World Forums

Keeping up with the occupation.

I'm preoccupied with the liberation.

:P

Cheers, Mate

Mate

One man's liberation is another man's occupation:)

1. Donald Rumsfeld was grilled by our soldiers - good.

2. The Army top brass decided we'll still need heavy tanks - good.

3. No changes at the Treasury - bad, very bad.

The armored (or lack of) vehicle situation is horrible. It's an insult to the finest army in the world, more so in an urban combat setting. Reservist troops especially are being sent without any armored vehicles, and they are doing their best to improvise. It is not enough.

The truth is that the military has been dealing with the issue of armored vehicles for months now. Originally, 200+ hummers were equiped with armor, but as the need for more protection became apparent, then many more were produced. This is an ongoing process and as of today, thousands of such armored hummers are being delivered to the Army.

You won't hear this from the leftwing media, of course. In fact, the reporter who prompted the soldier to ask Rumsfeld the question should have known about this, but his agenda was to embarass the secretary.

As Ed stated, production simply has not met with <i>unanticipated</i> demand. However, to be honest, this is an operational failing and something that the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense are accountable for.

The good thing is that the US military-industrial complex is adjusting and adapting, getting the needed equipment out there. The bad thing is that enforcing accountability, at the highest level of leadership, is subject to partisan distortion. The left dramatizes every mistake and demagogues it to undermine the US. The right is reluctant to admit mistakes for fear of the latter. Suffice to say, for me, the left remains the great enemy of not only the US, but all of civilization.

However, when all is said and done, I feel Rumsfeld should have resigned or have been fired for both opposing initial requests for heavy unit deployment and for not anticipating the requirements and rigors of nation building. Moreover, as Leo said, we did not win comprehensively. Specifically, we allowed an insurgency to grow right under our noses, failing to establish security, rule of law, and waiting too late to bring violence on them...as we did in Fallujah.

My friends in the military yet remain upbeat and positive. The majority accept their mission as a matter of duty, bitching about some things for sure, but feeling overall that we are doing the right thing. I said this before to others at World Politics: I won't lose hope and faith until they do.

At the least, they have my support.

Suffice to say, for me, the left remains the great enemy of not only the US, but all of civilization.

I'm pretty sure Osama Bin Laden would vote Republican. ;)

"I'm pretty sure Osama Bin Laden would vote Republican"

I'm pretty sure Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would vote Democrat.

How sure? Not sure, just saying it...

Even if they did, that is pretty irrevelant to contemplate or discuss.

Who's "the left," Mate? Because if it encompasses each and every person that opposes Iraq's illegal invasion and on-going obscene carnage -- masquerading as 'liberation' -- The Left easily comprises a full 70-80% (and I am being kind) of the world's population.

Then again, as Barry posted at WX -- and I've asked him to tranfer here -- perhaps you simply like 'democracy' in name only.

Dissent is treason. No matter what...rah rah USA!

Truth is two companies offered the Pentagon an increase in production or armored vehicles but their offers were ignored. One of such companies in fact, is only producing at 50% capacity. Ofcourse now that the issue is in public light a request for an increase will be made, but doing it only now seems like just PR. One of my reservists friends has written to me about his armor problems for months, all that could be done to protect our forces was not done.

"The Left easily comprises a full 70-80% (and I am being kind) of the world's population."

Uhu, including people who haven't a clue about politics, much less about the Left and the Right:)

Leonid wrote:"The Left easily comprises a full 70-80% (and I am being kind) of the world's population."

Uhu, including people who haven't a clue about politics, much less about the Left and the Right:)

Well, Leonid, who are the Left?

Left are those who defend personal freedom and freedom against persecution. Left are those who support the poor and provide social protection. Left are those who care about environment more than about corporate profits. This is who Left are.

Leonid wrote:"I'm pretty sure Osama Bin Laden would vote Republican"

I'm pretty sure Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would vote Democrat.

How sure? Not sure, just saying it...

Even if they did, that is pretty irrevelant to contemplate or discuss.

