« Executive Order: Torture | Main | A new year, and a new project »

December 31, 2004

Comments

jj

How come W can spend $1B/week in Iraq, $30B for Florida in an election year, but when 150,000 people die, the best we can scrounge up is $350M?

Chrish

And how come the other "rich" nations can't seem to come up with anything more than chump change?

Have you forgotten the number of support
personnel, equipment, helicopters, air craft carrier, etc., etc., etc. which have, even at this moment, already started delivering aid, helping to recover and rebuild?

Cut the Bullshit and quit trying to politicize everything damn thing that comes around. Where does it say that anything has to be given?

A tragic event has occurred, thousands upon
thousands of people have died and all you can do is nit pick and try to politicize?

Where's Germany, France, Russia, and all of the other EU countries in the scheme of things? Oh, perhaps this is another one of those "we're too good to talk about that" or
maybe another shining example of Double Standards?

Stop crying about double standards. The biggest and the most powerful get the most attention. I'm sure other countries would trade any day.

Jim

I can't even believe someone would politicize this. 350 million dollars to start, which does not include the 12,000 troups in the area assisting on boats, planes and helicopters, constantly bringing food and medicine and taking people to their hospital ship. The 350 million also does not include the private donations from US citizens which will also far exceed any other nation. Some countries have been very generous, like Japan. Tiny Taiwan is giving almost as much as giant China. Where are Germany, France and Russia? But you know what, let's blame Bush. It's such good fun. In fact, let's blame Bush who propbably started the tsunami in the first place. Unbelieveable!!

Chrish

Then {no name} let the other countries pitch
in more money, equipment, supplies, personnel, and donations.

Why not throw some of that criticism and
nit picking against the Arab nations? Indonesia was hit, they're mostly a Muslim nation so, where are the other Muslim nations in the relief effort?

A nightmarish tragedy has happened, thousands upon thousands of people have died, with more to follow and the typical left Liberals can only spew out more crap and garbage and try to find something to nit pick about or polticize.

Why not get off your high horse and put your money where your mouth is and join both
Bush's and Clinton in trying to help people who are in bad need of help?

Or maybe it's far easier to sit back and just bitch alot?

Jeff

Chrish, I hate to tell you this, but you're staring exactly at the results of Bush and Co., their foreign policy, and the way they conduct themselves. Forget about the actual rights and wrongs... superpower invades oil rich country that couldn't threaten us, can't find any WMD, tens of thousands die, installs puppet government, screws the occupation that has no ending.

Doesn't even matter... you can say that it was all right, but it doesn't stop most of the rest of the world and half our country from believing it was wrong. Now, everything is suspect... especially with the number of times Bush & Co. have bungled the simplest public relations. We have to overcome all of this every single time. I don't agree, but that's the way things work. Bush catered only to his supporters at the expense of everything else. The rest of us pay the price.

America Bad
Saudi Arabia Good

Jim

Earthquake in Iran, thousands of Muslims killed, America helps

Ttusami in Indonesia and Thailand, 10's of thousands of Muslims killed, America helps more than anyone

Ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia, America steps in to stop it.

Americal clearly hates Muslims and is generally evil

jj

my, my. One simple comment really sets off the right! get over yourselves

woohooo! $350 million! In the same time, we spent $2 billion killing Iraqis. I'm so proud of George W.
Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light...
USA! USA! USA! Yeah, USA number 1!!

Chrish

Amazing how even a tragic event such as just
happened can suddenly be turned into another bash America, Hate Bush event. As if to say "Never mind all of those deaths they're irrelevant we have another opportunity to Bash America, to spit out hatred towards Bush.". How truly "Intellectual".

Then you have this clown's previous post;
"woohooo! $350 million! In the same time, we spent $2 billion killing Iraqis. I'm so proud of George W. Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light... USA! USA! USA! Yeah, USA number 1!!", who doesn't have the cajones to tag his name to it and making light of a human tragedy all while trying to shoot a few more barbs at Bush...

thank you all for a really really good laugh in this time of a human tragedy. That goes for you too clown without a name. You've shown, yet again, how low Leftists will sink to.

jj

that post was mine. get over your shock and humanity, at least I am not responsible for all the deaths in Iraq.

Jeff

Hey Chrish, I'm going to claim the moral high ground here, though it sucks to be both a former resident of New York and a current resident of Asia and witness to both colossal human tragedies. You're right, so the above anonymous poster is a clown. You're dead on.

