Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe right-wing regimes of the "new Europe" -- that is, the post-Soviet governments in eastern Europe that emerged, during the Bush administration, as the staunchest backers of American empire -- are yelping over the decision by the Obama administration to cancel Bush-era plans to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
For Obama, who was never enthusiastic about the plan, it's a strong indication that he's serious about rebuilding relations with Russia. And the decision may have implications for Iran policy, too.
In an article entited: "U.S. to Shelve Nuclear Missile Shield," the Wall Street Journal reports today:
"The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to people familiar with the matter, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe."The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials. The findings, expected to be completed as early as next week following a 60-day review ordered by President Barack Obama, would be a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January...
"But the decision to shelve the defense system is all but certain to raise alarms in Eastern Europe, where officials have expressed concerns that the White House's effort to ‘reset' relations with Moscow would come at the expense of U.S. allies in the former Soviet bloc."
Predictably, the neoconservative Weekly Standard is outraged, calling it a "complete capitulation to Russia's Vladimir Putin," and adding:
"The consequences of this action in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine and in other countries that feel vulnerable to Russian power, will be disastrous. It is a major American retreat in the face of Russian bullying. And we will get absolutely nothing for it."
The Standard does pick up on the link to Iran, saying that:
"The Obama administration, which is appeasing Russia in the hopes that Moscow will help put pressure on Iran, has made this mammoth concession just a few days after Moscow declared that it had no intention of supporting sanctions against Iran."
It's true that, earlier this week, President Medvedev of Russia hinted that Moscow might not look unfavorably on new sanctions against Iran, saying:
"Sanctions are not very effective on the whole, but sometimes you have to embark on sanctions and they can be right."
And earlier this year, there were reports that Obama was seeking to obtain a quid pro quo from Moscow, offering to cancel the missile defense system in exchange for Russia's support on Iran. It's unlikely, however, that Russia will go along with truly harsh sanctions against Tehran, despite Medvedev's comments. More likely, the Russian president was trying to make Iran a bit more nervous as it enters talks with the P5 + 1, which includes both Russia and the United States.
At the American Enterprise Institute, too, Gary Schmitt is unhappy:
"It looks like not only have we hit the reset button when it comes to Russia, but now with our friends in Central Europe--except this time, it's a big fat 'no thank you' for your willingness to stick your neck out to protect allies."
The London Times flips out:
"Vladimir Putin could be forgiven for having a celebratory shot of vodka with breakfast this morning at news that President Obama plans to abandon America's missile defence shield in Eastern Europe."His implacable opposition to the project has paid off, leaving the Kremlin emboldened in its drive to re-establish a strategic 'sphere of privileged interests' over Russia's former Soviet satellites.
"By trading the loyalty of Poland and the Czech Republic to satisfy Russia's security concerns, the United States is signalling that it no longer contests Moscow's right to assert its interests in Eastern Europe."
And it adds:
"For Mr Putin, the lesson of today's decision is clear. Intransigence pays dividends because the US and the European Union lack the patience or determination to face Moscow down. That is a lesson that send alarm bells ringing in the corridors of power of Russia's former Soviet dominions."
The truth is that the decision to put a missile defense system was both stupid and needlessly provocative. Stupid, because the system doesn't work and because the threat from Iran is nonexistent. And provocative, because it was part of the Bush administration's neo-Cold War effort to bolster and expand NATO, pressure Russia militarily in south and central Asia, back adventurist states such as Georgia, and otherwise poke the Russian bear with sharp sticks. Obama wants cooperation with Russia -- on energy policy, on Iran, on terrorism, and above all on disarmament and de-nuclearization -- and he's willing to put his money where his mouth is.
On Iran, the issue is not whether Russia will join in imposing sanctions on Iran, but whether Russia will join the United States is trying to solve the problem diplomatically. The plain fact is that it will be exceedingly difficult to get Iran to agree to a deal over its uranium enrichment program without Russia's strong diplomatic involvement.
President Obama deserves high praise for this action.
UPDATE From the text of the White House announcement this morning:
"The United States ... will be testing and updating a range of approaches for improving our sensors for missile defense. The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture. ...We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests."
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Not unexpected move by The Hopey and Changey man....
Question is what do we get in return from Russia, something concrete and not mushy, in this 'quid pro quo' other than the obvious of some pissed-off New Europe friends who will be forced to orbit closer to Russia now?
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 09:15am
You mean that Obama did what polls show the citizens of Poland and the Czech Republic WANTED HIM TO DO about the missile shield?
Thank goodness we'll find conservatives who'll say "Don't listen to the polls! Do what's right!"....uh.....right?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 09:23am
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 09:15am |
How about some stifling of the calls for a global reserve currency and continued use of their airspace for our folly in Afghastly-stan?
Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 09:46am
"Obama wants cooperation with Russia--on energy policy, on Iran, on terrorism, and above all on disarmament and de-nuclearization--and he's willing to put his money where his mouth is."
This is the key. Are we really in a war against terror or are we still playing the neo-con hegemonic game for fun & profit.
Controlling the nukes is paramount. There is nothing the neo-con stink tank would like more than another catastrophe to engineer a fascist takeover. Of course, the back-up plan is make you believe the terrorist attack is inevitable & that a dictator will prevent that.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/17/2009 @ 09:53am
At least one stupid foreign policy plan by the Bush regime has been eliminated.
Posted by antigop at 09/17/2009 @ 09:54am
This is a bad day for freedom. It's not enough that our President lets himself get rolled by the insurance companies and trial lawyers with his health care "reform" package but now he caves in to the modern day Stalin, Vladimir Putin, a leader who killed 250,000 people in Chechnya, has journalists who criticize him murdered and who is arming Syria, Iran and Hezbollah and creating problems for America worldwide. What's next? Will Putin decide to put nuclear weapons in Cuba? I guess Obama would find a way to look the other way on that too.
The defensive shield is not an offensive weapon but a way to alert our allies if Iran, which is in their crosshairs, launches a missile towards Europe. The Iranians are led by a messianic group of fundamentalists who openly declare their desire to annihilate Israel and they imprison, rape and torture any of their own citizens who dare criticize their own government.
Obama had no problem stiff arming the tiny State of Israel over some settlements but he has caved in to special interests in America and dictators around the world. These days it's not exactly a good feeling to be an ally of America. You need to watch your back and think twice before you believe America will stand by you.
Posted by mjkoch at 09/17/2009 @ 09:55am
Most Czechs welcome this decision - about two thirds of the population have been constantly against the base which, according to their opinion, would serve no reasonable purpose. Rudolf Prevratil, Prague, Czech Republic
Posted by prevratil at 09/17/2009 @ 10:00am
"The right-wing regimes of the "new Europe" -- that is, the post-Soviet governments in eastern Europe that emerged, during the Bush administration, as the staunchest backers of American empire -- are yelping over the decision by the Obama administration to cancel Bush-era plans to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic."
Sure, look at their history of the peace loving peoples in Russia that have over run them for years...
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/17/2009 @ 10:02am
Well, at last! Pres. Obama has done something constructive in the foreign policy domain!
Now, if only he would do something good about getting out of Iraq and Af-Pak and concentrating our fight against terrorism using international police and intelligence (including our own!)
Shall we give Obama credit for brains? I am not ready to go that far after his cabinet and other appointments.
So, why the shift? Money! Money! Money! We have none.
Posted by goedel at 09/17/2009 @ 10:04am
finally.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 10:09am
At least one stupid foreign policy plan by the Bush regime has been eliminated. Posted by antigop at 09/17/2009 @ 09:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
--my thoughts exactly. c'mon Obama!...keep it rolling...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:11am
Shall we give Obama credit for brains? I am not ready to go that far after his cabinet and other appointments. So, why the shift? Money! Money! Money! We have none. Posted by goedel at 09/17/2009 @ 10:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
--I tend to agree goedel. Not so much a stand against bad policy as a recognition that spending has to begin to be curtailed...keep it going Obama!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:13am
How about some stifling of the calls for a global reserve currency and continued use of their airspace for our folly in Afghastly-stan?
Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 09:46am
Awesome SB!
And remember Charles Schumer's trade - give us Iran and we will give you Eastern Europe, Caspian oil, and cash.
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 10:42am
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 10:42am
FYI: I sold some DNDN today....decided NOT to wait till it hits $30...it's setting new highs again today....Sold some other winning stocks as well....sorry about the call on BHI....it's getting a bit crazy!
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 10:56am
Obama had no problem stiff arming the tiny State of Israel over some settlements but he has caved in to special interests in America and dictators around the world. These days it's not exactly a good feeling to be an ally of America. You need to watch your back and think twice before you believe America will stand by you.
Posted by mjkoch at 09/17/2009 @ 09:55am
Sure you don't have this turned about a bit?
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 10:59am
FYI: I sold some DNDN today....decided NOT to wait till it hits $30...it's setting new highs again today....Sold some other winning stocks as well....sorry about the call on BHI....it's getting a bit crazy!
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
I sold Baker too low too. Above $40 today. I should have used stop loss, but in this market, I am not willing to lose out on profit on the day to day volatility. Biotechs are notoriously unstable. You did the right thing.
Remember - some profit is better than none. To pull away from the table, despite leaving some money on the table is smart. We have got money managers driving this market higher (liquidity bull), and it has little to do with improving market fundamentals.
Ya done good Hap!
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 11:03am
You lefties (including Dreyfuss) are wrong as usual. What Obama has agreed to do is to deploy a different missile defense system. As Gates said today, the US is not scrapping the Missile Defense System.
<The president said he was accepting the recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in turning away from a plan to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. Instead, a distributed sensor system, apparently envisioned as a more advanced version of the Navy's Aegis theater missile defense system, would "deploy techniques that are proven and cost-effective and will counter the current threat more effectively and do so sooner" that a longer-range system would, Obama said.
Anticipating certain criticism from the right that he was weakening U.S. security, Obama said repeatedly that this decision would provide more -- not less -- protection.
"I'm committed to deploying strong missile defense systems that are adaptable to the threats of the 21st century," the president said.
