Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.
I’ve been occupied with organizational issues for the past week, but I didn’t want to let it pass without highlighting a passage in column by Max Boot that appeared last Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times. It’s just a passage, mind you, and very short at that, but, to me, it offers a useful and frankly damning insight into the colonialist and frankly racist assumptions that underlie neo-conservative thinking. Of course, Boot, a former editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, a contributing editor at the Weekly Standard, and near-constant presence on Commentary’s “Contentions†blog, is a dyed-in-the-wool neo-conservative hawk, somewhat incongruously perched at the influential Council on Foreign Relations where he is mostly surrounded by the kind of realists and liberal internationalists who dominated U.S. foreign policy until 9/11.
Here’s the passage. It appears in a column entitled “Accept the Blackwater Mercenaries†that both defended Blackwater and (entirely reasonably) called for greater oversight of security contractors operating in Iraq and elsewhere.
“Take the Sept. 16 incident, in which at least 11 Iraqis were killed and which was the impetus for a House hearing Tuesday. Blackwater says its employees fired in self-defense after being attacked. Iraqis claim that the Blackwaterites fired indiscriminately and without provocation. There is no reason to assume — as so many critics do — that the more damning version is true, especially because the harshest condemnations have come from the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a notorious hotbed of sectarianism.†[Emphasis added]
The problem I have with this passage is simply this: there were reasons to assume that the more damning version of the Nihoor Square incident (or massacre?) were true at the time Boot wrote his column. All of the Iraqi witnesses and victims — and there were many — interviewed by U.S. mainstream journalists after the incident described the Blackwater shootings as unprovoked and indiscriminate, at least so far as they could determine. Moreover, the Iraqi assessments were confirmed by subsequent U.S. military reports, according to a detailed Washington Post account that appeared October 5, admittedly after Boot had published his column. Indeed, the only accounts — so far as I am aware — that backed Blackwater’s version of events have been provided by Blackwater staff.
So how is it that Boot can so easily dismiss the credibility of the accounts of the Iraqis who were caught up in or witnessed the mayhem? I’m not arguing that their accounts — and the conclusions of the U.S. military reports — are necessarily totally accurate. But why assert that “there is no reason to assume†that the Iraqi accounts are untrue when the evidence adduced by generally reliable U.S. reporters up to the moment that Boot wrote his column pointed strongly in favor of the Iraqis’ version? The phrasing suggests that Boot does not consider Iraqis credible, at least when they are describing alleged bad behavior by American troops or contractors. Or am I reading too much into this?
Now, Boot goes on to suggest that their lack of credibility may be due to the fact that the “Iraqi Interior Ministry, a notorious hotbed of sectarianism,†issued the harshest criticism. But I don’t understand the relevance of this point. First, the testimonies came from civilian eyewitnesses, as well Iraqi police, who are presumably under the ministry’s jurisdiction, and soldiers, who are not. And it seems that the fear and contempt provoked in Iraq by Blackwater and other foreign-led security contractors runs across sectarian lines. They appear to be broadly hated and resented by Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike. Now, if Boot had written “anti-American†in place of “sectarian,†the relevance of his subordinate clause would have been a bit stronger, even if the totality of the evidence known at that time still pointed toward the same conclusion. But let’s assume for a second that the the Interior Ministry was the only source. It’s still part of a government supported by Washington that came to power in a democratic process which, according to Boot’s previous writings, is one of the important reasons we went to war and remain in Iraq. What would be its motives for lying about what had taken place, particularly in view of its continued deep dependence on U.S. support.
I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but, as a writer myself, I try to pay close attention to words in order to gain clues about motivation, prejudice, and worldview. As the author of The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (2002), Boot, like most neo-cons, sees the aggressive masculinity of Theodore Roosevelt and the early American Imperialists, as a model for the “new American Century.†And, like other imperialists through history, he makes assumptions both about the benevolence of U.S. intentions and hegemony and the ingratitude and untrustworthiness of those who have the good fortune to be brought under U.S. rule.
Again, it’s just one passage, but I believe that it — like the repeated assertions by neo-cons, such as Charles Krauthammer, Reuel Marc Gerecht, etc. that power is the only language that Arabs (and Iran) understands — offers a helpful insight into the very undemocratic and colonialist mentality that underlies much of the movement’s thought.