So why is it that you're so blind to the antics of your "cohorts", Jim and Del? I suppose you think it's perfectly rational to continually assault those who disagree with the war or how it's being fought by saying that we love Saddam and hate freedom? How about those who tell expats to watch our backs while casting our votes? I suppose posting Billary for president a few million times and cheering the election results like a nut case qualifies as intelligent dialog. There are idiots of all types and it's time that you acknowledge that.

Jim

Yes, and I am proud to be one of those idiots (a.k.a. someone who disagrees with the left).

Well I do say that those who are against the war love Saddam and hate freedom. Because that's the alternative. I really did used to think it was just rhetoric when Bush and others in the government said, "the terrorists hate freedom.". But after seeing terrorist insurgents killing not just Americans but Iraqi's who just want freedom, democracy and a chance to vote, I now know it's true. They hate freedom. And those who are against the war, hoped Saddam would stay in power. Oh wait, they thought Kofi Annan would ask Saddam to be nicer and he would. I forgot. I guess the Iraqi's could have voted Saddam out, but last time he got 100% of the votes. I guess all those in Iraq who cheered when Saddam's statues fell and he was arrested were actually paid CIA agents. Yes, that's it....CIA agents. Here's an idea, sit on the sidelines and let Hitler take over Europe and northern Africa, watch Saddam take over teh middle east, watch the Soviets ruin eastern Europe, stand by and do nothing and pat yourself on the back for not hurting anyone.

Jeff

Jim,

My definition of idiot is not someone who disagrees with the left. Obviously close to half the people I know in the U.S. voted for Bush and there are many conservative participants here who have my respect. Once again, you make these wild exaggerated statements that have no basis in fact and are untrue. What the hell for?

I'm glad that you finally explained your rational for saying that those who are against the war love Saddam and hate freedom. Unfortunately, it's utterly ridiculous, particularly when applied to your fellow citizens and especially since you know it's not true. Why you want to be that inflammatory, I have no idea, it doesn't do anything but piss people off. Who knows, that may be your goal, but it's awfully lame for someone who believes so strongly in a cause that obviously needs as much support as it can get.

As for your rationale, well let's talk about that. It's one thing for Bush, the government, and you to say that terrorists hate freedom. It's quite another for you to say that your fellow citizens do whether we oppose the war or think that our leaders are incompetent. This is particularly true since you even admit to once holding those views about the rhetoric! I guess in the not so distant past, you loved Saddam and hated freedom too! Glad to see that you've come around...

As for trusting what Bush says, if you even bother to check the background, it's either outright lying or misleading. If you could trust him, we would have found WMD, the war would have cost a mere $50 billion, and we'd have security and a lot more people would be alive.

Onto the merits... hating freedom and loving Saddam. Maybe... or is it possible that the insurgents hate us and want us to fail and that we left a security vacuum big enough for them to waltz in? Or how about those who are so bitter that their families have been killed or humiliated? Or is it possible that Sunnis, having been thrown out of all the important positions and now greatly outnumbered, don't want to be part of a unified Iraq? All perfectly plausible explanations, all with way more support from all our diplomatic people than your loving Saddam bit.

As for your continual Hitler references, Saddam's been in power for what, 40 years? Looks like he was doing a great job of taking over the middle east since his army was defeated in a matter of days. Of course, you just can't acknowledge that. We're not attacking North Korea, so I suppose we must all love Kim Jong Il and hate the Koreans. See, that country is much more heavily militarized that Iraq and actually has WMD, which they keep developing! I suppose you also love all the other dictators out there, since we're not taking them out.

Incidentally, we did watch the Soviets ruin eastern Europe for half a century...

Jim

The difference between Hitler and Saddam is simply that Hitler was unfortunately more efficient. They were both sick murders with similar motives. Fortunately some people do study history and know you have to stop madmen sooner before they go too far.

Jeff nothing you have said has explained why insurgents target and attack Iraqi's. Nothing. It's more than Sunni's and Baathists who have lost power. It's way more than that. I can understand them targeting Americans, even if personally I feel it's misguided. But to attack Iraqi's for supporting freedom who are helping to set up elections where people have a say in their future can only mean that the majority of these terrorists hate freedom. Yes I used to think that was rhetoric (from Bush and others). Yes, I actually didn't agree with Bush. But then I saw these murderers attacking Iraqi's and the only conclusion is they don't want freedom. They want a theocracy where the mullahs preach hatred of Jews and Christians - especially Israeli's and Americans.

And yes since the majority of people on this blog were against the war, that means they wanted Saddam to stay in power. You can't have it both ways. Unless you have some miracle solution which you have been keeping for yourself.