He also made a reference to Russia and its long and heated objections to the shield. "Its concerns about our previous missile defense programs were entirely unfounded," Obama said.>
http://tinyurl.com/mcqlty
Try watching the Press Conference this morning with Gates and General Cartwright.
http://tinyurl.com/lnwrfp
It's about short to medium range Iranian missile threats being of more immediate concern. And it's about deploying the sea based Aegis missile system coupled with land based radar sensor systems.
This seems like a sound strategy based upon new intel on the Iranian missile threat.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 10:56am
Don't forget the jelly donuts! Gummint titty eclipses all phony self glorification.
If those poor unfortunates on the welfare rolls can't depend on you, who can they depend on?
Posted by Sorelish at 09/17/2009 @ 11:05am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 11:04am]
Larry might want to update the "Rightys" first....who are being told by Drudge that Obama is "caving to Putin" and "leaving those poor Poles and Czechs undefended".
BTW, Larry, it's still a repudiation of the Bush "Euro-shield" policy.
Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 11:08am
mjkoch
you are a cold war fossil. no credibility whatsoever.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/17/2009 @ 11:09am
mjkoch
you are a cold war fossil. no credibility whatsoever.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/17/2009 @ 11:10am
If those poor unfortunates on the welfare rolls can't depend on you, who can they depend on?
Posted by Sorelish at 09/17/2009 @ 11:05am
I appreciate your attention....but it seems, rather jellyish.....MASKish....Magicish.....Empty Suits marching on?
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 11:11am
Obama had no problem stiff arming the tiny State of Israel over some settlements but he has caved in to special interests in America and dictators around the world.
Posted by mjkoch at 09/17/2009 @ 09:55am
Perhaps he's just decided to go for RealPolitik. Oil is in short supply, from the Middle East or from Russia. Maybe Obama wants to cut his losses with Israel: with the coming Iranian nuke, what chance does Israel have to last to the end of the 21st century anyway?
Posted by Mistral at 09/17/2009 @ 11:20am
The "tiny state" should have been considerably tinier for decades, like out of Samaria and the West Bank. And would have been had American interests been prioritized over the tiny state's Lobby.
Posted by zionopp at 09/17/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 11:11am
I'd say my post was rather truthy & exposey.
heh-heh
Posted by Sorelish at 09/17/2009 @ 11:34am
Its about time! It was a worthless system and nothing but corporate welfare. Eastern Europe would need tank traps and not missile defense systems, if relations with Moscow deteriorated. The Obama Administration will save a lot of money for more useful projects. At last, there is something positive I can say about this Administration.
Posted by pjcasey at 09/17/2009 @ 12:34pm
""But the decision to shelve the defense system is all but certain to raise alarms in Eastern Europe, where officials have expressed concerns that the White House's effort to ‘reset' relations with Moscow would come at the expense of U.S. allies in the former Soviet bloc."
Yeah, right. That would be Israel and, eh, wait..... nevermind. The Tiny Nazis freak and we're all supposed to feel SORRY for them? This is really sick.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/17/2009 @ 12:49pm
I tell you, this Fraud of a president better damn well HOPE we dont get hit again...The retaliation against him and all who supported him will be very ugly and swift...
Count on it!!!
His weakness has already pushed Israel to the brink of war...Thanks asshole...how you gonna explain 800/barrel oil you Jimmy Carter retread dipped in carmel freak!@!!!
Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/17/2009 @ 1:54pm
Amazing how the left cannot read or hear basic english.
Obama did not scrap missile defense. All they have done is change the application based upon 1) threat evaluation showing Iran is a greater current threat via short range to medium range missiles, and 2) decide to deploy the appropriate new technology against that Iranian threat.
This isn't taking away from defense as some on both sides are stating. It is merely a shift in application to meet the current threat.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 2:21pm
Yeah, right. That would be Israel and, eh, wait..... nevermind. The Tiny Nazis freak and we're all supposed to feel SORRY for them? This is really sick.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/17/2009 @ 12:49pm
What is sick is an anti-semite like yourself calling Israel Nazi's.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 2:43pm
Russia is only being resistant to forming a united front with the Obama administration on Iran and other issues is because they are racist.
Sincerely, Jimmy Carter
Posted by jimmylove at 09/17/2009 @ 2:49pm
Reports question U.S. shield of Europe
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY, 03/16/09, Excerpt
WASHINGTON -- After 24 years and more than $100 billion spent to develop a U.S. missile defense, an American-operated system proposed for Europe would cost billions more to deploy and still may fail, a series of independent reports concludes.
President Obama recently suggested he would consider scrapping the Europe system in exchange for Russia's help in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 3:33pm
I tell you, this Fraud of a president better damn well HOPE we dont get hit again...The retaliation against him and all who supported him will be very ugly and swift...
Count on it!!!
His weakness has already pushed Israel to the brink of war...Thanks asshole...how you gonna explain 800/barrel oil you Jimmy Carter retread dipped in carmel freak!@!!!
Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/17/2009 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What retaliation would that be Mr. freaks2? Are we really supposed to be scared by you or your kind? And BTW, take your homemade Obama/Joker sign and hate and head on over to Fox Nation where the rest of the nuts are waiting!
Posted by jlib at 09/17/2009 @ 3:52pm
We canceled a technology that doesn't kill anybody and has the potential to save more lives than the polio vaccine...and this is a good thing?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 4:05pm
We canceled a technology that doesn't kill anybody and has the potential to save more lives than the polio vaccine...and this is a good thing?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 4:05pm
We canceled a technology that doesn't kill anybody and has the potential to save more lives than the polio vaccine...and this is a good thing?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 4:05pm
And what did Obama get in return for his largesse? Nothing...which should make all of you leftists SOOOOOOOOOO happy!
This column is just another dose of slap-happy moronics. Thanks, Robert!
Posted by JackDavis1 at 09/17/2009 @ 4:12pm
Bush's Missile Defense program in Eastern Europe was never based on any real threat from Iran, and was simply corporate welfare for certain defense contractors like Lockheed.
It also made absolutely no sense if we are to capitalize on the peace dividends of ending the Cold War, and actually created the prospect of re-starting a new Cold War with Russia.
GOOD RIDDANCE!
Posted by Metteyya at 09/17/2009 @ 4:19pm
And what did Obama get in return for his largesse? Nothing...which should make all of you leftists SOOOOOOOOOO happy!
Posted by JackDavis1 at 09/17/2009 @ 4:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We think we are going to saving money...haha.....
We lost Georgia, and other aspiring NATO wannabes.
We are going to be paying Putin billions for lost business opportunity in Iran.
We've pissed off Europe hawks.
But, we have made Israel happy.
"Such a deal"! - with yiddish accent.
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 4:23pm
Bush's Missile Defense program in Eastern Europe was never based on any real threat from Iran, and was simply corporate welfare for certain defense contractors like Lockheed.
It also made absolutely no sense if we are to capitalize on the peace dividends of ending the Cold War, and actually created the prospect of re-starting a new Cold War with Russia.
GOOD RIDDANCE!
Posted by Metteyya at 09/17/2009 @ 4:19pm
None of you read past the headlines.
All this did is replace one missile defense technology with a newer one more directed at Iranian short range and medium range missiles.
And Obama in not dropping Missile Defense
<"I'm committed to deploying strong missile defense systems that are adaptable to the threats of the 21st century," the president said.
At an Army missile defense conference last month, military officials discussed possible alternatives for European missile defense, including using shorter-range interceptors from other locations closer to Iran.
U.S. Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who has been a point man on the technical challenge of arraying missiles and interceptors to defend against long-range missiles, has discussed ways the United States might join forces with other nations to watch and protect against Iranian missiles. Using multiple sensors, including some in the Persian Gulf region, theoretically could provide at least a partial shield for Eastern Europe without basing a full radar and interceptor system so close to Russia.>
http://tinyurl.com/lahtyy
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:36pm
My thoughts exactly frosty, now one good move deserves another.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:08pm
Anti I second you on DejaVu's assnine comment on calling Israel Nazis, what a moroon.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:17pm
Also Anti, I know Obama is only trading one for the other, baby steps.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:36pm
So - don't expect to save any money in other words.
Just a revised contract.
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 5:33pm
It's certainly a win for a saner foreign policy. Its come to the point where doing the patently obvious is deserving of high praise. Nonetheless, you are correct Mr. Dreyfuss; the President does deserve praise for this action. Now this will help conclude the START III, and maybe even a new ABM treaty which would be a huge foreign policy win for the President.
Posted by hdthoreau at 09/17/2009 @ 5:37pm
NATO takes in two more former Communist states Anti-NATO protesters waving the Soviet flag did not celebrate Albania and Croatia joining the alliance (Photo: EUobserver) VALENTINA POP
04.04.2009 @ 15:35 CET
Macedonia pending
NATO leaders failed to achieve any progress on Macedonian membership, which remains pending because of the country's name dispute with Greece. [yeah right - nothing to do with Russia's "Club Med" plans for Macedonia.
Athens is blocking Skopje's membership, insisting that the name of the former Yugoslav republic should not be "Macedonia," because it threatens the security of a Greek province also called Macedonia.
In his opening remarks to the NATO council, president Obama said he was "looking forward to Macedonia becoming a member."
NATO leaders agreed last year in Bucharest that Macedonia would be a member as soon as the name dispute is resolved. The haggle is also blocking the opening of EU accession talks with the country.
Georgia and Ukraine too hot to handle
As for the next countries in line for NATO membership, Georgia and Ukraine, leaders are expected to repeat what they said last year in Bucharest - that the two states would eventually join, once they fulfill criteria.
The membership of the two fomer Soviet states is fiercely opposed by Russia.
Mr Obama did not specifically name Georgia or Ukraine when he referred to NATO enlargement in the context of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia.
"The door remains open to new members as they meet the standards of our alliance and can make a meaningful contribution to allied security," he said.
The US is currently thawing relations with Russia, whose help it needs for transport of supplies to Afghanistan and for diplomatic support in the Iranian nuclear dispute.
Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2009 @ 6:03pm
"... and he's willing to put his money where his mouth is."
whose money? what dreamworld does this guy live in?
Posted by real at 09/17/2009 @ 6:10pm
"The right-wing regimes of the "new Europe" -- that is, the post-Soviet governments in eastern Europe that emerged, during the Bush administration, as the staunchest backers of American empire"
No. The staunchest backers of human freedom. They lived without it and know what its like.
By contrast, the apathetic fools and conformists of Western Europe can not imagine what totalitarianism must be like. They cannot emphasise with the plight of Iraqis living for over two decades in a brutal Stalinist North-Korea-style dictatorship that slaughtered millions and ran concentration camps. They cannot know how much fear those people had to live with on a daily basis. They take their freedom and prosperity as a given, and believe all nations have co-equivalent legitimacy with regard to these two factors. They don't realize how lucky they all are and how their actions are wrecking their own future.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 6:27pm
The right winger in lefty clothes, Obama, has made at least one intelligent move in his tenure as POTUS in the perspective of slowing down the trend of american free fall.
This move is good for world peace and good for the american economy.
Furthermore, all sane people should rejoice in the fact that he choose not escalate confrontation with Russia.
The fact that warmongers are foaming at the mouth is a good sign.
But there is still so much to be done and from what we have witnessed so far, Obama cant save american empirium.
Another good thing.
Now, for the sake of the welfare and well-being of the average unitedstater, it doesnt appear that hes doing much to stop the kleptocracy from keeping up with business as usual (ransacking american and world workers and ressources) and stoping the descent of the US into a 3rd world country.
Posted by Karim_B at 09/17/2009 @ 8:13pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 6:27pm
"No. The staunchest backers of human freedom. They lived without it and know what its like."
Yeah, nothign like a bribe to convince them they need freedom, and a few US military bases in their country.
"By contrast, the apathetic fools and conformists of Western Europe can not imagine what totalitarianism must be like. "
Seeing as they weer on the firing line in WWII, they have a much better idea that anyone in America does.
They also realise that killing over a millin Iraqis is not he way to libearte them.
Europe was around long before the US was crated and it will be around long after the US has become a banana Republic.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 9:12pm
All this did is replace one missile defense technology with a newer one more directed at Iranian short range and medium range missiles.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:36pm
...except that the new missile technology was no better than the old one, as far as interception goes. America has yet to carry out a successful test of a missile defense system.
Even with tests rigged to produce a successful result, the tests have failed. What's more alarming is that the system is designed to combat 1970's generation missiles.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 9:17pm
We canceled a technology that doesn't kill anybody and has the potential to save more lives than the polio vaccine...and this is a good thing?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 4:05pm
No, we canceled a technology that never worked and who's only possible use would have been as a first strike option against Russia.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 9:25pm
"They also realise that killing over a millin Iraqis is not he way to libearte them. "
Luckily, America has killed almost no Iraqis and only 130,000 or so have been killed in the war (just about all of them by the insurgent jihadists).
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:42pm
I've repeated this before, but:
If Saddam's divide-and-rule policies, which in fact were re-enacted by insurgents working with the very Baathist secret police who carried them out during his two decade long reign of terror, were prolonged, the consequences of the collapse of his regime would have been inevitable and the violence following it would have been on a far greater scale than what we saw following the actual collapse of Baathist rule in 2003 when Saddam died unless Saddam's sons were able to succeed him successfully. But even if they ruled Iraq for decades, they would only have brutalized Iraq further to ensure an even bloodier implosion unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully.... there was only a choice between an implosion resulting in more deaths than the total number killed throughout the entire war, OR, say, 15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even possibly another one after that, OR some combination of these two options (i.e., Saddam's sons take over for decades, they die, and then Iraq implodes), OR an invasion. It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option.
How would YOU liberate them, Shingo?
Oh, that's right. You wouldn't have. You're a Saddam-lover.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:44pm
Saddam was estimated by the Weekly Standard to have been killing 20,000 Iraqis a year in a 2003 article. There is no telling how many he was killing every year through his manipulation of the sanctions regime.
This means that by 2010, Saddam would have killed 140,000 people NOT counting the sanctions and assuming he embarked on no more campaigns of genocide. In addition, over 20,000 Iraqis have been saved by improved healthcare since the war.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:46pm
Hmm.
To be an enemy of America will get you adulation and kind words from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and George Soros... and maybe even kill a defense system.
To be a friend of America will get you disdain, betrayal, and a deep backstabbing by Democrats.
No wonder we have lots of enemies, and few friends.
Posted by BillSanford at 09/17/2009 @ 9:55pm
This was as big a crock as it gets Billy. America has been looked upon with disdain for the past few years internationally. We need to get our act together on the international stage.
Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 10:01pm
Luckily, America has killed almost no Iraqis and only 130,000 or so have been killed in the war (just about all of them by the insurgent jihadists).
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:42pm
America has killed roughly one third of the 1.2 million Iraqis have died.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:09pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:44pm
As I've explained before, the only ones who are claiming that Saddam's rule would have led to chaos are the the same wingnuts who were wrong about WMD and Iraqi links to 911 and al Qaeda.
All you have are what if's and might haves and could possibly's to butress your conpsiracy theory.
Oh that's right, you';re an islamophobe who thinks that killing people is a way to liberate them.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:13pm
No one ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not I, not Bush, not Hitchens. No one.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:15pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:46pm
The is a right wing neocone trash publication that was the propaganda cente piece for he war, along with Faux news.
However, if Saddam had killed 140,000 by 20101, that is 10% of the numbers that have died as a result of our illegal invasion and occupation.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:16pm
Shingo, why do you hate America and Israel so much? Do you just hate freedom?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:18pm
No one ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not I, not Bush, not Hitchens. No one.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:15pm
Bush did.
He even let skip during one of his presidential debates with Kerry, when he said that Saddam attacked us. Kerry corrected him.
This why 80% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 911.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:18pm
Shingo, why do you hate America and Israel so much? Do you just hate freedom?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:18pm
I love freedom.
I don't hate America and Israel. I only hate what they do.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:20pm
To be an enemy of America will get you adulation and kind words from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and George Soros... and maybe even kill a defense system.
Posted by BillSanford at 09/17/2009 @ 9:55pm
Reality check.
Obama's administration is pending more on defense than even Bush.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:22pm
"I love freedom."
Just not for people in foreign countries, because they aren't "ready" to "handle" it.
You're secretly a hardcore racist, aren't you?
"I don't hate America and Israel. I only hate what they do."
Like what? Spread freedom and democracy around the globe? Save 40,000 Afghan babies and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women from death every year?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:30pm
"Just not for people in foreign countries, because they aren't "ready" to "handle" it."
Freedom includes freedom from military occupation and US miliatry bases.
Freedom is also not much good to you when you're a refugee or dead.
"You're secretly a hardcore racist, aren't you?"
No, but you are a xenophobe and an Islamphobe. Y0 are the one who is justifying the mass murder of Iraqi's, not me.
"Like what? Spread freedom and democracy around the globe?"
What freedom and democracy? We prop up dictators and have invaded or messed with other countries on 70 occasions sincee WWII.
And aren't you the one that argued that democracy is anarchy?
" Save 40,000 Afghan babies and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women from death every year?"
No because that many were not dying before we invaded.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:46pm
" Save 40,000 Afghan babies and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women from death every year?"
No because that many were not dying before we invaded."
Shingo, why do you deny proven scientific facts?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:49pm
"What freedom and democracy? We prop up dictators and have invaded or messed with other countries on 70 occasions sincee WWII. "
And that's why there hasn't been a WW3.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:52pm
Shingo, why do you deny proven scientific facts?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:49pm
These are not scientific and certainly have not been proven.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 10:53pm
You're hopeless and deluded.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:54pm
I really find your denial quite exasperating.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:55pm
WE MUST KILL IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES!!!!!!!!!
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 10:56pm
"I don't hate America and Israel. I only hate what they do." Like what? Spread freedom and democracy around the globe?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:30pm
examples please.
hahahahaha!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 10:58pm
INFANT mortality in Afghanistan has fallen dramatically since the demise of the Taleban, according to a new study, with 40,000 fewer babies dying every year. Improvements in women's access to medical care since the Taleban were ousted from power five years ago was cited as the main reason for the death rate becoming significantly lower.
Grim infant and maternal mortality rates have been regularly cited as evidence of Afghanistan's backwardness after decades of war.
They were also seen as a sign of the slow progress of the internationally funded reconstruction effort.
According to the preliminary results of a Johns Hopkins University study, the infant mortality rate has declined to about 135 per 1,000 live births in 2006, down from an estimated 165 per 1,000 in 2001.
...
Benjamin Loevinsohn, a World Bank health specialist, said the survey results probably underestimated the improvement in infant mortality.
"It's a conservative estimate. This is the situation two and a half to three years ago ... It should be better than that now," Mr Loevinsohn said. http://minx.cc/?post=224542
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:59pm
No one ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not I, not Bush, not Hitchens. No one.
Posted by rightwingnutcase
Cheney.
Posted by koroviev at 09/17/2009 @ 11:01pm
Luckily, America has killed almost no Iraqis
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:42pm
hahahaha!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 11:02pm
INFANT mortality in Afghanistan has fallen dramatically since the demise of the Taleban,
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:59pm
That was debunked and in fact, the infant mortality rate has remained the same.
Now here's the jewel nin teh crown:
"According to the preliminary results of a Johns Hopkins University study"
This is the same Johns Hopkins University that produced the Pancet report that reveals more than 1 million Iraqi's have died since the invasion.
So rightwingnutcase, do I take it that you agree with the Lancet now? You can't claim Johns Hopkins University to prove one argument, while claiming thy are not credible in another.
Priceless. Absolutely priceless!!
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 11:04pm
"Like what? Spread freedom and democracy around the globe?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:30pm
examples please."
Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:05pm
I really find your denial quite exasperating.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:55pm
You probably had the same reaction when you first heard about the earth not being flat.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 11:06pm
Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:05pm
Hahahaha
We invaded Panama and have colonized it. No freedom and democracy about that.