I am pretty sure Hitler would vote Republican. He supported harsh anti-immigrational policies and pro-Corporate policies. He was as Right-wing as it gets.

"Left are those who defend personal freedom and freedom against persecution"

I'm not going to ask what "persecution". I'm not going to ask about those "defenders".

I will do what I always do when Lefties throw at me their self-deceptions and delusions - laugh.

"I am pretty sure Hitler would vote Republican. He supported harsh anti-immigrational policies and pro-Corporate policies. He was as Right-wing as it gets."

Typical garbage by a fairly typical leftie.

In the 30-s people were LEAVING Germany, not applying to SETTLE there.
So it would be ridiculous to discuss Hitler's immigration policy, as opposed to his emigration policy.

Besides, most of modern Republicans are FOR immigration. The Wall Street Journal goes as far as tacitly supporting illegal immigration.

What most of Republicans don't support? Illegals who break our laws.

Now about Hitler and corporations.

Hitler's economy was SOCIALIST, yep it was. There were few large companies who supported him and he let them derive their ill-gotten profits without any regard for market competition. There was none.

Thank you for your demagoguery, Eugene. It takes a leftie idiot to compare modern American corporation with Hitler's "corporations", fed with the slave-labor.

Eugene wrote:: Left are those who defend personal freedom and freedom against persecution. Left are those who support the poor and provide social protection. Left are those who care about environment more than about corporate profits. This is who Left are.

LOL. You don't really believe that, do you Eugene? I'm probably in agreement with you over certain issues but it smacks of pure arrogance for you to say only "lefties" defend personal freedom and support the poor. I do hate it when discussion turns to left vs right, as if it added anything to the discussion at hand. Are you personally a lefty? Whose freedom are you defending from persecution?

I won't even comment on Hitler, but he was no conservative and I do believe you know that. Wasn't that discussed in the summer? And, how do you know which party he would have voted for? I certainly don't, but perhaps you have a bella vista of the landscape of his mind.

Assuming that the process of pardoning is somewhat opposite to the "persecution" mentioned by Eugene, here is an interesting reading below.

Thank you very much, the greatest President in American history.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback ... 290826.asp

Lefties' ability to bring up such "issues" is simply mind-boggling. How is it relevant how Hitler and Osama would vote in the American election?

Why is nobody asking me how I would vote in Austria, Zimbabwe or New Zealand?

Is it because their elections have nothing to do with me? How would Eugene vote in the Stalin's Soviet Union or Henry IV's France?

As I've said before it takes Lefties to say "I'm pretty sure...blah blah"

Right, pretty preposterous.

Leonid. Thanks for article, very interesting read. I don't have a problem with Clinton myself, but I certainly have a problem with those who are always trying to play down criminal, even terrorist activity as if it were a mere nuisance to society.

LOL@the poem for Abu-Jamal btw! Profound, I'm sure everyone will agree:

Their message is so clear
Do not be Black
Do not be radical
Do not be a political prisoner
There is still time to
SHAKE IT LOOSE

That case is quite old, but as far as I'm aware there was a fair amount of evidence against him, no? Yet I've heard pop groups chanting for his release in their songs. Very odd.

Well, looks as if we have crossed that bridge and have made this our new home. World Forums has been officially baptized as Leo and Eugene have gotten into their first argument. Can't get any better than that.

Rumsfeld screwed up miserably. Don't go blaming the media for setting him up. If Rumsfeld was interested in having a real town meeting with the troops, then there was no need for the dog and pony show in front of the media to begin with. He has only himself to blame. He had one answer to give that soldier about the lack of armor for the troops:

We have done a terrible job of getting the necessary armor and we not only need to do better but will

End of story.

So the whole thrust of the 'rebuttal' presented by one of the two Head Cheerleader (at least amongst the minor dittoheads such as BlogBoy and the KKKanadian Airhead) for the Make Our Own Reality crowd boils down to "anyone who opposes our Imperlialst ideology doesn't know what the hell they're talking abot."