Jeff

Jim,

No, the important difference between Hitler and Saddam is not of mental make up but actual threat and power. There are lots of sick murderers on the streets of our cities, probably even more psychotic than these two mass murderers, yet we don't kill tens of thousands and destroy cities to stop them. We also don't do the same for an incredibly large list of murdering dictators of other countries, who are also madmen that should be stopped. Seriously, Cuba is just off the shore and they even had WMD at one point, bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. They've been a pain in our ass for decades, why not invade?

Can I explain why insurgents attack Iraqis? I have my theories, but I'm not an expert and neither are you. So why you think your views are definitive, I have no idea. What if the insurgents are Iraqis who view the elections as a complete sham, same as anything American? What if they're career terrorists who are now happily taking advantage of a soft spot in our armor now that we're no longer oceans away? What if they're relatives of those who we bomed out of existance?

I can only make my most educated guesses and point out that you've given us no reason to believe that your view is the correct one, especially AGAIN when you had our views not long ago. What I can say is that this whole venture is a colossal mess and it's the President's fault. Even if he had to invade, he could have done it based on more credible intelligence, had some clue as to the consequences, and not subject himself to scandal after scandal. Of course he didn't and we're now in a never ending world of hurt.

As for your continuing contention that thoes against the war wanted Saddam to stay in power... give it up. Based on your logic, I contend that you're for every other dictator in the world to stay in power because you're not drawing up war plans to remove them. How does it feel to be Kim Jong Il's #1 supporter?

Jim

Excellent point about Kim Jung Il. However as filthy as he is, he's not shooting at our planes every day as Saddam did prior to Gulf War II. Saddam agreed to a peace treaty after the '91 war which he routinely broke. Does this mean nothing to you? I've never heard of Kim Jung Il rewarding families of suicide bombers as Saddam did publicly. Suicide bombers of Muslim EXTREMISTS who......wait, who attacked on on 9/11 and in '93 and at Kobar Towers, Kenya, Lebanon, Achillo Lauro, etc etc. Oh ya, it was Muslim EXTREMISTS (terrorists) who Saddam supported.

And when did I ever say that my view was the only and absolute view that mattered? I've never said that because I don't believe it. You always want to put words in my mouth (hand).

Here's what you said:
"Can I explain why insurgents attack Iraqis? I have my theories, but I'm not an expert and neither are you. So why you think your views are definitive, I have no idea. What if the insurgents are Iraqis who view the elections as a complete sham, same as anything American? What if they're career terrorists who are now happily taking advantage of a soft spot in our armor now that we're no longer oceans away? What if they're relatives of those who we bomed out of existance?"

So if (God forbid) somebody flew over to Singapore and bombed your family (no, I would never wish this on anyone), you would retaliate by killing other Singaporans? This makes no sense. Yes there may be some career terrorists (a.k.a. criminals), but there is no such thing as a career suicide bomber. Those careers are pretty short. People who do that have been brainwashed by others who have twisted a religion for their own purposes. Again, they are killing Iraqi's much more than Americans. That's sick.

All I hear are complaints and Monday morning quarterbacking. No solutions to real problems.

Jeff

"Excellent point about Kim Jung Il. However as filthy as he is, he's not shooting at our planes every day as Saddam did prior to Gulf War II. Saddam agreed to a peace treaty after the '91 war which he routinely broke. Does this mean nothing to you?"

I agree with you. Do you hear that? I agree 100%. It means a lot to me (though some madman developing real nuclear weapons while we do nothing means a lot too). Unfortunately, to the bulk of the government and the American people during the decade after Gulf War I, it meant either very little or nothing. Really! There's no way that Americans would have committed to sending their kids to invade and die in Iraq for a whole decade, despite all of that.

I'm sure that attitude must have killed you because it certainly killed Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfowitz. All they could do was sit on the sidelines fuming that Saddam was still in power and lob a couple of bombs every now and then while Saddam sat in his palace and walked over his Daddy's image on the floor.

So what happened? 9/11, that's what. Without 9/11, we would still be watching Saddam violate the peace treaty and give money to suicide bombers. He would be guilty of absolutely everything you argue and we would be doing squat. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just what was true and what was happening for over 10 years.

So 9/11 occurred and Bush and his cronies used it despicably to get Americans to agree to what he wanted to do. How do I know this? The lies. The mushroom clouds, the bio labs, the unmanned aerial vehicles spraying anthrax on our homes, the nuclear purchase from Niger, the crap intelligence from Chalabi, and waves and waves of misleading and false statements designed to get Americans (and the world) off their duffs to do something about Saddam.