Kuwait is a dictatorship.
No democracy or freedom in Iraq. It's still in civl war.
Afghanistan is a run by a corrupt, hand picked puppet that ran fraudulent elections.
Israel is a theocratic, apartheid state.
Posted by Shingo at 09/17/2009 @ 11:09pm
"This is the same Johns Hopkins University that produced the Pancet report that reveals more than 1 million Iraqi's have died since the invasion."
The Lancet "revealed" 650,000 deaths.
The authors of the study lied.
One of them has admitted they lied.
The rest have agreed to "errors" that leave you with 400,000 deaths.
The UN exposed them as lying about Iraq's pre-invasion mortality rate.
Morgues in Iraq have discredited them.
The odds that the data to get 400,000 contain no fabrications has been calculated to be less than 1 in 10,000.
The Lancet is a respectable journal.
This is why the current editor of the magazine admits the study is a joke and has said they want to distance it from the magazine.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:11pm
How would YOU liberate them, Shingo? Oh, that's right. You wouldn't have. You're a Saddam-lover.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 9:44pm
by NEVER PUTTING SADDAM IN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
maudit câlice.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 11:13pm
Everything you said is a lie save for your comment on Afghanistan. We should be making them accept freedom like we did with the Japanese.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:13pm
We did not put Saddam in power in the first place. True, the Dems did support the 1968 Baathist coup, but its likely it would have succeeded anyway.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:17pm
"That was debunked"
Shingo, you lie and lie, but must know you are lying, or else you would attempt to argue your points with proof.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:27pm
Japan
•• you mean like in okinawa?
South Korea
•• what, in 1987?
Germany
•• no thanks to prescott
Italy
•• maybe.
, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Afghanistan.
•• hahahaha! you really are very, very naïve.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:05pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 11:33pm
Like what? Spread freedom and democracy around the globe?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:30pm
examples please."
Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Afghanistan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase
What about the democracy that the US didn't like so well...
Iran, Guatemala (twice), Congo, Iraq, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Turkey (twice), and Ghana.
Posted by koroviev at 09/17/2009 @ 11:34pm
We should be making them accept freedom like we did with the Japanese.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:13pm
may i suggest keeping your mouth completely shut if ever travelling overseas?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 11:36pm
We have little or no expertise on Iraq or Afghanistan. We made an "executive" decision that Saddam was going to be "removed" from Iraq.Every one knew he was a bad guy. Our reasons for attacking Iraq have been disproved. The consequences of our actions is an increased level of instability in the region.The most powerful nation in the region had its natural rival decimated by us. Iran is a theocracy which due to our lack of overall knowledge of Islam is now a large problem. What is our policeman role here? Are we now a country that is to be identified by our Military Might? We certainly are not an economic power. I hope we are ready to pay our bills as a nation and quit the runaway borrowing spree. The Bush crowd has tied our country's hands so badly they should be ashamed. Dick and Karl should go away. No more Fox interviews with Chris Lackey. No more WSJ op-ed pieces for Karl(deferment but no degree)Rove.
Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 11:37pm
We did not put Saddam in power in the first place.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:17pm
hahahahaha!
you are one funny, naïve dude.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 11:42pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 11:11pm
"The Lancet "revealed" 650,000 deaths."
In 2006 yes.
"The authors of the study lied."
No they haven't, but if they lied about Iraq, they also lied about Afghanistan.
"One of them has admitted they lied."
No they didn't.
"The rest have agreed to "errors" that leave you with 400,000 deaths."
Wrong. th errors lead to many more deaths.
"The UN exposed them as lying about Iraq's pre-invasion mortality rate."
Wrong. The UN relied on numbers provided by the Iraqi government, which was covering up the number of deaths.
"Morgues in Iraq have discredited them."
Morgues in Iraq have been exposed as hiding true figures. Furthermore, morgues in Iraq don';t receive all the dead.
"The Lancet is a respectable journal."
I agree.
"This is why the current editor of the magazine admits the study is a joke and has said they want to distance it from the magazine."
He never admitted that at all.
Posted by Shingo at 09/18/2009 @ 12:11am
you are one funny, naïve dude.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 11:42pm
Yeah, but every village has their idiot.
Posted by Shingo at 09/18/2009 @ 12:23am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:36pm
We DO read past the headlines, and know that the shorter-range missile defense effort has no chance of re-starting a new Cold war with Russia. We have for some time - including the Patriot missile defense system - deployed missile defense for "legitimate" threats against our allies in the Middle East and to deter aggression.
The Eastern Europe scheme by Bush/Cheney, however, was a product of Lockheed lobbying efforts, and had no relationship to a real threat from Iran.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/18/2009 @ 03:03am
We need to borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the missile shield to keep out the surly Ruskies.
Forget that Big R won the cold war, the Military Industrial Complex needs expensive enemies.
It's a fuc*ing missile shield! You're going to love it.
Posted by koroviev at 09/18/2009 @ 03:41am
I agree with Koch. "Tiny Nazis" is a misnomer. It implies the Israel Firsters are tiny compared with the nazis. While the state of Israel is indeed very small, the deaths resulting from the Likud/neoconservative movement are not "tiny" when compared to the deaths associated with the Nazi movement, though I will concede they do not yet quite compare. Not yet.
A more appropriate descriptive would be "Nazi Victims" because of course many Israelis and American Jews, though not all, have been acting like Nazis. It also would be true that many, though not all, were also themselves victims of the Nazis making it possible for the Israel Firsters to simply brand any critic an anti-Semite. Of course this last fact serves to emphasize the tragedy of it all.
Posted by jatatenatio at 09/18/2009 @ 06:59am
We need to borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the missile shield to keep out the surly Ruskies.
Posted by koroviev at 09/18/2009 @ 03:41am
actually,
i think the BRIC layers are pretty much done with all that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2009 @ 07:41am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:36pm
Particularly ironic on this thread is Larry in his attempt to contradict a "leftist celebration"...
contradicting his fellow right-wingers' talking point on the missile shield!!!!
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:49am
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
--in Mask's world people can't have their own thoughts...they have to copy what the media says...not surprising from a guy owned by the "right-wing" media...(and sad he's still trying to communicate with commenters who've ignored him)...heheh
Posted by urmygyro at 09/18/2009 @ 08:44am
I tell you, this Fraud of a president better damn well HOPE we dont get hit again..
careful you're drooling. grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 09/18/2009 @ 08:51am
>>>Particularly ironic on this thread is Larry in his attempt to contradict a "leftist celebration"...
contradicting his fellow right-wingers' talking point on the missile shield!!!!
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:49am<<<
MASK,
They only follow the "Obama Is a Socialist" or Obama Can't Keep America Safe" talking points when they are talking to the center and the right.
When they talk to the left, they have to follow the "Obama is the same as Bush" talking point because the objective is to create disaffection on the left towards Obama.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/18/2009 @ 09:10am
Video: New shield good for Israel
Analysts say one country which clearly stands to benefit from Washington's decision to alter its missile shield plan in Europe is Israel.
The new proposed Aegis system is designed to work together with Israel's own missile shield system called Arrow and having Aegis equipped ships in the Mediterranean can only be good for Israel.
The Pentagon says Israel's security was not the main reason for the change in plans, but it certainly will give Israel added protection against any potential Iranian threat.
Friday, September 18, 2009 07:00 Mecca time, 04:00 GMT Patty Culhane reports Aljazerra.net
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ americas/2009/09/200991835127684169.html
This is really incredible. And Israel plans to build more condos in occupied territories.
Muslim world is going to love this.
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 10:32am
It is a good decision from Obama.He at least cleared one stupid policy of the warmonger Bush's policy.There are still many more to correct.Threat , invasion and military power never bring peace to US.It is the flawed policies of the US, that bring threat to that nation. The world witnessed , how the terrorists used the passenger planes in the 9/11 incident than any conventional weapon.Did any missile shields or any weapons helped US to avoid that tragic and horrible incident? The coterie of the Bush's era are still make trouble for Obama.They makes this world more dangerous.And Obama's teams are also not perfect.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:33am
Russia's Putin says US debt out of control
Russian premier Putin says US dollar issuance 'uncontrolled', calls for diversified reserves
By Sergei Venyavsky, Associated Press Writer - Excerpt
On Friday September 18, 2009, 8:37 am EDT
'SOCHI, Russia (AP) -- Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday said other currencies besides the dollar should be used as global reserves to reduce the risks posed by swelling U.S. debt.
Putin, who spoke at an international investment forum in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, chided the United States for "an uncontrolled issue of dollars" and said the American currency's dominance had been "one of the triggers" of the global crisis.
Putin renewed Russia's call on the U.S. administration and global community to give the green light to alternative reserve currencies: "If there are several reserve currencies, this will not harm the U.S. economy in any way."
President Dmitry Medvedev's economic advisor, Arkady Dvorkovich, said Thursday that Russia would at next week's G-20 summit in Pittsburgh press for more follow-through on measures to confront the global downturn and to change Western-dominated international financial institutions.'
Man...those Ruskies drive a hard bargain.
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 10:55am
NATO chief proposes linked US/Russian/NATO defense
By ROBERT WIELAARD, Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard, Associated Press Writer
34 mins ago
'BRUSSELS – The head of NATO called Friday for the U.S., Russia and NATO to link their missile defense systems against potential new nuclear threats from Asia and the Middle East, saying that the old foes must forget their lingering Cold War animosity.
Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen appealed for unity a day after the U.S. shelved a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile defense shield that has been a major irritant in relations with Russia.
"We should explore the potential for linking the US, NATO and Russia missile defense systems at an appropriate time," Fogh Rasmussen said.
"Both NATO and Russia have a wealth of experience in missile defense. We should now work to combine this experience to our mutual benefit," he added.
Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin said the NATO chief's address had a "very positive tone ... cooperation with Russia is not a matter of choice (for NATO but) of necessity."'
Man...those Ruskies drive a hard bargain.