You just gotta love Democracy as seen by these gentlemen: with us or against us. Fuck The Fallacy of the Excluded Middle -- in fact, screw logic altogether...no need for either in the Make Our Own Realiy Gang. Fuck democracy, and much less contrary opinions -- the word's a binary equation and We Have it Covered for all you simpletons (Useful Idiots in Leospeak). We kill more of "them" (undefined of course, because as we all know, the US "doesn't do body counts"...unless it serves their propaganda purposes and then you'll see it splashed all over every MSM headlime. Not exactyly a novel approach. You're killed, you were clearly a 'terrorist')) and we "win." Whatever the fuck that means wehn fighting a whole culture. 1.4 billiom strong and gaiing worldwide sympathy as we speak.

The silly litte mustache can't be far behind.

The Left = anyone who -- obviously out of sheer ignorance -- disagrees with us.

Gee, thanks for clearing that up. Quite the intellectual horsepower at work

What utter crock.

How is it relevant how Hitler and Osama would vote in the American election?

Sorry Leo. If I had know you had made the leap over to these boards already, I would of course have posted some form of step-by-step explanation of my point so that you too can follow the thread of the conversation without spilling your gripe water.

OK, slowly just for you: my tongue-in-cheek comment was intended to query Mate's typically overwrought claim that "the left" is "the great enemy of not only the US, but all of civilization.". In a world where, for instance, Osama Bin Laden still remains at large, I would posit - and most sane human beings would agree without comment - that there are larger, more immediate and rather more serious threats to both the US and "all of civilisation" than "the left", whatever that may be. Osama Bin Laden being one obvious example who is of course not exactly representative of "the left" and therefore a living and breathing (still, thanks to the Bush administration's four-second attention span) repudiation of Mate's post.

I felt the point was worth making given the regularity with which Mate treats us to reminders of his steadfast disapproval of partisan demagoguery.

OK?

If necessary, I can email you a picture of this point, rendered in some suitably large and garish crayon writing.

Idiot said something utterly idiotic, not to mention irrelevant, and now he's trying to look smart.

Trying he's entitled to, in vain:)

Aah, Leonid. A rebuttal man's man ...

LOL!

Leonid wrote:Uhu, including people who haven't a clue about politics, much less about the Left and the Right:)

When they polled Fox News viewers, they were far more likely to be wrong about Iraq's relationship to al Queda, the existence of WMD, and whether Saddam was behind 9/11, then the people who watched the other TV stations.

Both groups were far more likely to be wrong than those who read newspapers.

Dragging a conversation from World Politics to here. Hope that's OK by you, Mate.

Mate

Some of you simply miss the point while others disingenuously are evasive. Like I said, leaders in all manners of endeavors, even in authoritarian countries, to a degree, take the pulse of popular sentiment and make decisions.

“We, the people…?”

You’ve just described one of the most basic functions of democracy. What would you rather? Put aside democratic values in the name of promoting them? Hush dissent in the name of the war? I don’t think you’re a fascist either, but what is the meaning of this putsch to silence opposition? It’s not your disagreeing that is difficult to understand, it is your attacking the validity of open disagreement. I registered your approval of dissent previously, but it doesn’t gel with the above.

When you decry lack of unity among world leaders, that is defensible, and a good point to argue. But cajoling the public for dissent is utterly indefensible. There is no way whatsoever you can show that public dissent from war on Iraq is abetting the Iraq insurgency and terrorism worldwide. It is a blank supposition. You have no facts, no figures, not even, I think I’m safe in saying, any anecdotal evidence to support this accusation. You are mimicking punditry similarly baseless.

If world leaders are taking the pulse of populations (note, Spain and australia’s majorities were against deployment to Iraq, and yet the executive pressed on – at first), then why is this not valid? If democratic principle matters to you, then you must allow that sometimes the majority will disappoint you. You would seem to prefer a more militaristic mind-set from the public. Do not break ranks.

Blazes made a point I was going to make. Why is the US not at fault for leading a breakaway rebel coalition, a minority, even amongst Western countries, and sowing international disunity? You can only defend this with a blank statement – the coalition is right, the rest of the world is wrong – therefore the majority of the world is sowing disunity. Democratic values have no meaning at the international level either!

Too bad if the US generally gets it right (or wrong). The imprimatur you bestow upon any US administration, at any time (for all time?), to do as it sees fit because it is the best of a bunch of countries (the hubris!) is the real partisanship in the general discussion. You argue that the US is right because it is more righteous! Never mind the mistakes, the US means well. We can lay at each others’ feet the lists of good and bad the US has done in the world, but the proper way to discuss the war on Iraq that has so consumed us is in the context of today’s geopolitical realities, not on some character assessment of the US in general.

Matt and I have not impugned the US generally. In fact, many contributors to this forum have not (to my knowledge). There is certainly more anti-Americanism in the world, and most of it emanates from the ME. There is more in the West, too, but by far the bulk of that is directed towards the Bush government. Criticism of the Bush government, and, specifically, it's policies, is completely legitimate, Mate. I acknowledge anti-Americanism is present, but as it does not form part of my (limited) understanding of the world, your exhortations against it are wasted on me. I have written elsewhere (and maybe here, too) that I was disappointed in anti-Americanism I’ve witnessed first-hand. I’ve commiserated with an American friend of mine about it.

This cry of anti-Americanism is becoming shrill. And it is an offence against my contribution here [World Politics - WX] over the months to dismiss it as such. I’m not actually offended, but the accusation is unbecoming. I may be wrong, Mate, but I am not prejudiced (at least in the way you determine).

iI stand by the idea that incessant anti-Bush and anti-American bashing throughout pop culture has definitely made an impact in undermining the US in Iraq.

That is it – an ‘idea’. It is only that. You cannot verify, just grumble. What on earth, apart from your imagination, has led you to believe this ‘idea’? Are troops deserting because of the noise back home, or because of what they are actually experiencing on the ground? Can you show that the election of the Spanish Socialist party is more to do with general opinion against war in Iraq, or because the government claimed erroneously that Basque seperatists bombed the railways? And if it was the former, how can a defender of democratic values impugn the 'will of the people'. Is it only legitimate if it's correct in your estimation? This is the flaw in your appraisal. You defend democratic practice, but repudiate those who exercise their right (as different from simply disagreeing with them) when it undermines your hopes.

You all here can twist it all you want into a discussion of free speech, this all being innocuous chat board chatter.

What?? ‘Twist’? It is completely fucking straightforward. It is free speech. Get it into your head – our discussion on this chat board is not a boon to the ‘enemy’.

You can even vociferously state that the US weighed currency considerations its formulations regarding the war on terror, implying you know what, only to backtrack later.

This is a theory. It is no wonder people are scratching their heads, trying to make sense of the invasion of Iraq. It must be frustrating that your explanation isn’t accepted. For myself, I keep your explanation in mind. However, I find it hard to believe the US govt was so naïve about the aftermath of war in Iraq.

*

Spoke to an Iraqi Kurd who has just come back from a month there. He says Iraq is ‘destroyed’. He spoke of Hussein gassing Kurds (Halabja), and expressed pity for soldiers and civilians alike in a war he considered unjustified. He reckoned democracy would take decades to arrive in Iraq. He spoke of the tribes and the complex, bitter, old infighting in Iraq that requires an iron hand to keep the peace. He didn’t like Saddam, nor approve of his methods, but he said only a strong, ruthless leader will stabilize the country. He lives in Australia and enjoys the ‘benefits’ of a Western democracy. He was convinced that the US government really was that naïve.