I know you think that lying off your ass to the soldiers you're sending to war is just because that's what happened. You admit that it's a problem that no WMD was found, but you also admit to no consequences, despite the fact that it led to basically the rest of the world becoming extremely suspicious of our motives or hating us even more. You also don't seem to care that we were told the war would cost $50 billion when it's now costing $300 billion. Abu Ghraib and Halliburton scandals every ten seconds don't mean anything.

I've told you time and again Jim, that your motives and reasoning are sound for getting rid of Saddam. It's unfortunate that the reality is a freaking mess. Neither of us are capable of running the show, but apparently, neither are Bush and his cronies, who had to resort to lying and continue to make the dumbest mistakes. With Saddam being such a bad guy, what does it say that half the country and most of the world oppose Bush? Could he have done a worst job representing us? Why not find someone to lead us who has a freaking clue?

We can argue about what would happen if someone bombed my family, but again your analysis is incredibly shallow. If that somebody was for example, the army of Malaysia or Indonesia, I'm afraid that Malaysians and Indonesians who live in Singapore and perhaps all Muslims would be targets of retaliatory attacks. It happened to a small degree in the U.S.

The people of Iraq have fought each other since the dawn of civilization... and I believe this explanation makes a lot more sense than your blanket hate freedom business. In fact, it is Sunni freedom that is threatened by the Americans and by the election. But damn the boycotts and damn the calls for delays until people can actually go to vote without fearing for their lives...

Jim

"The people of Iraq have fought each other since the dawn of civilization". So are you saying it should just be accepted and they are incapable of living in peace. What do we call that when we say that one race of people in incapable of doing what other races do?

"We can argue about what would happen if someone bombed my family, but again your analysis is incredibly shallow. If that somebody was for example, the army of Malaysia or Indonesia, I'm afraid that Malaysians and Indonesians who live in Singapore and perhaps all Muslims would be targets of retaliatory attacks."
First of all we all know that I am incredibly shallow. You don't have to state the obvious. But your analogy is not what is happening in Iraq. America attacked (rightly or wrongly we can argue forever). But to the insurgents attack American? Yes, but in far greater number they are attacking Iraqi's. You almost make it sound justified as though we should feel bad for the Sunnis. It's not just Sunnis who are responsible for these attacks. Your example is not even close to what is happening.

The basic problem with many on the left is they start with the conclusion of the argument. They conclude first that Bush is evil. Therefore whatever Bush wants or does is evil. Bush wants elections in Iraq, so that must be wrong. Bush wants elections in January, so we should postpone them. Bush hasn't invaded N. Korea, so how come we're not attacking N. Korea, they say. Bush has not attacked Iran, so how come we haven't attacked Iran, they say. Bush takes three days to have a press conference about the tsunami, therefore he is evil, but if he would have come out right away that same day he would be accused of taking advantage of a disaster for good publicity.

I know there are people out there in every country who want to see Iraq fall apart and no elections take place if for no other reason, than to say, "see, Bush failed". Sick!

Jeff

"So are you saying it should just be accepted and they are incapable of living in peace. What do we call that when we say that one race of people in incapable of doing what other races do?"

Are you kidding? You're turning this into a race thing? Congratulations on being the first person, possibly in the world, to suggest that Iraqis or any people for that matter suffer discrimination for fighting amongst themselves. That makes perfect sense. Never mind that Iraqis aren't "one race" of people anyway.

You say that my example isn't close to what's happening, so what do you have that backs up your view? I say that by going in there and not having a clue, we unleashed a civil war that was always just beneath the surface during Saddam's reign... that's no secret, it even broke out a few times. The insurgents didn't just wake up one day after the American invasion and "hate terrorism"... they've hated who they're blowing away for decades.

Regardless of who's right or wrong on that Jim, your basic problem is that you waste time railing against these idiots on the left. There are those who are guilty of exactly what you say. In doing so, you ignore all the Bush screw ups that are real.

For any normal person, not finding WMD alone would be cause for firing. Making a prediction of $50 billion for the war before spending $300 billion and going, again another cause for firing. Using an obviously forged document to as evidence? More firing. Trusting lying Iraqi defectors? Yet more firing. Lying to the American people time and time again about what he's sending their kids to risk their lives for, well for that, he should be criminally prosecuted.


"Bush wants elections in Iraq, so that must be wrong." So are the Iraqis who want to postpone the elections wrong too?

"Bush hasn't invaded N. Korea, so how come we're not attacking N. Korea, they say." No, we attacked a country that had no WMD and virtually ignore one that keeps building them and has a record for selling them. That makes sense.

"Bush takes three days to have a press conference about the tsunami, therefore he is evil." No, he managed to be stupid yet again and offer a piddling $35 million, $5 million less than his inaugural party to help a disaster that killed well over 100,000 people. The fact that he changed his mind a day later tells you he can't figure it out.