"Not a matter of choice"..........
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 11:15am
"When they talk to the left, they have to follow the "Obama is the same as Bush" talking point because the objective is to create disaffection on the left towards Obama."-----Posted by Metteyya at 09/18/2009 @ 09:10am
Sounds familiar, METT???
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 11:41am
"When they talk to the left, they have to follow the "Obama is the same as Bush" talking point because the objective is to create disaffection on the left towards Obama."-----Posted by Metteyya at 09/18/2009 @ 09:10am
Sounds familiar, METT???
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 11:42am
Sorry for the double...didn't mean to go "Citizen_Carrier" on you.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 11:43am
Russia is a part of Europe and we should make every effort to include them.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/18/2009 @ 12:03pm
At last some common sense about Eastern Europe. The Obama administration has finally recognized that America's interests lie in friendly relations with the Russians, and not in cozying up to the clerico-fascist regime in Poland or to the neo-con stooges in the Czech Republic. Poland always gets a good press in America for its courage and suffering in WW2, but I invite readers to read what the British historian AJP Taylor said in his "Origins of the Second World War" about how the Colonel Beck military dictatorship in Poland played a double-faced game in the 1930s, and which ultimately cost them their independence when Germany double-crossed them. Right-wing yahoos have been put on notice that we are not going to enter on a new "anti--Bolshevik" crusade."
Posted by petermurphy at 09/18/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by Shingo at 09/18/2009 @ 12:11am
After reading this post, I now realize that Shingo suffers from a serious learning disability.
"The authors of the study lied."
No they haven't, but if they lied about Iraq, they also lied about Afghanistan."
The authors of the study on Afghanistan are not the same as and have no relationship with the authors of the one on Iraq, stupid. Duh.
"The rest have agreed to "errors" that leave you with 400,000 deaths."
Wrong. th errors lead to many more deaths."
"In Belgium, Guha-Sapir's team is completing a paper outlining numerous mathematical and procedural errors in the Lancet II article, and its corrections will likely lower the estimate of dead Iraqis to 450,000, even without consideration of possible fraud during the surveying, a source said." http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
The authors have admitted to these errors and also admitted that an additional 50,000 deaths were taken from data that happened after their survey was scheduled to end.
Shingo knows he's lying here, as I know for a fact he's read the article quoted above. The only alternative option is that he is unable to read.
"The UN exposed them as lying about Iraq's pre-invasion mortality rate."
Wrong. The UN relied on numbers provided by the Iraqi government, which was covering up the number of deaths."
Notice, I'm talking about Iraq's PRE-invasion mortality, but Shingo is off debating some points which are entirely irrelevant to my assertion. The UN said the Lancet seriously underestimated Iraq's pre-invasion mortality. You write the Iraqi government (which for this time was Saddam) was covering up the number of deaths, which would make the Lancet an even more crazed....
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/18/2009 @ 3:05pm
...fabrication than the UN suggested it was.
The UN did not entirely rely on morgues in Iraq. The United Nations Development Program used many more questioners to visit 2,200 clusters of 10 houses each. This gave the U.N. investigators greater geographical variety and 10 times as many interviews as the Lancet. The UN produced estimates about the same as what Iraqi morgues found.
"This is why the current editor of the magazine admits the study is a joke and has said they want to distance it from the magazine."
He never admitted that at all."
This is another case of Shingo delibrately lying simply because he is a deliberate pathalogical liar.
The article I linked to above quotes the editor of the Lancet, who clearly says they would like to distance it from the Lancet. He says he admits a sense of "discomfort" with the study and its association with the medical journal.
Again, Shingo I happen to know has read this article. He is not misinformed. He is lying. He is a liar.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/18/2009 @ 3:15pm
Here's all you need to know about the Lancet:
"The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:
On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. If these assertions are true, they further imply:
incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/18/2009 @ 3:17pm
If the Lancet estimate of 650,000 is correct then it follows that either (a) 500,000 documented violent deaths, for which certificates were issued, have somehow managed to completely disappear without a trace to Iraqi officials or the international media or (b) there is a vast, elaborate, and very successful, cover up of this massive number of bodies and their associated paper trail being carried out in Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/18/2009 @ 3:20pm
Shingo believes the Iraq war is worse than 12 Hiroshimas and has killed far, far, far more people than the entire strategic Allied bombing of Germany in WW2.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/18/2009 @ 3:30pm
No, we canceled a technology that never worked and who's only possible use would have been as a first strike option against Russia.
posted by Shingo
A first strike option? Interceptors only work against missiles that have already been fired.
The Ground Based Interceptors have had about a 50% rate of successful intercepts in tests so far. When an Iranian missile is on it's way towards Brussels, I'm sure they'd appreciate a 50% chance of survival as opposed to hoping something in the Iranian missile malfunctions.
We were going to put something like 10-12 interceptors over there. Russia has, oh, quite a bit more than 10-12 nuclear missiles.
And here's the thing. The thing nobody ever mentions. A Russian strike against the United States would go over the North Pole, not across Europe, across the Atlantic, and into the U.S.
So if we were REALLY doing this against Russian missiles, instead of against Iranian ones, we'd be putting interceptors in Canada or in our northern states.
Russia KNOWS THIS. They are using this stupid non-issue to fan nationalistic fervor in a country that is in serious decline.
Or does Russia really fear an "invasion" from NATO? A collection of elderly, shrinking populations with tiny defense budgets? Are we really supposed to believe this is what they fear?
American Presidents can be accused of wagging the dog, but it might never occur to us that Putin and Medvedev are doing the same thing?
My God, is there any conceivable reason why Russia shouldn't have the same relationship with us as Britain, France, or Japan? What's this stupid adversarial crap supposed to accomplish?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 3:53pm
No, we canceled a technology that never worked and who's only possible use would have been as a first strike option against Russia.
posted by Shingo
A first strike option? Interceptors only work against missiles that have already been fired.
The Ground Based Interceptors have had about a 50% rate of successful intercepts in tests so far. When an Iranian missile is on it's way towards Brussels, I'm sure they'd appreciate a 50% chance of survival as opposed to hoping something in the Iranian missile malfunctions.
We were going to put something like 10-12 interceptors over there. Russia has, oh, quite a bit more than 10-12 nuclear missiles.
And here's the thing. The thing nobody ever mentions. A Russian strike against the United States would go over the North Pole, not across Europe, across the Atlantic, and into the U.S.
So if we were REALLY doing this against Russian missiles, instead of against Iranian ones, we'd be putting interceptors in Canada or in our northern states.
Russia KNOWS THIS. They are using this stupid non-issue to fan nationalistic fervor in a country that is in serious decline.
Or does Russia really fear an "invasion" from NATO? A collection of elderly, shrinking populations with tiny defense budgets? Are we really supposed to believe this is what they fear?
American Presidents can be accused of wagging the dog, but it might never occur to us that Putin and Medvedev are doing the same thing?
My God, is there any conceivable reason why Russia shouldn't have the same relationship with us as Britain, France, or Japan? What's this stupid adversarial crap supposed to accomplish?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 3:53pm
No, we canceled a technology that never worked and who's only possible use would have been as a first strike option against Russia.
posted by Shingo
A first strike option? Interceptors only work against missiles that have already been fired.
The Ground Based Interceptors have had about a 50% rate of successful intercepts in tests so far. When an Iranian missile is on it's way towards Brussels, I'm sure they'd appreciate a 50% chance of survival as opposed to hoping something in the Iranian missile malfunctions.
We were going to put something like 10-12 interceptors over there. Russia has, oh, quite a bit more than 10-12 nuclear missiles.
And here's the thing. The thing nobody ever mentions. A Russian strike against the United States would go over the North Pole, not across Europe, across the Atlantic, and into the U.S.
So if we were REALLY doing this against Russian missiles, instead of against Iranian ones, we'd be putting interceptors in Canada or in our northern states.
Russia KNOWS THIS. They are using this stupid non-issue to fan nationalistic fervor in a country that is in serious decline.
Or does Russia really fear an "invasion" from NATO? A collection of elderly, shrinking populations with tiny defense budgets? Are we really supposed to believe this is what they fear?
American Presidents can be accused of wagging the dog, but it might never occur to us that Putin and Medvedev are doing the same thing?
My God, is there any conceivable reason why Russia shouldn't have the same relationship with us as Britain, France, or Japan? What's this stupid adversarial crap supposed to accomplish?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 3:53pm
Shingo believes the Iraq war is worse than 12 Hiroshimas and has killed far, far, far more people than the entire strategic Allied bombing of Germany in WW2.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/18/2009 @ 3:30pm
I just figured it out. Shingo is Baghdad Bob.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 3:55pm
What's this stupid adversarial crap supposed to accomplish?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 3:53pm
Driving a wedge & create insecurity in those smallish New European countries. Could be followed by some kinda of flair up in Georgia to be sure that BHO has no interest in impeding Russia.
Were you an officer or a NCO, Citizen?
Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 3:53pm
How about Bush and Co started this to create a plausible concession with the Russians down the road for whatever they might need at that time. Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway?
The new short range switch is just a tool to help Obama and Co defend themselves against the Right to hold on to the Middle.
Now this is the part that gets confusing, why would Bush Co hold this to be used by Obama Co?
Posted by !immutable at 09/18/2009 @ 4:22pm
Started out as enlisted, worked up to E-5 Sergeant. Then went to OCS and was commissioned.
As such, I'm acutely familiar with just how money gets spent by the government. There are things going on you just wouldn't believe.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:24pm
Started out as enlisted, worked up to E-5 Sergeant. Then went to OCS and was commissioned.
As such, I'm acutely familiar with just how money gets spent by the government. There are things going on you just wouldn't believe.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:24pm
Started out as enlisted, worked up to E-5 Sergeant. Then went to OCS and was commissioned.
As such, I'm acutely familiar with just how money gets spent by the government. There are things going on you just wouldn't believe.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:24pm
How about Bush and Co started this to create a plausible concession with the Russians down the road for whatever they might need at that time. Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway?
