Posted by Shirin at February 26, 2008 09:43 AMAnd Duckman, more to the point of the discussion, how is it that Americans can feel outrage and cry and weep and give money, and make an issue of the Darfur situation and at the same time cannot muster even one per cent of that for their OWN far more numerous victims, the people of Iraq?
Do you not have a far greater moral and legal obligation toward your own victims than you do toward someone else's victims?! Do you not at the very least have an obligation to stop victimizing them?! So, where is your outrage on behalf of Iraqis, and where is the action that should flow from that outrage?
Posted by Shirin at February 26, 2008 09:48 AMOoooooopppppps!
"I am an old-fashioned, practical, imperial" thinker..."
LOL! What a slip THAT was! Of course, what I meant to say was that I am an empirical thinker. Although I do think more and more about empire and its evils!
Posted by Shirin at February 26, 2008 10:07 AMAh, death! Where is thy sting?
All the senses go blank. Nothing. Eternal peace.
And absolutely no way to tune in "Hardball".
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2008 04:38 PMWell, you certainly are the expert. And pretty certain of that.
Perhaps you are the bull in the china shop with your certainty. SO.....
Is not death inflicted illegally, indeed quite wilfully, not murder? Pardon my rhetoric. You, on the other hand would never use rhetoric as an old-fashioned, practical, [emperical] thinker would you?
"Our" was referring to the collective, "Your" personalized it to me. I couldn't very well say "your Sociopath..." since I'm an American and that asshole is the President of the United States. You may not have much of an opinion of the United States, our history is far from perfect, neither is it as heinous as you imply. I for one am quite glad those dirty filthy rebels fought the British Empire and won. And I'm glad we opposed Stalin too, his butchery has not been exceeded by anyone, I don't think the US of A has killed as many people over our entire history as he did, on purpose. And I'm glad we supported Israel during the early days, the world owed the Jews something for ignoring the Holocaust and as some sort of reparation just for what they went through, that's compassion for you.
A meaningless phrase like humanitarian war is, well, meaningless. Nor was it used by me. You may find no distinction between that phrase and the one I used, armed intervention, but most certainly there is. Yours is a false construct disguised as an oxymoron, there is indeed nothing humane about war, nor did I suggest it. In fact, your comment pretty much ignored my question. With much certainty. And if you don't know what I support, then you haven't really been paying any attention here, you're just going off on me because I question your absolutism.
Our intervention in Haiti could have achieved much more than it did if the GOP hadn't undermined Bill Clinton, a pair of US fighters flying over Manilla preserved Corazon Aquino's presidency without the US firing a shot, I believe that the intervention in Kosovo did provide the sort of relief for the victims of Serbian genocide against the Kosovars, doubtless you will tell me how wrong that was, and point to the recent events there as proof, I would argue that you would be ignoring the willful governing incompetence of Bush, and nevermind the however many Kosovars who live because of the NATO intervention.
Look at Rwanda. A very small number of underarmed and highly constrained UN Forces kept the terrorists at bay for days, just by their ineffectual presence. Isn't it reasonable to think that a small number of better armed and less constrained troops could have dealt with the gangs that were hacking their way through the country, if a handful of guys with pistols could do what they did?
Okay, fine, Iraq is a bigger mess than Darfur. Does that satisfy your certainty? But you said this: And Duckman, more to the point of the discussion, how is it that Americans can feel outrage and cry and weep and give money, and make an issue of the Darfur situation and at the same time cannot muster even one per cent of that for their OWN far more numerous victims, the people of Iraq?
First of all, I believe it's called compassion. And second of all, why do you think so many people want us out of Iraq? Do you think that the Democrats want to continue this mad and stupid war of Bush/Cheney, other than a handful of neo-cons that never bothered to change party registration? You think that anybody that posts here other than the loser traitors like peter support this war in any way?
Do you think that the anger and frustration that seethes beneath the surface of the blogosphere is due to some kind of satisfaction with Bush and his war, a war we all railed against and have been fighting against from day one? Don't you think there's a reason why Bush is the most unpopular president ever? Just because the Senate Democrats are ineffectual and weak does not mean that they like this war, it just means they don't know how to stop it. And don't tell me that "don't vote for funds" is the answer, that's trite and simplistic and not reality.
Let's see, to go back to one of your certainty questions, ask General Clark how we could have gone about protecting the people of Darfur from their gangs of thugs, I'll bet good money he could come up with the how's and where's and with what's you demanded.
Enough, I found your initial tone pedantic, and I tried to suggest that perhaps things are not so certain when it comes to war and death and genocide.
So I ask you this. Who loses more when they lose all, the woman who has everything, or the woman who has one thing?
Posted by Duckman GR at February 26, 2008 10:58 PM"Is not death inflicted illegally, indeed quite wilfully, not murder?"
Not necessarily. It depends on a number of factors.
"Pardon my rhetoric."
No pardon needed. But don't go all defensive if someone calls you on it when it does not reflect reality.
"You, on the other hand would never use rhetoric as an old-fashioned, practical, [emperical] thinker would you?"
I use rhetoric all the time, and I try to make sure that the rhetoric I use has some connection to reality, unless my intention is otherwise.
"'Our' was referring to the collective, 'Your' personalized it to me."
Actually, no, it didn't personalize it to you, except according to your perception. "Your" also referred to the collective, just as "our" referred to the collective. Admittedly, "your" is both singular and plural, so your confusion is understandable, but I was, in fact, simply - and entirely correctly - paralleling your language.
"You may not have much of an opinion of the United States, our history is far from perfect, neither is it as heinous as you imply."
Duckman, the United States' history is full of all kinds of things, some wonderful, some horrific, most somewhere in between the two. I have been referring to the U.S.'s track record in one sort of thing, and that is certain aspects of foreign and military policy.
"I for one am quite glad those dirty filthy rebels fought the British Empire and won."
I don't have a problem with that. What I do find ironic is the way the United States has reacted, since its successful, and very violent, liberation struggle, to the often far more justified liberation struggles of others.
"And I'm glad we opposed Stalin too, his butchery has not been exceeded by anyone, I don't think the US of A has killed as many people over our entire history as he did, on purpose."
WHAT?! Are you suggesting that his atrocities are worse than those of the U.S.? In other words, are you suggesting that there are worse, and less worse atrocities?
"And I'm glad we supported Israel during the early days, the world owed the Jews something for ignoring the Holocaust and as some sort of reparation just for what they went through, that's compassion for you."
Oh yes? And where was your compassion for the Palestinians, who have been systematically and mostly violently ethnically cleansed and robbed of their most basic and fundamental human rights? Or is some ethnic cleansing OK with you, as long as it is for what you see as a "good cause"?
"A meaningless phrase like humanitarian war is, well, meaningless. Nor was it used by me. You may find no distinction between that phrase and the one I used, armed intervention, but most certainly there is."
Humanitarian war is exactly what you are talking about no matter what you call it. If not, what is the precise nature and purpose of this "armed intervention" you are so eager to see in Darfur?
"Yours is a false construct disguised as an oxymoron..."
Not at all. "Armed intervention" in order, ostensibly, to save victims of oppression, is exactly a "humanitarian war". That is the term used by human rights experts and authorities, and it is exactly the description. However, if it will make the conversation easier, I will gladly exchange that expression for something else - humanitarian intervention by means of military violence is descriptive, if a bit awkward.
"there is indeed nothing humane about war, nor did I suggest it."
Exactly the point. There is nothing humane about any kind of military intervention. As several great military men have put it, military forces are about killing and destroying in order to gain dominance. It is what they are trained, conditioned, and equipped to do.
"In fact, your comment pretty much ignored my question."
I'm sorry if that is the case, and if it is, kindly repeat the question, and I will try to do better.
"With much certainty."
There are some things I am very certain of. Most things I am less certain of, of course.
"And if you don't know what I support, then you haven't really been paying any attention here, you're just going off on me because I question your absolutism."
1. I am not going off on you, I am having a discussion - arguing, if you will. Taking issue with what someone says is not the same as "going off".
I will respond to the rest of your comments later. I have some things I have to take care of for right now.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 05:19 PM