Jim

Unbelieveable!! He's offered $350 million - so far. Oh wait, he offered 35 million first. And he's the only world leader to up what he promised? C'mon!! By the way, where are the rich ME countries - especially Saudi Arabia and their giving? Oh I get it, free pass again. And you know the US will be giving more. Plus how many ships and 12,600 troops. Oh don't forget as one Egyptian scholar said, the U.S. caused this with a nuclear test.

Oh you had your chance to fire Bush and you blew it. I guess all of us stupid people thought freedom, stopping opression, and frankly yes, scaring the shit out of dictators who support terrorists was just as important as finding those WMD. Too bad.

Jim

Oh by the way, Bush is the only re-elected President to have an innaugeral party. NOT! I hope you complained about Clinton doing the same thing.

Remember, it's only o.k. for the left to "lie", Dan Rather, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy.... Whatever!

So if Bush shouldn't have given credibility to the Iraqi expats about what was happening in their country, why should people give a hoot about American expats living abroad? What would they know? Or do they have ulterior motives too? hmmmmm

Chrish

Jeff,

You weren't on this site in its early days nor would you have read the many posts attacking Luke and the other Expats, the threats (come back here and you'd better watch your back) kind of thing. It was nothing but threats, name calling, etc. You
had to really dig into the litany of posts to ferret out the intelligent debates and discussions that were ongoing all while trying to reply to the Right Wing idiots and
their moronic posts. I stood up for Luke and Co. then and would do the same now.
When all of us, me included, turned on them they finally shut up and left. Every now and then one of them will drop in and impress us with their "intelligence" and
"intellectual posts".

As for Jim and Del? They aren't into the name calling anymore than you on the other side are. Like many of you they also make valid points; agree or disagree.

Let's face it WE all, at one time or another these past few years, have
reverted to name calling in one form or another. I've been put in my place on several occassions by various members of the Expats and deservedly so. However, none of us - Jim, Del, nor I have ever resorted to threats of any kind; implied nor otherwise.

We have disagreed.

What has amazed me in this particular line is how an unimaginable tragedy, whose scope and breadth has yet to be determined, has mysteriously mutated into, yet another, bashing of America and bashing of Bush event.

The number of dead is 150,000 and climbing, the amount of damage and destruction has yet to be truly determined nor the costs and what are those on the left going on about?
How slow the response was from the US, how little was initially given, bah, bah, bah.
Based solely on those accusations one would think that the US, Bush have done absolutely nothing. Slow to respond? How many days passed before the actual death and destruction was truly known? Initially the reports were at around 6000 or so, if I recall, but, nothing about how wide spread the destruction actually was.

You cannot throw in money, resources, supplies, personnel, equipment into a situation like that without first knowing the extent and scope of the destruction otherwise known as "assessing the situation". How can you? Where do you send the supplies, equipment, personnel, food, water, the money without first knowing
where it all needs to go? Within the first 24 hours Our military were already "assessing the situation" and determining how and where to send the assistance. We have a full battle group over there now providing the airlifts, the food, the water, the supplies, the medical assistance, boots on the ground with more to come. They didn't just land on shore with no idea where or what to do. They have done what the military is best equipped to do and with a clear understanding of how to do it. They knew where to go, where to setup their bases of operations, where to deliver supplies, on and on and on.

It isn't just about the donations, which is badly needed, its also about the hands on help that is now, at this very moment, going on over there. This isn't just a short term thing it is going to take a while to help those people to rebuild. Long after the news media has moved on to other "blood & guts" reporting We will still be there helping them to recover.

Now, quite frankly, I don't see the reasoning nor rationale for the jibes, the nit picking from those on the left other than it's just another opportunity for them to spit out their hatred for America and or Bush. In the scheme of things is that really going to be of any help to the 150,000 dead, the countless number of injured, the destruction?

BTW, this -tragedy- has absolutely nothing to do with that -Iraq-.

I guess the only rationale would be that anything that occurs elsewhere is a stepping stone for the hate America or hate Bush crowd to jump on their podiums and start ranting and raving?

Jim

Thank you Chrish once again for being the voice of reason.

This whole thing (tsunami) sucks. I found out yesterday my brother has a friend missing in Thailand. He's worked with him on and off for 6 or 7 years. Each passing day gets harder for him. But then there are 100,000 + stories like this. I think it was the Thai national weatherman who was fired, because he had a warning this was coming, but he was afraid to announce it. How sad. Who could have known something like this would happen?

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003