Posted by !immutable at 09/18/2009 @ 4:22pm
Well, the Russians sure seem to act like they believe it would work.
Otherwise, what's all the fuss about? Wouldn't they just do one press conference, declare it a ridiculous waste of money, take a swig of Stolichnaya, and start doing that knee dancing "Preesyadka" thing to the left of the podium?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:32pm
How about Bush and Co started this to create a plausible concession with the Russians down the road for whatever they might need at that time. Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway?
Posted by !immutable at 09/18/2009 @ 4:22pm
Well, the Russians sure seem to act like they believe it would work.
Otherwise, what's all the fuss about? Wouldn't they just do one press conference, declare it a ridiculous waste of money, take a swig of Stolichnaya, and start doing that knee dancing "Preesyadka" thing to the left of the podium?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:32pm
How about Bush and Co started this to create a plausible concession with the Russians down the road for whatever they might need at that time. Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway?
Posted by !immutable at 09/18/2009 @ 4:22pm
Well, the Russians sure seem to act like they believe it would work.
Otherwise, what's all the fuss about? Wouldn't they just do one press conference, declare it a ridiculous waste of money, take a swig of Stolichnaya, and start doing that knee dancing "Preesyadka" thing to the left of the podium?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:32pm
And another thing.
If this system was for defending against Russian missiles (which I don't believe and which Bush always denied), what's keeping Obama from just releasing documentation or names proving that Bush was lying about that and really was targeting Russia by placing them in Poland?
Why not do that...if you can?
He is the C-in-C after all. All those files are his now. So why not?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:41pm
And another thing.
If this system was for defending against Russian missiles (which I don't believe and which Bush always denied), what's keeping Obama from just releasing documentation or names proving that Bush was lying about that and really was targeting Russia by placing them in Poland?
Why not do that...if you can?
He is the C-in-C after all. All those files are his now. So why not?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:41pm
And another thing.
If this system was for defending against Russian missiles (which I don't believe and which Bush always denied), what's keeping Obama from just releasing documentation or names proving that Bush was lying about that and really was targeting Russia by placing them in Poland?
Why not do that...if you can?
He is the C-in-C after all. All those files are his now. So why not?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/18/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by !immutable at 09/18/2009 @ 4:22pm |
"How about Bush and Co started this to create a plausible concession with the Russians down the road for whatever they might need at that time. Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway?"
If you believe that malarkey, you must think the Cuban missile crisis was the same deal in reverse.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 6:16pm
Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway?
everyone knew that the missile shield did not work. but these things develop an irrational life of their own, and the fear of them too develops irrationality. that is why the russians had to pay at least lip service to being pissed off about it. it was never more than a propaganda tool, and Obama is wise to discard it.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/18/2009 @ 8:49pm
actually,
i think the BRIC layers are pretty much done with all that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2009 @ 07:41am
Does it matter if the US is cut off now?
Money was borrowed before to afford the bloated defense budget that would've paid for this albatross in the first place.
Posted by koroviev at 09/18/2009 @ 11:47pm
It rather amusing reading DREYFUSS brand Poland and the Czech Republic as "right wingers" for supporting the missle shield plan. Perhaps if he had spent 50 years under Soviet Domination and countless centuries prior to this one under threat of conquest or outright extermination, he would feel differently.
But Dreyfuss is like that: A two dimensional thinker, he makes no attempt to understand what he has not experienced.
The reason for canning the missle shield problem is because it's not necessary. Well placed missles in Turkey or on subs in the Eastern Med would be a far more practical way to keep Iran in line, which is what Bush CLAIMED was the reason for them.
Bush, though, with his contemptuous attitude for any opinions or plans outside his own, I believe was simply extending American power, with little concern for or knowledge of Russia's traditional fear of the west "ganging up" on them He, like Dreyfus, should read more history. Obama appears to know his.
I also wonder if some sort of deal was struck between Bush and the Poles regarding the missles and the camps we set up in their territory, an agreement Obama obviously feels no obligation to honor.
ct
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2009 @ 08:55am
Who really thought the missile shield would work anyway? .........
Posted by emile duBois at 09/18/2009 @ 8:49pm
The same people who believe Star Wars works.....
the Russians....
and from a polcy point of view , the Russians folded...
this time Obama folded for half the US...the lib side...
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/19/2009 @ 11:51am
I also wonder if some sort of deal was struck between Bush and the Poles regarding the missles and the camps we set up in their territory, an agreement Obama obviously feels no obligation to honor.
ct
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2009 @ 08:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
Polish Armed Forces took part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying 2,500 soldiers in the south of that country and commanding the 17-nation Multinational force in Iraq. In addition to this, Polish soldiers are currently deployed in five separate UN Peacekeeping Operations (UNDOF, UNIFIL, EUFOR and KFOR). Total international deployment of Polish military is over 4,500 troops
Wiki
The Czech Republic is a member of the UN and the OSCE and has contributed to numerous peacekeeping operations, including IFOR/SFOR in Bosnia, Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq.
Current deployments (as of 2005):
Kosovo: NATO Operation "Joint Enterprise" (KFOR) - 500 soldiers Iraq: Coalition Operation of Multinational Forces - 96 soldiers Bosnia and Herzegovina: European Union Operation (ALTHEA) - 65 soldiers (ended in June 2008[7]) Afghanistan: NATO Operation (ISAF) - 480 soldiers in Faizabad and Logar provinces. Also 100 soldiers in the Operation Enduring Freedom
Wiki
And, do see the "coalition of the willing" troop contributions of others, such as Estonia, whom Putin was terrorizing recently.
Posted by OneVote at 09/19/2009 @ 2:32pm
"What freedom and democracy? We prop up dictators and have invaded or messed with other countries on 70 occasions sincee WWII. "
And that's why there hasn't been a WW3."
Note WW2 happened because of American isolationism following WW1.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 4:16pm
Oh, there are far more reasons for WWII than that.
It was incumbent upon Europe first and foremost to keep Germany in check. For various reasons, none of them very good, they watched it happen. France could've walked into the Ruhr Valley and seized most of Germany's steel production while the Wehrmacht was in Poland.
Then they made a terrifically bad showing when Germany invaded them in turn. And this against an army they outnumbered.
It should be remembered that at the surrender ceremony, the French President turned to his Education Minister and muttered, "You are partly to blame for this."
What he was alluding to was France's policy after WWI of removing any references from textbooks that made martial ability look good. Anything about pride in country, anything acknowledging that your country embodies values worth fighting and dying for if necessary.
In effect, France had managed to raise a generation of pansies immediately following WWI. Germany, unfortunately, did no such similiar thing to their history textbooks...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 07:31am
Oh, there are far more reasons for WWII than that.
It was incumbent upon Europe first and foremost to keep Germany in check. For various reasons, none of them very good, they watched it happen. France could've walked into the Ruhr Valley and seized most of Germany's steel production while the Wehrmacht was in Poland.
Then they made a terrifically bad showing when Germany invaded them in turn. And this against an army they outnumbered.
It should be remembered that at the surrender ceremony, the French President turned to his Education Minister and muttered, "You are partly to blame for this."
What he was alluding to was France's policy after WWI of removing any references from textbooks that made martial ability look good. Anything about pride in country, anything acknowledging that your country embodies values worth fighting and dying for if necessary.
In effect, France had managed to raise a generation of pansies immediately following WWI. Germany, unfortunately, did no such similiar thing to their history textbooks...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 07:31am
Oh, there are far more reasons for WWII than that.
It was incumbent upon Europe first and foremost to keep Germany in check. For various reasons, none of them very good, they watched it happen. France could've walked into the Ruhr Valley and seized most of Germany's steel production while the Wehrmacht was in Poland.
Then they made a terrifically bad showing when Germany invaded them in turn. And this against an army they outnumbered.
It should be remembered that at the surrender ceremony, the French President turned to his Education Minister and muttered, "You are partly to blame for this."
What he was alluding to was France's policy after WWI of removing any references from textbooks that made martial ability look good. Anything about pride in country, anything acknowledging that your country embodies values worth fighting and dying for if necessary.
In effect, France had managed to raise a generation of pansies immediately following WWI. Germany, unfortunately, did no such similiar thing to their history textbooks...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 07:31am
"What he was alluding to was France's policy after WWI of removing any references from textbooks that made martial ability look good. Anything about pride in country, anything acknowledging that your country embodies values worth fighting and dying for if necessary."
Sounds like France still has this same problem, though even worse now: now they think that there are no such things as values worth fighting or dying for PERIOD, and they've embraced socialism, pacifism, radical Islamism, Islamofacism, and anti-Americanism.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 12:38pm
I don't think they've embraced radical Islam. I think they've realized too late that all the people coming up from northern Africa weren't coming to wear bikinis, sit at cafes sipping wine and eating cheese, or sneer at 40 hour work weeks and watch plotless, overdone movies.
They weren't coming to France to become culturally French.
Did they seriously believe in assimilation?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 4:45pm
I don't think they've embraced radical Islam. I think they've realized too late that all the people coming up from northern Africa weren't coming to wear bikinis, sit at cafes sipping wine and eating cheese, or sneer at 40 hour work weeks and watch plotless, overdone movies.
They weren't coming to France to become culturally French.
Did they seriously believe in assimilation?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 4:45pm
I don't think they've embraced radical Islam. I think they've realized too late that all the people coming up from northern Africa weren't coming to wear bikinis, sit at cafes sipping wine and eating cheese, or sneer at 40 hour work weeks and watch plotless, overdone movies.
They weren't coming to France to become culturally French.
Did they seriously believe in assimilation?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 4:45pm
Did they seriously believe in assimilation?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 4:45pm
Assimilation is a fascist concept of collectivism. Are you a fascist?
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 6:54pm
Sounds like France still has this same problem, though even worse now: now they think that there are no such things as values worth fighting or dying for PERIOD, and they've embraced socialism, pacifism, radical Islamism, Islamofacism, and anti-Americanism.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 12:38pm
have you been to France, or are you just taking your cues from Sean Hannity?
France has no such problem. They have one of the strongest cultural identities in the world and are very nationalistic.