A large number of Americans, far too many, have a colonial/imperialist mentality too. They simply assume we have a right to trample over any part of the world that strikes our fancy. Especially the Third World. Most seem blissfully unaware that in Iraq we are half way round the globe where we have no right to be, or that our policies since Vietnam, and in a deeper sense, since WWII are imperialist. They naively mouth the old saw that we “lost” China, as if China had been our rightful possession. Happily some nations like India and China have had to power to drive the Western imperialists out. But so far, not all the Islamic nations have managed that. And if any dare defy us we promptly invade or threaten to invade to “subdue” them into submissive minions: Iraq and Iran and Syria.
To Hal:
The definition of imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
You have a very strange and quite frankly, distorted view of history if you think that all our policies since WWII have been based on imperialism.
Fact: Japan attacked us on 7 Dec. 1941. Did we not have a right to defend ourselves? Also, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 and by the following summer controlled almost all of Europe, save for England who was being bombarded everyday. We came to the rescue and basically saved Europe. How was that imperialistic?
Korea: The northern communists with the full backing of the Chinese invaded the south and we came in there to stop them. Today north korea is a dictatorhip with little or no freedom, a stagnant economy and widespread starvation, while South Korea is a vibrant, thriving democracy. Again, how were we imperialistic there?
Look, that fact of the matter is that many countries want to spread their way of life. The Soviets tried to spread communism and tyranny, we tried to spread capitalism and freedom. I don’t think that necessarily makes us imperialistic.
And as for the middle east. The Islamo Fascists have been attacking us again and again for 30 years or more and we don’t have a right to defend ourselves? And if we do defend oursleves, how does that make us imperialistic? You want to talk about imperialism? I think the Islamo Fascists are the imperialists! They have a clearly stated objective of destroying western civilization so that they can forcefully impose radical Islamic law on all of us.
On the off chance that Tim R. really believes the tripe he writes, and isn’t just a provocateur, let’s take a look at his arguments.
First, empires differ from each other (the British was different from the Mongol, for example) but all have a commonality–conquering or coercing foreign nations to act a certain way. America fits this mold perfectly. See Ivan Eland for extensive remarks on types of empire.
We cut off Japan’s oil, steel, and rubber resources, and it in turn, perfectly anticipating Bush’s evil formulation, launched a preventive strike on America. Hey, it works both ways, doesn’t it? And it was the USSR who “saved” Europe–the Western front wasn’t much more than a sideshow compared to the war on the Eastern.
True, entering WWII probably wasn’t per se imperialistic, just stupid. The dust had barely settled after the war when Churchill was saying that a greater threat than Nazism had arisen from the war. Communism, of course. WWII made the USSR a superpower.
And so on. From our wretched war on the Philippines, to the endless Central American and Caribbean interventions, to the idiocy of entering the European colonial powers war (WWI), to meddling in the Mideast, America has been acting imperially. Sometimes for financial gain, sometimes to supposedly spread the American Way to countries which didn’t necessarily want it. High intentions don’t change the nature of imperial action.
Tim’s never having cracked a history book really slips him up on the Mideast. For 150 years America and Arabia were at peace with each other. Suddenly, around the late 1960s, there were terrorist actions and fury against America. Now, why would that be? Can it be that taking sides in the Mideast earned us some enemies? And why would Iran be upset with us, just because we overthrew its democratically elected government (an act of war in itself) and assisted Iraq in killing Iranians?
Those crazy “Islamofascists”! Bin Laden’s message boiled down to “leave us the hell alone” referring to troops in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel, and sanctions on Iraq, all imperial interventions or damfool meddling.
But our thoughts were pure, so we’re justified and all the rest of the world can just stuff it. What a crock.
Yes, Nelson is correct, taking sides in the Middle East earned us some enemies. But why shouldn’t we take sides! Why should we not stand up for what we believe is right? Why should we not help to protect a small, tiny nation, parts of which are only 10 miles wide? Why should we not want to stand up for a tiny nation of 5 million Jews that are totally surrounded by 200 million muslims who want to kill her? Don’t you get it? Its not about Israel or the “occupation” or the plight of the palestinians. It is about RELIGION. If all the Jews in Israel would convert to Islam the rest of the Muslims would not give a crap about the palestinians. It is all about Muslims who can’t accept the idea of Jews having a nation of their own.
And by the way, as for Bin Laden and his cohorts, they have openly said that they want everyone to convert to Islam. Its not just about palestinians and an air base in Saudi Arabia. Get real!
Oh, for mercy’s sake, stop quoting from Rush Levin Hannity’s “Predigested History for Witless Warmongers” and spread your intellectual horizons a bit. Poor, defenseless Israel with its 200 or so nuclear warheads and one of the world’s top military establishments. Turns out that even tiny, helpless Israel in 1948 had, and knew it had, far superior resources and soldiers than all its enemies combined. So much for David and Goliath.
More importantly, since when was the Constitution (maybe you’ve heard of this document, Tim) modified to say “America shall make non-defensive wars across the globe to defend anyone it thinks is being picked on”? By what authority does the federal government take our money and children to make aggressive war on sovereign countries that are no threat to us? You can sure tell how well our interventionism has gone the last 100 years just how effective our imperial doctrine is.
Hawaii was NOT as US state and in fact was an imperial outpost itself for our control over SE Asia!
We didn’t get into the European fight until Germany had already destroyed its own prospects of control over Europe. We went to ‘help’ to keep the soviet union from taking all of Europe. If they had they would have collapsed sooner than later!
The United States attacked Korea(north and south)(*for cheap labor as was Vietnam war about cheap labor) in an attempt to influence what was mostly an internal struggle and South Korea was not free or have elections until 1992. Only because the people became violent toward our friendly dictator’s control!
Capitalism and freedom are not the same thing! The Chinese are capitalist!
I am more afraid of so called christens(US citizens) that are the real Fascist(national socialist). The so called islamo fascists don’t have bases in my back yard but we bases in their back yard to control ‘our’ investments over there. In fact there are no foreign country who have bases in the USA at all!
What is the explicit goal of the Islamic terrorists?
Their goal is to engage in “Jihad” and they interpret that to mean using violence in order to spread their version of Islam and to create a global Islamic state under Islamic law.
If that is not imperialisim, then what is?!
What is the goal of Bin Ladin the ONLY islamo facist that attacked us severly enough to warrant a war? Removing american military personell from the mideast and cutting of US aid to Israel.
Try again.
At the risk of sounding like an advocate of colonialism, the fact is that Western imperialism had its benefits. Would Ghana, for example, be better off under British rule today? It’s impossible to say for sure, but European colonial governments maintained a sense of order that prevented large scale bloodshed (they initiated their own bloodshed against the native people too, it’s true…) and brought some degree of literacy and education to their subjects. Somewhat indirectly, Britain introduced the better aspects of Western culture: newspapers, capitalism, etc. that enabled some of its former colonies, most notably India, to develop their economies and reduce poverty significantly. The point I’m trying to make is that sometimes “native” regimes are as bad, maybe even worse, than the Western colonial alternative. “Sometimes” being the key word. Having said that, the current administration’s method of introducing “democracy” to the Arab world is boneheaded and criminal.
This is rather naive. Most modern day societies in third-world nations are the way they are specifically because of the legacy of colonialism.
David—British slaughtered over 10 million men, women,children in the invasion of India over 150 years ago. A lot of British know-how sure didn’t help the dead.
{:-(
I believe it’s Jack Boot, not Max. Sorry, I had to.
Jim, you are right on. This entire “War on/of Terror” is really about racism and dominion. It’s a Christian Evangelical crusade to assert dominion over the Earth (I am not pulling this out of my ass…this has been asserted by the Armeggedonites), and the neocons are going along with it so long as it serves the interests of Israel.
Abraham writes that “The entire war on terror is about racism and dominion.” Well, he is partially correct. It is a war on the racism of the Islamic Fascists who say all non-Muslims must convert or pay tribute to Muslims and live as second class citizens called “dhimmis” (see Suhra 9 of the Quran). And yes, he is right it is about dominion. The goal of Islamic Fascist jihad is to establish a world wide Islamic state under Islamic law.
“Islamo-Fascism” is a nonsensical term. What you are referring to is more accurately called “Islamic THEOCRACY” (similar to “Judaic Theocracy” & “Christian Theocracy”).
Islamic Theocracy itself is a false boogy-man. It has no ability whatsoever to threaten the US or Western Civilization*. There is no world conquering Islamic Empire, just moments away from forcing you to convert at shamshir point, nor is there any possibility of one.
Furthermore the only attraction that Bin Laden & his ilk possess is a direct result of our government’s heinous policies towards Moslems. Radical Moslems are made, not born; and our ever-benign government is giving normal Arab kids a lot of good reasons to hate us to the core.
*apart from the demographic threat faced by indigenous Europeans, with the complaisance of western governments (of course).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”
“Declaration of War against the Americans >> the Land of the Two Holy Places.”
IN ANOTHER WORDS THEY ARE DEFENDING THERE TERRITORY, DAMN THEM NOT BOWING TO OUR OIL IMPERIALIST NEEDS!
I find that talk of “spreading democracy to the Mid East” absolutely head-shaking. Three thousand years ago, the Persians and the Babylonians (Iraqis) had advanced civilizations while our ancestors in Europe were wiping their behinds with leaves. And just what wonders do we wish to bestow upon our Arab brothers with our version of modern democracy? Nothing but the best – servitude to the Zionists and a chance to be thoroughly screwed by the global petroleum industry.
Splendid allusion, Richard. One reaches through uniquely to sense our European beginnings, the frightening difficulties in mid-Winter, etc. :-)
John Lowell
Richard is right, we should leave those Arabs alone. The middle east has been a beacon of modernity and civilization for three thousand years. Who are we to screw that up? In Iran a man can marry and have sex with a 9 year old girl. In Syria a woman needs her husbands permission to travel and a rapist can get off if he agrees to marry his victim. In Saudi Arabia they cut off hands for theft and stone people to death for being gay or having an affair. They also do not allow any other religion other than Islam to be practiced. In Jordan if a woman gets raped, her own family can murder her because she has “shamed the family.” Recently, in Afghanistan a man had to run for his life and flee to Italy. Why? Because he was a Muslim and had the nerve to want to convert to Christianity.
Oh yes! They are a real beacon of light and civilization over there! Aw, shucks! I sure hope we silly Americans don’t mess up the great stuff they got going on over there!
When all else fails, just the very best reason to launch a war, eh: Feminism? One gets the sense that your hatred of these folks might actually find you in the role of camp guard when the mass detentions begin in this country. It is of precisely the same kind as that which led to the destruction of European Jewry in the period 1939-45. To whom should we compare you, then, Julius Streicher?
John Lowell
Tim R
You need to get out more. Last time that I was in Bahrain, I didn’t see a single camel clogging traffic – I did see a lot of Mercedes and Land Rovers – some even driven by women. Years ago, when I worked in Istanbul on an airport radar, one of my Turkish co-workers showed up one morning obviously worked over by his wife for being out too late with the rest of us boys. All of the Turks complained that their women were “busting their ba–s”; a habit that the Turks blamed on reruns of “I Love Lucy” from the USA. And if you, Timmy Boy, want to see real backwards, Arab, hick podunk town try visiting Dubai. That will renew your faith in that metropolis of Akron, or wherever you are from. I could go on, but why bother? You are a provincial fool with a petty little brain befouled by racist garbage straight from talk radio and an absolutely naive understanding of how women get by in this world.
Allowing a man to marry a nine-year-old is outrageous, but if you are doing comparisons, check out this story about Afghanistan, where our allied government is tolerating (or at least, failing to stop) men from marrying even younger girls.
“In Afghanistan, a 3-Year-Old is Set to Marry”
I’m embarassed to say that somtimes the neo cons make me wish we didn’t have freedom of speech in this country. imagine how great it would be if we didn’t have to deal with these guys.
Don’t worry, they’ll take it away soon enough. Then we won’t have to tolerate any of this treasonous criticism of our rightful rulers and thier noble crusades against all those ingrate foreigners.
What will Blackwater be used for in the future?
Can they be used domestically?
Are they the new Prateorian Guards?
Boot is being very sectarian about Blackwater, his buddies.
The problem seems deeper: The USA was born as a British imperial project that, like Frankenstein’s monster, took on a life of its own.
The near commplete genocide of this continent’s original inhabitants, “purchase” of the Louisiana Territory from the French(?!), subsequent theft of Northern Mexico (an enduring issue, surely) and even the conquest of Hawaii all fit a pretty clear pattern of imperial aggression.
By the time of the Spanish-American War, the USA entered into formal colonial arrangements overseas, and hundreds of thousands of proud people in the Philippines paid the price with their lives in a conflict that continues literally to this day.
I don’t know how “good” this empire has been. It would seem pretty awful to me, backed up by nuclear weapons from the only power to actually use them on civilians.
I’m born and raised in the USA, but I’ve traveled. People around the world are sick of this situation – and with the quagmire in Iraq it would appear that Mao’s old observation that “imperialism is a paper tiger” is more apt than ever.
