Friday, June 23, 2006

Hey Lefty? Just for You

Just a quick little 5 minute Internet search:
  • "The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.” - Gwynne Dyer, leftist author
  • Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war - Jonathan Schell, AlterNet.com
  • The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing. - Robert Jensen, college professor and author
So all of the above (and tens of thousands more leftists) are actively cheering for a US defeat and the only way to defeat is more dead soldiers - or is that leap a little much for you? Surf any of the threads at Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. Kos himself even said "Screw 'em" when four US citizens we're killed, burned, hacked to pieces and hanged from a bridge. They literally cheer for more deaths and celebrate "milestones" of 2,000 deaths and 2,500 deaths, belittling everything our military has done. And how about this sign in San Francisco this past summer?You and your hippie ilk want to relive Vietnam and drag this country backwards into the cesspool that was the 60's and 70's, but don't question your patriotism?

15 Comments:

Blogger leftisthebest said...

Dear M, my friend, all that studying for the sergeant's examination has clouded your thinking. Nowhere in the three examples which you cited is there a call for the killing of U.S. soldiers, our orginal argument. The three authors have higher goals than the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I welcome your readers to look ar all three articles.

I shall tear apart your arguments piecemeal by piecemeal for each:

you fail to point out Gwynee Dyer is a veteran of the U.S. Navy, as well as Great Britian and Canada. He may have a better insight than non-veterans as yourself. Also, he is a native of Newfoundland, so your American angle is out the window.

Jonathan Schell, the second author, states the U.S. needs to lose the war because we have to get out now before it gets worse for U.S. troops. In fact he points out, like many conservatives, that inadequate Iraqi troops and police force are a contributing factor.

Finally, my buddy, the college professor (Jensen) states ALL WARS should be halted, but it may "take 100 years." He calls for more international troop participation in Iraq. Another factor called for by conservatives.

Good luck tomorrow on the test. Perhaps with all the CPD muck out of your brain you can better proceed with your Bush backing.

6/23/2006 04:19:00 AM  
Blogger SCC said...

So since he's a veteran, he's immune from criticism? Thanks for proving Ann Coulter's argument again.

6/23/2006 07:34:00 AM  
Blogger leftisthebest said...

M, boy, oh boy, are you always this crabby when you wake up in the a.m.?

I never implied he is better because he was a veteran. Yet, the other day you said my comments were an afront to the Iraqi invasion veterans on the department. You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth, my pal.

Anyways, i am sure after tomorrow's examination you'll be back to your own testy self and not take everything to heart like the past few days.

your pal.
lefty

P/S I don't like alot of the stuff he writes, but the goofs who have been attacking Northern need to get a life. Fair criticism is okay, he did his time, give him a break.

6/23/2006 09:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get a clue, Lefty.

Northside thrives on the vicious juvenile attacks.
If a jealous frustrated psychopath can't attack him as an outstanding copper and must resort to vile insults, Northern must have done something right.

Knowing the man, he's probably laughing his ass off.

6/23/2006 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger happyjoyjoyjoy said...

hey im leftyhanded. woot!!! and my monkey and me love Ann Coulter. She is insane when she opens her mouth but wow is she hot to look at with the volume turned down.

6/23/2006 04:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

S.C.C. + Coulter = N.A.Z.I. P.U.S.S.Y.

6/23/2006 05:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lefty rules
SCC drools
word!

6/23/2006 07:44:00 PM  
Blogger coldtype said...

Hello Scc, I'm new to this blog and glad to have found it, however, as I read your comments regarding the US "war" in Iraq it became clear to me that you share a common misimpression about American foreign policy in general and particularly as it relates to the Middle East. Let us be clear, democracy promotion has nothing to do with US foreign policy decisions and never have. A cursory review of US actions since its rise to Great Power status in 1898 would make this obvious.