Anti-Americanism? If it wasn't for France, the US would still be a British colony.
Do yourself a favor and get a passport.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 6:57pm
Note WW2 happened because of American isolationism following WW1.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 4:16pm
WW2 happened because WWI happened and WWI was completely unnecessary.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 6:58pm
"WW2 happened because WWI happened and WWI was completely unnecessary."
Shingo, do you know who started WW1?
That's right, a crazy German dictator allied with a genocidal Islamofascist empire.
Granted, American intervention really was probably not worth it in retrospect, but its hardly our fault.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:13pm
"Assimilation is a fascist concept of collectivism. Are you a fascist?"
Absurd. Your view is that people should live in segregated, culturally apartheid mini-states, with Sharia law for Muslims, Spainish-speakers in Spainish neighborhoods in America where no one speaks English, ect?
The whole idea of distinct groups of people being unable to communicate with each other on the grounds that these groups are irreconciliably divided as regards collective identity and culture is collectivist.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:17pm
"Anti-Americanism? If it wasn't for France, the US would still be a British colony."
If it wasn't for America, the French would be speaking German.
What their tyrannical government did in the 1700s is profoundly irrelevant to the fact that the French are more likely to hate America than people in many other countries.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:19pm
Shingo, do you know who started WW1?
That's right, a crazy German dictator allied with a genocidal Islamofascist empire.
Granted, American intervention really was probably not worth it in retrospect, but its hardly our fault.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:13pm
I never said it was our fault, I simply stated that WW2 woudl not have happened had WWI not happened.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 7:22pm
"France has no such problem. They have one of the strongest cultural identities in the world and are very nationalistic."
They are not at all nationalistic.
But as far as identity goes, I would agree given that they are more resistant to these Islamofacists than the increasingly spineless British, who tolerate Sharia law.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:23pm
The whole idea of distinct groups of people being unable to communicate with each other on the grounds that these groups are irreconciliably divided as regards collective identity and culture is collectivist.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:17pm
Segregation is simply the other extreme.
People can be good citizens of an adopted country without turning their back on their own cultural identity. In fact, cultural diversity strengthens a society. Those who oppose it are usually redneck xenophobes who have become irrelevant to society.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 7:25pm
They are not at all nationalistic.
But as far as identity goes, I would agree given that they are more resistant to these Islamofacists than the increasingly spineless British, who tolerate Sharia law.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:23pm
The French are more nationalistic and proud of their culture than the US will ever be - probably becasue they HAVE a culture.
The British are equally nationalistic, but have embraced cultural diversity and always have. The Muslim population in Britain is only a few percent. there is no Sharia law in Britain.
Like I said, you need to get a passport and leave your backwater neighborhood to understand.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 7:29pm
"People can be good citizens of an adopted country without turning their back on their own cultural identity. In fact, cultural diversity strengthens a society. Those who oppose it are usually redneck xenophobes who have become irrelevant to society."
Yes, but there is no reason why assimilating to a society requires you to abandon your cultural heritage unless you are assimilating to a bigoted society. America is not a bigoted society, and obviously Americans tend to learn from other cultures and particularily enjoy Asian (mostly Japanese and South Korean) culture.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:29pm
If it wasn't for America, the French would be speaking German.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:19pm
Rubbish. it was the Russians who defeated the Germans. The American's made virtually no difference to the outcome.
"What their tyrannical government did in the 1700s is profoundly irrelevant to the fact that the French are more likely to hate America than people in many other countries."
Based on what evidence?
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 7:31pm
"The French are more nationalistic and proud of their culture than the US will ever be - probably becasue they HAVE a culture."
Right, and America doesn't because its too culturally diverse.
They aren't patriotic, because they view that as unintelligent, and because they don't have a proud history of liberating tens of millions like America does.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:32pm
"I never said it was our fault, I simply stated that WW2 woudl not have happened had WWI not happened."
Well, guess what? If we had toppled the Soviet Union in 1917 and Nazi Germany in 1933 as Winston Churchill advised us to on those two occassions, we would have saved 60 million lives in the first instance and 30 million lives in the second. If the West had seriously supported the anti-Communist forces in Russia, the Bolshevik dictatorship would likely have tumbled in the 1920s. This would, by the way, have meant no Korean War, and no 4 million North Koreans killed by the Communist government of that country.
Also, without the Great Depression, caused by Socialist government policies, Hitler might not have come to power. This was as important as WW1 in the rise of the Nazis, as foreign loans kept Germany afloat after the war and avoided massive economic collapse in that country until they were withdrawn.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:44pm
"If the West had seriously supported the anti-Communist forces in Russia, the Bolshevik dictatorship would likely have tumbled in the 1920s."
I might add that the Nation vocally supported and praised Lenin as a great man during this time, though he killed 4 million people.
In 1924, the Nation said this of Lenin: "To me Lenin is the hero of a legend, a man who had torn the burning heart out of his breast in order to light up for mankind the path which shall lead it out of the shameful chaos of the present, out of the rotting bog of stupid current politics. . . .
His hero-character has almost no outward adornment. His heroism is of a type not rare in Russia--the modest, ascetic martyrdom of an honorable, intellectual revolutionary who honestly believes in the possibility of justice on earth; the heroism of a man who has renounced all the pleasures of life to do hard work for the happiness of mankind."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:47pm
Right, and America doesn't because its too culturally diverse.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:32pm
No,. it's because it's too culturally isolated.
"They aren't patriotic, because they view that as unintelligent, and because they don't have a proud history of liberating tens of millions like America does."
Hillarious. The French national anthem is the most patriotic there is.
American didn't liberate anyone. It was the Russians who defeated the Germans.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 7:55pm
"American didn't liberate anyone."
Japan, South Korea, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, ect?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:56pm
Japan, South Korea, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, ect?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:56pm
Japans was defeated, and bent to our will. they weren't liberated.
Panama is a colonial outpost.
South Korea was not liberated.
Iraq was not liberated either. It was handed to Iran.
Kuwait is a tyranny run by a Royal Family.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 7:59pm
"Japans was defeated, and bent to our will. they weren't liberated."
It is a liberal democracy with complete political freedom with the lowest rates of crime and the highest rates of conviction of any advanced country in the world. It has free speech. Our will was to give them the rights we possess.
What alternative reality do you live in?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:03pm
"South Korea was not liberated."
It is a liberal democracy with one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. The North is a genocidal slave state that has killed over 4 million people.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:05pm
"Panama is a colonial outpost."
Its a democracy.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:06pm
Well, guess what? If we had toppled the Soviet Union in 1917 and Nazi Germany in 1933 as Winston Churchill advised us to on those two occassions, we would have saved 60 million lives in the first instance and 30 million lives in the second.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 7:44pm
The Soviet Union didn't exist in 1917.
Nazi Germany only began in 1933.
It took the lives of 20 million Russians to topple Nazi Gemany.
The Great Depression was caused by the failure of capitalism.
Hitler rose to power becasue of the severe financial hardship imposed on them for WWI.
Your ignorance is mind numbing.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:07pm
Its a democracy.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:06pm
It's a colonial outpost that we stole.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:08pm
It is a liberal democracy with one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. The North is a genocidal slave state that has killed over 4 million people.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:05pm
It might be, but we didn't liberate it.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:10pm
"Iraq was not liberated either. It was handed to Iran."
It was a genocidal fascistic totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea that ran concentration camps.
Now it is a free democracy with free speech and free elections and women's rights and it is a staunch friend of American and enemy of jihad that has, if you notice, rather strained diplomatic relations with France and Germany.
The war in reality has intimidated and surronded Iran, killed thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of terrorists (many of them backed by Iran), made an Iranian attack on Bahrain with nukes as deterrance unlikely, helped spur demands for freedom in Iran and Lebanon, as well as gotten Libya to give up WMD and weakened Saudi Arabia.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:12pm
It is a liberal democracy with complete political freedom with the lowest rates of crime and the highest rates of conviction of any advanced country in the world. It has free speech. Our will was to give them the rights we possess.
What alternative reality do you live in?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:03pm
Japan has always had the lowest rates of crime and the highest rates of conviction of any advanced country in the world. That's a cultural reality that we had nothing to do with.
After all, the US has one of the highest rates of crime in the world.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:13pm
"The Soviet Union didn't exist in 1917."
No, but you know what I meant. After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:17pm
"Japan has always had the lowest rates of crime and the highest rates of conviction"
Tell that to 10 million killed by Imperial Japan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:19pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:12pm
Iraq has been handed to Iran on a silver platter.
It is no staunch friend of the US. In fact, whatever freedoms and it had are dissapearing. Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who famously threw his shoes at George W. Bush last year, was tortured.
The U.S. has created "death squads" inside Iraq to kill anyone it perceives to be an "insurgent", so there is no freedom of speech or opposition to the government.
The Economist details last week, that Iraq is returning to a police state.
http://tinyurl.com/nyryu5
Iraq has also demanded that we leave., so it appears our relations are also strained with Iraq.
The war in reality has not intimidated Iran at all. Yes, we have miliatry bases, that we built without Iraq's permission, but the Iraqi government is demanding we leave.
It has already been proven that Lybia was wanting to give up it's WMD in 1993, so the Lybia deal had nothingto do with Iraq.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:22pm
Tell that to 10 million killed by Imperial Japan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:19pm
During war? We killed how may million in WWII?
How many millions have we killed since WWII in so called peace time?
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:24pm
And of course, if America had more seriously supported Chiang Kai-shek, Mao might have been defeated, and the 35-65 million he killed would have been saved. And that in turn would have been good for the Indochinese, as Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it that way. If we had closed North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the enemy, victory could have been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese involvement was too great.
And the bulk of the over 4,500,000 Indochinese killed by the Communists might have been saved.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:25pm
No, but you know what I meant. After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:17pm
Rubbish. We and Churchill were only to happy to talk to Stalin for help.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:26pm
And of course, if America had more seriously supported Chiang Kai-shek, Mao might have been defeated, and the 35-65 million he killed would have been saved.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:25pm
No way. Mao had too much power.