Yes, JB, the United States has, indeed, done some awful things. And yes, I will admit we have, at times, been imperialisitc. But what country is perfect? Please tell me, what powerful nations do you know of that have not been imperialistic at one time or another?
Also, people like you only see the bad, but never the good. To this very day, people ALL OVER THE WORLD want to come to this country. We, literally, have to build fences to keep people out. We helped to save all of Europe from Hitler. We helped to bring down the Iron Curtain of Communism in Eastern Europe, liberating millions. We removed an Islamo-Fascist regime in Afghanistan, liberating millions of women and allowing for free elections. But why is it that folks like you can only see the bad?
No one here is claiming that any one country is better than America here Tim. You are acting in a typical conservative reactionary manner. Those of us who do not support American militarism are exercising the freedom of speech and demanding the appropriate level of inquiry that would ideally make our nation great. We are not ones to cower and neglect asking important questions when those in high positions say “the enemy is over there somewhere.”. The “positive” things you mention come with heavy side effects. The end result of WWII is that it created the cold war which saw our violence exported to third world countries around the world. It was only a non-violent war for us. And all those wars that happneded after WWII have helped set the stage for the world of constant military intervention in which we live today. We really seem to think that literally anything can be solved with violence. But in reality violence only breeds violence. Every “great” nation in the past has sought “peace” by uniting everyone under their flag or philosophy, but it NEVER works. If violence solved anything, then we’d have run out of reasons to fight by now. Did it work for the Romans? Did it work for the Europeans? Has it worked in Africa? We have to understand the role we play in this endless cycle if we are ever to break out of it. Becuase every single state or group of brigands beleive that they are fighting for the cause of good. The terrorists have the same resolve that our troops do, and truly believe that they are doing a just and moral thing. You can’t use violence to dissuade that kind of belief or determination.
Perhaps you will say that the US only reluctantly uses violence. But that simply is not true. We use violence because it is profitable to those in power. Take North Korea, it surely was a far greater threat than Iraq ever was, but our policy was content to use diplomacy and peaceful negotations and now it North and South Korea have finally ended the war on thier own. Our disinterest saved them.
Its tempting to agree that the West has brough benefits to the contries that they have dominated but at what cost. I do not agree with how many choose to live in the Middle East, especially with how they treat women and gays, but I feel that it is equally wrong to kill anyone who disagrees with me because in the end that will solve nothing and in of itself becomes its own form of genocide. Or perhaps we should apply our own international rules to our own country. Perhaps we should napalm the Bible Belt, and Nuke the mid west in order to encourage separation of Church and State, and to help free Women and Homosexuals from thier bondage. When you apply your own rules to yourself, you often see how harsh and wrong you are.
Use of an incoherent term like “Islamofascism” is a dead giveaway that the user us a troll, a freeper or a Fox News watcher, and is either honestly or wilfully ignorant of both Western and Eastern history.
R. Nelson is correct in his overview. The US has been expansionist since the 1840s, and promiscuously interventionist since 1898.
Tim R. questions why shouldn’t we pick sides on behalf of Israel. We shouldn’t pick sides because it is not our fight to pick. Ask yourself, Tim, why Palestinan Arabs should be punished for the crimes of white Europeans. I’ve yet to hear an answer to this question that is not self-serving or based in racism. The fact is that 80% of the Israeli population, including the ruling class, is Caucasian, meaning they descend from Eastern Europeans. The oppression of Semitic Arabs by white European Israelis puts the lie to the claim that Israel is the “traditional homeland” of the “Jewish people,” and that those who oppose Israel are somehow “anti-Semitic.” Israel has been a criminal enterprise since Day One, and represents total betrayal of the Palestinian Arabs by the British government, and by the American Empire which has taken over that role formerly performed by England.
Zionism, which hides behind the pious fraud of somehow representing the Jewish people, is an invention of an Austrian journalist, and was bankrolled by the bank of England to ensure access to the Suez canal. It is entirely secular, and is concerned solely with the accumulation of political, financial and military power. The current slaughterama in Mesopotamia is a Zionist (not Jewish) contrivance, designed to expand Israeli territory and material wealth. Any honest discussion of Jihad against America has to start with this, as is would not be possible without an inordinate amount of US financial, material and diplomatic support. Until this is addressed, America will pay a high price for its subservience to Zionism.
I truly believe that those who say America is “subservient” to Zionism is either delulded, racist or both. Zionism is simply Jewish nationalism. The belief that Jews have historic ties to the land of Israel, going back 3,000 years, and have a right to live there. I love the hypocrites who jump on Israel and the “zionists” all the time but turn a blind eye to the tremendous dearth of even the most basic human rights in much of the Muslim nations of the Middle East. How selective you are in your outrage!
I bet the 200,000 plus dead in Darfur are dead because of a the powerful Zionists right? Where are all the Muslims protesting the genocide in Darfur? Well, if they can’t pin it directly on Jews or Zionists, what’s the fun in being outraged at a genocide?
Au contraire. The situation in Darfur is Muslims killing muslims. Why should the zionist neo cons push for war there when the Sudanese is already doing the job for them?
You know, it really amuses me, all the mean-spirited and vile insults that are poured out in my direction. I guess I must really be getting under people’s skin! It is sad, however, that most people feel the need to resort to such uncivilized personal attacks upon me, in order to make your opinions seem more valid. In fact, such ad hominom attacks show a low level of inteligence and demonstrate that your auguements lack substantive merit.
On the other hand, there are a few writers on this blog, Matthew Wells for example, who are most civil and thoughtful in their comments. I’ve enjoyed reading their comments and learn from them. Too bad the rest of you can’t be a bit more civil!
Tim R
Sorry to be so rough; fellow, but you are spreading ignorant propoganda that is actually killing people. If you don’t feel any responsibility for repeating lies that kill people, why should I worry about your tender feelings?
I am spreading what I believe to be the truth, as you are doing the same. We both believe we are right. Who knows maybe I’m wrong? But you will have to convince me with more than base insults. How about fact, evidence and logic instead?
Most of your arguments has only been that we should invade Iran because you can marry a nine year old there.
It never occurred to you, son, that the caption, antiwar.com, just might carry with it a certain point of view? From what little I’ve read of what you’ve had to say here, it would seem to me almost certain that the spirit grounding it is inimical to that point of view and, what’s more, purposefully so. No honest dialogue is being sought, its more provocation than anything else; more in-your-face than honest engagement. You’ll understand, then, a certain antipathy coming back. In the circumstances, to speak of “mean-spiritedness” is, at best, unreflective and, at worst, disingenuous.
John Lowell
On the contrary, Mr. Lowell, I enjoy the give and take and what is wrong with a spirited debate? Despite my disagreements I can say I have actually learned a thing or two from others on this site. If I wanted people that agreed with me, I would find somewhere else to post. So I guess my goal is twofold: One, to better understand the viewpoints of the anti-war left, and secondly, to perhaps “stir the pot” a bit myself and challenge some of the beliefs of your bretheren.
Actually, the give and take and the passionate debates I’ve had are enjoyable and it is what America is all about. How fortunate I feel to live in a land where we can all share our views and debate and do so with the freedom of speech to be bold and unafraid of spreading our ideas. The sad thing is that too often today liberals and conservatives villify each other, shout at each other and never actually listen to each other.
This is not the “Anti War Left”. Some of us are Liberals but most, including myself are Libertarians, hence on the right.
LMAO, I still can’t get over Bush’s puppets. From comments about “Islamo Fascists” to gems like, “In Iran, a man can marry and have sex with a nine-year-old girl,” Americans just can’t quit puppetting their televisions – no matter how many times they’ve already been lied to and played for suckers.
“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”
Oscar Wilde
No Ed, I did not learn about Iranian men marrying 9 year olds on Fox News. I actually researched Iranian law and later looked at the history of the Prophet Mohammed, who most authorities conclude had between 11-13 wives, one of which Aisha, was 9 when the marriage was consumated.
On the contrary, I only wish these horrendous laws were discussed on TV more often. In reality, most TV shows seem to be politically correct and tend not to talk about, or tend to downplay many of the more repugnant laws within radical Islamic nations. Then again, maybe they are smart, we all know what happened when the Pope dared to even suggest the mere possibility that Islam was not peaceful. These madmen took to the streets seeking blood.
Were supposed to invade a country because theres pedophiles there?
The point is that the neo-cons have an agenda the precedes the 9/11 attacks, and the only way to advance that agenda is through the use of propaganda. The point is that they themselves know thay are lying. We should not expect them to ever apologize or reconsider their arguments. Thnkfully, the propaganda seems to be failing as more and more Americans want out of the war. Maybe you can’t fool all the people all of the time.