Professor Jensen touched upon several of the key motivations of our policy makers in launching the illegal war of aggression in Iraq. Perhaps you misunderstood his argument with regards to American Empire and the danger such an entity presents to the world at large. As leftisthebest has suggested, I would also advise others to read and perhaps re-read Jenson's comments while keeping in mind what's at stake: the US can either remain a republic or become an empire. The former can support democratic principles while the latter never has.

We would do well to recall the lessons of history. For example, when the deadly combination of propaganda-fueled ultra-nationalism (often mistaken for patriotism) and unchecked corporate power brought National Socialism to power in Germany in 1933, the world was not the better for it--least of all the German people.

When Rome slid from republic to empire under Caesar, tyranny followed immediately in its wake-- as Cicero had predicted it would (to his mortal peril).

Jensen and others argue that the "defeat" of the American Empire is to all of our benefit (to say nothing of our victims) because it and it alone poses the greatest threat to peace. The Bush administration has managed to do what Osama could not: Turn the US into an international pariah nation.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was carried out under fictional pretexts and in clear violation of international law. This is uncontroversial. In fact, as established by the Nuremberg Tribunal following the Second World War, a war of aggression constitutes the supreme war crime in that it is, "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (see Noam Chomsky's "Failed States" p.65).

For those of us who believe in the rule of law and dream of a secure future for our children, the policies currently being pursued by the ultra-nationalist, highly reactionary statists in flagrant violation of international law, its treaty obligations, and the US Constitution should be cause for serious concern.

6/23/2006 11:07:00 PM  
Blogger SCC said...

Bwahahahaha! What complete and utter bullshit! Cite these alleged violations of Internation Law and Treaties. And your claims of "Our Victims?" Grow up. Evidently, you are another "blame America first" type. The good done by America far outweighs any unintentional failings. And quoting Chomsky? What about the 17 UN resolutions and the Joint Resolution of the United States Congress? Your comprehension of Internation Law is like our comprehension of how to perform open heart surgery - non existent.

You are living in a fantasy land friend. Open your eyes.

6/23/2006 11:50:00 PM  
Blogger coldtype said...

Your response is sadly predictable SCC. A German "patriot" in Nazi Germany would have no doubt responded in a similar fashion if confronted with evidence of his nation's crimes. Why lose sleep over those gas chambers smoking in the distance after the Dear Leader has proclaimed the benevolent intent of his policies? If the Furhur feels it necessary to invade Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Russia, and bomb Britain, surely he means only to improve the lives of these misbegotten souls by drawing them closer to Germany's bosom as he proclaimed.

America's reputation lies in shambles largely because her citizens have been poorly served by the so-called Fourth Estate--the press--which prides itself as the one instution that can hold power to account. Instead, however, the mainstream media (largely corporate-owned and sympathetic to these inerests) served as stenographers to power. Accepting, without question, the Bush adminstration's fabrications regarding Iraqi WMD during the lead-up to the invasion throughout 2002 and early 2003. Instead of asking questions of the administration that were obvious at the time to those paying attention, the "free press" chose to parrot the propaganda of policy makers. These efforts were instramental in stampeading a frightened public into support for the illegal invasion.

Here are some of the things I recall thinking at the time:

1.How can a defenseless third-world country having suffered through 10 years of murderous sanctions pose a threat to the United States? Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups estimate that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis--mostly children.

2. How does a country that was stripped of the offensive weapons needed to project power in the region during its crushing defeat in the First Gulf War pose a credible threat to its neighbors as the Bush administration declared?

3. Why weren't the previous victims of Iraqi aggression (Iran and Kuwait) not breaking down the doors to the UN Security Council to save them from imminent attack from the beast Saddam?

4. If every team of weapons inspectors since the end of the First Gulf War had found no WMD in Iraq (after what had survived the war had been destroyed) how could Saddam manufacture new ones under sanctions that denied him access to the necessary materials? How does he accomplish this feat under the watchful gaze of every intelligence service in the west?