Vietnam was a quagmire because the people of Vietnma didn't want us there.
All you sare arguing is that we needed to destroy more of it to win.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:29pm
There is no such thing as a perfect Missile defense system, that is going to stop everything. Some missiles or aircraft are going to get though any system. However we do have some good medium or short range air and missile defense system. They are not perfect, but very good.
Posted by pjcasey at 09/20/2009 @ 8:29pm
We just going to use a DIFFERENT missle defense system now.
But the administration got the headline they wanted.
"We're closing gitmo."
"We're pulling out of Iraq (cities)."
"We're not going to continue Bush's missle defense."
"A tax is not a tax (F the dictionary)."
whatever
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/20/2009 @ 8:29pm
We just going to use a DIFFERENT missle defense system now.
But the administration got the headline they wanted.
"We're closing gitmo."
"We're pulling out of Iraq (cities)."
"We're not going to continue Bush's missle defense."
"A tax is not a tax (F the dictionary)."
whatever
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/20/2009 @ 8:29pm
"Iraq has also demanded that we leave., so it appears our relations are also strained with Iraq."
On the other hand, polls show that almost all Iraqis supported the invasion, and in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008 there was no support for an immediate withdrawal; though most Iraqis said they wanted the occupation to end, few when asked said they wanted it to end RIGHT NOW. Similiarily, only 4% of Afghans want the Taliban back according to a recent poll. Yes, Iraqis do support the withdrawal plan that was drawn up by George W. Bush.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:33pm
"Vietnam was a quagmire because the people of Vietnma didn't want us there."
Wrong. They did.
That's like saying Korea was a quagmire because the Koreans hated us. In reality, saving the South took a couple months and very few casualties, and the North fell easily. The problem was evil Mao had to get involved.
BTW, it has been documented that the US abandoned the Chinese freedom fighters for two years and stopped aiding them due to liberal sympathy for Mao and Communist infiltration of the US government.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:38pm
On the other hand, polls show that almost all Iraqis supported the invasion
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:33pm
What polls?
The polls show that the majority fo Iraqis supoprt armed resistance and the attacks on US troops.
In 2007 and 2008 there WAS not only supoprt, but a demand for immediate withdrawal and that demand has become louder.
The only Iraqis that said they didn't want immediate withdrawl were the ruling parties.
last but not least, the withdrawal plan was NOT drawn up by George W. Bush, it was given to him by the Iraqi leaders. he wanted 40 odd bases and to remain till 2011 at least.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:55pm
BTW, it has been documented that the US abandoned the Chinese freedom fighters for two years and stopped aiding them due to liberal sympathy for Mao and Communist infiltration of the US government.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 8:38pm
Communist infiltration of the US government? wow, you've just reached new levels of wingnut derangement.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 8:59pm
However we do have some good medium or short range air and missile defense system. They are not perfect, but very good.
Posted by pjcasey at 09/20/2009 @ 8:29pm
According to whom? They've never been tested in the field
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:01pm
"Communist infiltration of the US government? wow, you've just reached new levels of wingnut derangement."
No, its been proven and documented.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:02pm
No, its been proven and documented.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:02pm
Really? Where's the proof?
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:02pm
By the way, Shingo:
"Gilbert Burnham, the Johns Hopkins professor who was responsible for the claims of huge death tolls in Iraq in the Lancet, has been censured by the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
A prominent group of polling researchers has accused the lead author of a 2006 study suggesting massive civilian deaths in Iraq of violating the polling profession's codes and ethics.
The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Dr. Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins University professor, had repeatedly refused to cooperate with an eight-month investigation into his research on the Iraqi death toll that made headlines in October 2006 when it was published by The Lancet, a British medical journal.
The widely publicized study headed by Burnham contended that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died because of the U.S.-led invasion and war in Iraq.
"When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused," the council said in a statement. It noted that the group's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices calls for researchers to disclose their methodology when survey findings are made public so they can be independently evaluated and verified.
"Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association's Standards Committee."
http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/002781.html
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:05pm
"The polls show that the majority fo Iraqis supoprt armed resistance and the attacks on US troops."
Wrong. Only 6% support AQ attacks on US troops. As far as all attacks on US troops go, the overall polling clearly shows those who favor it are in the minority. In fact, only 16% of Kurds favor it, and the minority would be small if it wasn't for the tiny pathetic non-Kurdish Sunni minority, which favors it 88% of the time shamefully.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:11pm
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:02pm
Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:15pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:05pm
The key sentence in that entry:
"The group made no judgment on whether Burnham's findings were accurate but said his refusal to fully cooperate with the probe "violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research. "
If anything , this proves the Lancet methodology was sound.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:16pm
"Said his refusal to fully cooperate with the probe "violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research."
"If anything, this proves the Lancet methodology was sound."
Shingo is in denial. Pity the poor soul.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:18pm
Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:15pm
That book pertains to events in the 1940's. The Vietnam war took place in the 60's.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:20pm
Wrong. Only 6% support AQ attacks on US troops.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:11pm
I said nothign about AQ atatcks on American troops, but insurgent attacks.
60% of Iraqis supported attacks against US troops.
The number woudl have been higher if teh Kurds were not included.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:23pm
"That book pertains to events in the 1940's. The Vietnam war took place in the 60's."
We are talking about Communist infiltration of the government during the Chinese civil war, not Vietnam, stupid.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:23pm
"60% of Iraqis supported attacks against US troops."
Wrong. I just looked at the polls before responding. The highest estimates are about 40%.
That's why I added after that comment about AQ attacks, just to be clear to fools like you: "As far as all attacks on US troops go, the overall polling clearly shows those who favor it are in the minority."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:26pm
We are talking about Communist infiltration of the government during the Chinese civil war, not Vietnam, stupid.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:23pm
There was no Communist infiltration of the government.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:27pm
Wrong. I just looked at the polls before responding. The highest estimates are about 40%.
Wrong. The numbers remained at 60%.
Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops
"• About 61% approved of the attacks -- up from 47% in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis."
http://tinyurl.com/qu8on
Poor little wingnut.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:30pm
"Wrong. I just looked at the polls before responding. The highest estimates are about 40%."
And that's from 2006. These days very few do, and almost no one did in 2003 and 2004. Again, its inflated by probable liberal bias in the polls and the 88% of the non-Kurdish Sunnis (who are just listed as "Sunnis" in polls, unless they are Kurdish, in which case they are called "Kurds" and their results aren't factored into the Sunni results though they are Sunni) who feel this way because Saddam favored them and they had it like a pre-civil war South compared to everyone else when he was in charge.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:32pm
"There was no Communist infiltration of the government."
Not according to the book I mentioned.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:33pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:32pm
"And that's from 2006. These days very few do, and almost no one did in 2003 and 2004. "
So you admit you are wrong about 40% being the highest recorded and then make the numbers up about them being lower in 2003/2004.
"Again, its inflated by probable liberal bias in the polls "
What evince do you have that the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, is liberally biased?
Poor little wingnut.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:35pm
"• About 61% approved of the attacks -- up from 47% in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis."
http://tinyurl.com/qu8on"
And our government conducted its own, more probable poll that debunked this.
According to your own article, this poll had 1,150 Iraqis from one area, out of a country of 28 million.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:40pm
"28 million."
Sorry, that's Afghanistan. Iraq has over 31 million people.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:42pm
"What evince do you have that the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, is liberally biased?"
Your own article said it oversampled Sunni Arabs.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:45pm
And our government conducted its own, more probable poll that debunked this.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:40pm
Hilarious.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:47pm
Sorry, that's Afghanistan. Iraq has over 31 million people.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:42pm
Not anymore it doesn't.
4 million are refugees, with 2 million of those refugees outside the country and 1.2 million are dead.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:48pm
"And our government conducted its own, more probable poll that debunked this."
And, actually, our government found in its much more comprehensive survey that only about as many as you say supported US withdrawal. Those among them that supported attacks on US troops are obviously less than half, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of them, meaning that maybe 20% or 15% of Iraqis felt that way if we were to trust the government, which I do.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:50pm
"The only Iraqis that said they didn't want immediate withdrawl were the ruling parties."
The ones ELECTED by the Iraqi people. The positions of their elected leaders tell us more about their opinions than any poll. Obviously, very few Iraqis felt that way.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:53pm
Your own article said it oversampled Sunni Arabs.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:45pm
Which creates a "has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."
That means the numbers are still between 59 and 63% and much higher than your claim of a 40% maximum.
More recently:
"Seventy percent said they want the Multi National Forces to leave, with 78 percent of this group wanting them to leave within six months or less and 84 percent within a year."
http://tinyurl.com/mqbx22
So much for being a staunch friend of America.
Posted by Shingo at 09/20/2009 @ 9:54pm
"Not anymore it doesn't."
That's the population estimate for 2009 (31,234,000).
I'm glad you mentioned that if we looked at the growth of Iraq's population year by year, it would be clearly impossible that your number of deaths is even remotely close to being accurate.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:57pm
"Which creates a "has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.""
Again, the US government debunked this lie.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 9:59pm
"Seventy percent said they want the Multi National Forces to leave, with 78 percent of this group wanting them to leave within six months or less and 84 percent within a year."
http://tinyurl.com/mqbx22
So much for being a staunch friend of America."
Almost all Iraqis are glad we intervened.
So, they want us to go in 6 months or, mostly, they say a year?
Everyone says leaving in a year is about right. Bush, Hitchens, and I all think the Iraq war's been won. So do most Iraqis.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/20/2009 @ 10:02pm
They are not perfect, but very good. Posted by pjcasey at 09/20/2009 @ 8:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no they're not. the tests have been rigged.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:03am
by definition a missile defense system needs to be perfect. if the enemy sends one hundred, all they need is for one to get through to cause havoc.
we would be better off trying to come to agreements with our adversaries, as we have to some extent with Russia, our previous enemy number one.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:26am
and another thing. in both countries, the czech republic and Poland, the people were overwhelmingly against the deployment, in the former country by a two thirds majority.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:27am