To bring it back to topic [this came from a discussion on whether or not the US is behaving like an empire], this unwillingness or inability to comprehend realities on the ground in Iraq supports the contention that the invasion of Iraq was driven by ideology. The US projected its own value system onto the people of Iraq, badly miscalculating (or not calculating at all) the response to the intervention. Rather than contend with an extremely complex socio-political reality, the grand plan reflected American idealism. This is the blunt end of hegemonic ambition - the transplanting of a favoured value system ('justified' by argument to moral authority) to another country and a different culture. Whether benevolently intended or not, the military enforcement of these values, and the proposition that the US is changing its 'footprint' in the ME - beach head argument - is openly hegemonic, and carries with it the whiff of imperialism. As I said previously, the argument that the US is behaving like an empire will depend on the next event/s in the ME. Currently, I do not believe the US is an imperial actor, despite the 'Pax Americana' envisaged by some of the key players in the Administration.

The 'left', if that term accurately describes those criticizing the war in Iraq (and there are plenty of right-wing pundits and web sites in accord) are fulfilling a proper function in a democratic community. War supporters seem to require a that their opposition yield the right to dissent in the name of the greater war on terrorism, lest it impact negatively on the ambition of the US and coalition in Iraq (and elsewhere?). It would seem they feel that either the 'left' is deluded and dangerous, or blatantly anti-West, anti-American, anti-Bush. This is a useful (mis)characterization to avoid dealing with dissent substantively. Impugn the opposition, call them names, lament or deplore ther sick agendas...

We're breaking ranks in the war on terror, supposedly. But we're marching in step with democratic principle. We champion the cause of plurality, debate, freedom of thought, of speech. Say what you like about international disunity. Civil dissent is a cornerstone of the very values war-supporters employ to rationalize the war on Iraq and, potentially, the Middle East. Rumsfeld was delighted with the looting and pillaging following major combat operations in Iraq, avowing this would never have happened under an oppressive regime. Why isn't the far less violent expression of freedom celebrated on these boards? Because it comforts the 'enemy'? Please.

I will not yield that most basic of rights for anything, and certainly not for a war I vigorously disapprove of. I will continue to rail until the doctrine of preventitive war is abandoned, the paucity of which has been thoroughly exposed by the misconceptions about the threat posed by Iraq. Those errors should have killed off any chance that rubric might endure, but as it may not have, I will debate and protest until it expires.

Leonid wrote:Lefties' ability to bring up such "issues" is simply mind-boggling. How is it relevant how Hitler and Osama would vote in the American election?

You brought it up

Marko wrote:

Eugene wrote:: Left are those who defend personal freedom and freedom against persecution. Left are those who support the poor and provide social protection. Left are those who care about environment more than about corporate profits. This is who Left are.

LOL. You don't really believe that, do you Eugene? I'm probably in agreement with you over certain issues but it smacks of pure arrogance for you to say only "lefties" defend personal freedom and support the poor. I do hate it when discussion turns to left vs right, as if it added anything to the discussion at hand. Are you personally a lefty? Whose freedom are you defending from persecution?

I won't even comment on Hitler, but he was no conservative and I do believe you know that. Wasn't that discussed in the summer? And, how do you know which party he would have voted for? I certainly don't, but perhaps you have a bella vista of the landscape of his mind.

Marko

First of all, I did not say that "only lefties" support certain issues, although it is true for some.

Secondly, Hitler was definitely on the rightwing end of the spectrum as his economy certainly WAS NOT SOCIALIST. He was fiercely supported by large corporations, which had benefitted enough from his slave labor.

Hitler had draconian policies in place to deal with those of non-Arian origin. And, what's funny, Leonid knows that.

Now, Lefties support personal freedoms, such as freedom from against persecution (look at rightwing's tacit approval of the Patrtiot Act), freedom of woman's reproductive choice (who is against it, you may as well see for yourself), freedom from sexual and racial discrimination (ditto, just look the horror in Leonid's words when the population of a country or a state is about to change ethnically - even if it is not for a while)


And, look, every little thing, a bill, a law, a measure, whatever, that came out of the White House is meant to support the large corporations not the common people.

Hitler was definitely on the rightwing end of the spectrum as his economy certainly WAS NOT SOCIALIST. <i>Eugene</i>

Well, Hitler took the worst elements from all economy systems available. He was not socialist any more than Stalin was, to be sure.

Eugene:

<i>Secondly, Hitler was definitely on the rightwing end of the spectrum ... Now, Lefties support personal freedoms, such as freedom from against persecution </i>

Come on, this is a silly comparison. To assiate modern right-wingers to Hitler is just as fair as associating modern lefties to Lenin or Stalin.

Felix K wrote:Eugene:

<i>Secondly, Hitler was definitely on the rightwing end of the spectrum ... Now, Lefties support personal freedoms, such as freedom from against persecution </i>

Come on, this is a silly comparison. To assiate modern right-wingers to Hitler is just as fair as associating modern lefties to Lenin or Stalin.

Felix

Hitler was a right-winger of his time. You see, unlike our dear friend Leonid, we can not accept Left - Right as one straight line spectre. It is, at the very least a two-dimensional picture.

But as far as Hitler being a right-winger as opposed to left-winger, as Leonid seems to suggest, that is absolutely true. Remember, he made no bones who his "enemies" were - Communists, Socialists and the bolshevik Jews. And you know, which end of the spectre these belong to.

Eugene Berkovich wrote:

Hitler had draconian policies in place to deal with those of non-Arian origin. And, what's funny, Leonid knows that.

Eugene, that's a self-evident truth if ever there was one. I don't think anyone would disagree about those policies of Hitler's.

Eugene Berkovich wrote: Now, Lefties support personal freedoms, such as freedom from against persecution (look at rightwing's tacit approval of the Patrtiot Act), freedom of woman's reproductive choice (who is against it, you may as well see for yourself), freedom from sexual and racial discrimination (ditto, just look the horror in Leonid's words when the population of a country or a state is about to change ethnically - even if it is not for a while)

I vehemently disagree with the Patriot Act. I believe I mentioned a similar Act that had been passed through our very own Parliament a few weeks ago over on WF. I deplore policies which, while masquerading as protection from terrorism, impinge on our personal freedoms more than any outside influence could ever dream of doing.

Oh, and I support the right to choose for women AND I support gay rights, including marriage. I wouldn't really consider myself left-wing, either.

Hitler was in fact very much like some much older Leftists. Ludwig von Mises speaks of those similarities. Writing in 1944 he said:

"The Nazis have not only imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power. They have copied much more. They have imported from Russia the one-party system and the privileged role of this party and its members in public life; the paramount position of the secret police; the organization of affiliated parties abroad which are employed in fighting their domestic governments and in sabotage and espionage, assisted by public funds and the protection of the diplomatic and consular service; the administrative execution and imprisonment of political adversaries; concentration camps; the punishment inflicted on the families of exiles; the methods of propaganda. They have borrowed from the Marxians even such absurdities as the mode of address, party comrade (Parteigenosse), derived from the Marxian comrade (Genosse), and the use of a military terminology for all items of civil and economic life. The question is not in which respects both systems are alike but in which they differ..."

(For those who are unaware of it, Von Mises was an Austrian Jewish intellectual and a remarkably prescient economist. He got out of Vienna just hours ahead of the Gestapo. He did therefore have both every reason and every opportunity to be a close observer of Nazism)

Steel magnate Fritz Thyssen fled to Switzerland because he believed that Nazi planning was 'Bolshevising' Germany.

Quotes by Hitler:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

If this is not socialism I don't know what is.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Adolf Hitler, speech of May 1, 1927.

Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century. He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all. Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.

Also, this work by Ludwig von Mises remains as priceless as ever:

Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War.

http://www.mises.org/etexts/og.pdf

Well, if they had been genuine rightists, they would not have called themselves "National Socialists". They would not have talked so much about the "good for the people (Volk)". In terms of terminology and thinking, the Nazis were close to the communists.

On the other hand, the Nazi ideology re cartels and big enterprises didn't prevent some of the biggest companies in Germany (and abroad as well) from profiting from the system.

It's just inappropriate to use the usual political terms "left" and "right" when it comes to the Nazis. The Nazis were just anti-democratic, plain and simple. None of the current major parties anywhere in Europe and America can even remotely be accused of anything like that.