What is far more important SCC is that none of these questions were asked by a servile media at the time. Perhaps had these questions been asked, the American public could have made informed decisions and held their public servants to account. Can you imagine the possiblities SCC? Perhaps 100,000+ Iraqis and 2500+ US troops would still be alive.

It appears that a few brief words on International Law are necessary for you do not appear to be cognizant of what it is.

The UN Charter came into being in the aftermath of World War II and was tasked with the major objective of ending all wars. The victors of the Second World War embarked on this mission with the full knowledge that the next conflagration between the industrialized societies could mean the end of humanity. The UN Charter laid down specific guidelines regarding conflicts and disputes to which all parties who ratified it agreed to follow.

It was here that the concept of International Law and issue of War Crimes was formalized. Nazi Germany was exibit A of what was NOT to be tolerated in the international community, namely the launching of a war of aggression. That is to say the unprovoked attack and occupation of a sovereign nation. Every nation was provided the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. A nation has the right to defend itself from imminent attack until the matter is put before the UN Security Council which will then vote to marshall the forces necessary to collectively repell the forces of the aggressor nation.

The justification for the US attack on Iraq did not begin to meet the requirements of Article 51 and the Bush administration refused to take the matter before the UN Security Council as required under international law when it became clear that the action would not be sanctioned.

When the US launched the invasion of Iraq with its British lap-dog in March of 2003, it declared itself at once to be an outlaw state to which international law did not apply.

In closing, I must comment on your challenge that I provide examples of America's victims. It is a testiment to how thoroughly you've subsumed your objectivity to propaganda that the answer is not obvious at once. To simplify the matter I'll begin and end (for now) with the most recent--the people of Iraq, whose nation we have invaded, occupied, and destroyed. More later my friend. Stay safe.

6/24/2006 06:31:00 AM  
Blogger leftisthebest said...

Bravo!, coldtype and welcome to the group. Any liberal thinker is welcome here. Other than myself, Shady and Little Malcolm X, (the latter two who have seemed to abandoned the blog lately) this site is mostly Bush-backing, let's close our eyes to American atrocities in the world.

Please come back again.

6/24/2006 06:57:00 AM  
Blogger SCC said...

(1) A defenseless 3rd world country with the second biggest army under arms in the middle east (second to Iran). A country that had been launching missles at US planes for 11 years, importing arms from China, Russia and France in defiance of a UN Arms ban. A country that slaughtered the Kurds, Marsh Arabs within it's own borders and sponsered "palestinian" suicide bombers with reward money. It's called a "threat to our National interests." All countries operate in their own National interests, some by arming dictators and bying their oil.

(2) Um, how did a country stripped of the ability to sell oil except for food and medicine manage to acquire close to $18 billion dollars for tanks, missles, bullets, guns, the second largest army, etc etc? Why, through bribes, payoffs, blackmail and countries willing to look the other way for cheap oil! Imagine that.

(3) Kuwait was demanding answers for thousands of it's citizens still missing after 11 years. But if you read the 17 UN resolutions and the established policy of "regime change" (official policy of the CLINTON administration, nothing in any of these claims "imminent threat." And neither did Bush in his State of the Union. Go look it up - Your use of the words "Imminent Threat" betray you as a kool-aid drinking leftist of the highest order - we spanked Lefty with it many times.

(4) Because (A) he was buying off every country and every UN inspection team? Why rock the boat was their attitude. And (B) the inspection schedule was knows DAYS ahead of time. He move stuff around. Remember the truck traffic captured Generals have been telling the US about? Moving stuff to Bekka and Russia? If you read anything but the main stream media and the Daily Kos for your info, you'd be amazed at what's public knowledge. How about the 500 shells just discovered? Inert or now THEY WERE NEVER DECLARED AND ARE A MATERIAL BREACH.

Your 100,000 dead Iraqi's is another horseshit number. The Lancet chose a number between 20,000 and 180,000 as a "median." It's still under 35,000 that have been killed by IRAQI and foreign terrorists, not Americans. And you'd still prefer 50 million Iraqi's and Afghani's living under tyrants and clerics planning the next big thing?

As to the UN, why is it everywhere they go, child prostitution rings seem to pop up? Why do bribes for oil, food and shelter seem to be the norm? Why does every single UN mission without American troops seem to bog down and lead to further slaughter? Or don't you remember Serbia, Darfur, Lebanon, etc.?

The US is an outlaw state? OK, now you've crossed intothe realm of stupidity. We can't believe we've waster this much time explaining the world to a softball like yourself. Lefty? This is your support? Our opinion of you has sunken - you used to be so much smarter.

6/24/2006 07:15:00 AM  
Blogger Thomas Westgard said...

All of you need editing. The last succinct post on this was the original one.

SCC - I read those articles, and they don't say what you claim. They're saying the US should bring our troops home safely.

The sign in the picture is completely inexcusable - if that's anyone on the left, then I'm disgusted. But is it? Who is actually carrying that sign? The sign is more consistent with the messages of right-winger Fred Phelps than anything a Democrat said. Were there interviews with the sign-kooks, or did you just assume they're on the left because it's in SF? Right-wing kooks can travel too.

6/24/2006 07:57:00 AM  
Blogger Thomas Westgard said...

According to this, he's a Leninist. Attaching a Leninist to the mainstream American left makes as much sense as attaching the American Nazi Party to the mainstream American right. I don't think you want to claim them, do you? (After reading some of the outright racist comments that you're having to delete, I could make a pretty well-supported argument.) I'll be a kind liberal and not claim you're responsible for those.

Sorry, SCC, but your BS on this one is still stuck to your own shoes. I know, I know, "no, man, you're full of it blah blah blah."

6/24/2006 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger coldtype said...

Hello Leftisthebest, I,m happy to be on board. It would seem that we have our work cut out for us.

Good evening SCC. Generally when I engage in written debate, one of my assumptions is that the other party, at minimum, possesses the ability to read. By "read" I of course refer to its most critical component--that of comprehension. It has become increasingly obvious that written words and the meanings they convey have little influence upon your interpretation of them.

Let's review. As I recall, you initially cited three writers of the left for their alleged call for the killing of U.S soldiers. As Leftisthebest and others have patiently pointed out to you nowhere is such a position taken in any of these examples. furthermore, you consistently demonstrate an inability to follow these writer's arguments--a talent you have now extended to my contributions. I say tomato, you say--oranges.

I now carry forth with the full knowledge that your grasp of US foreign policy and its relation to the interests of the dominant sectors of our society (i.e corporate interests, major investors) is non-existent. What you mis-label the "national interests" are, in truth, the interests of those who directly benefit from the control of foreign natural resources and advantagous access to foreign markets.

With this in mind the "national interest" can be understood in its proper context. These are the interests of our multi-national corporations and major investors--not the average American taxpayer. Surely it is not to my benefit (nor yours) that my country invade and occupy Iraq at the astounding cost of nearly 300 million dollars a day--every dime of which is being financed with foreign debt.

[Here's the part where you need to follow closely SCC]. The enormous costs of our imperial adventure in Iraq will be socialized, that is to say they will become the burden of the American taxpayer (that's us). The stupendous windfall that awaits the US energy corporations should the US gain effective control of the oil resources of Iraq and Iran will not be shared with the public. Exxon/Mobbil, Cheveron, Haliburton and the gang have enjoyed record profits every year since the invasion, while American taxpayers (and their great-grandchildren) will foot the bill of what is estimated to become the first 3 trillon dollar war (of choice).

I'm afraid I'll have to address the meat of your "rebuttal" in my next post for your assumptions betray such ignorance of history (of even the most recent vintage) that it would be best if I clear up some of the detritus first. SCC if we are to have a coherent dialog it is essential that we at least recognize what the other means when he writes, "democracy", "nation-state", "corporation", "international law", and most importantly the moral concept of "universality". More later. Stay safe.

6/25/2006 02:16:00 AM  

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts