"Iraq's Defence Minister warned yesterday of a "civil war" that "will never end" and said he was ready to put tanks on the streets..."That is what Bush & Cheney & their PNAC neocon vampires mean when they say "spreading democracy". They spread their "democracy" like rats spread the plague.
The gravest crisis since the US invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.That's the progress that Bush says we are making.
"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defence Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shiite-led interim government, told a news conference. "We are ready to fill the streets with armoured vehicles."That's the gift of peace he as bestowed up on Iraq.
Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their country into an arena of carnage. Who cares as long as the oil ministry is secure, right?
In an interview, Bush said, "History will judge me." In truth, history will curse him.
17 comments:
Civil War in Iraq has only ever been dispelled by a single strong ruler, primarily because of the artificial nature of Iraqi borders. Of course, now that infrastructure (for what it's worth) and wealth production has been centered in certain areas, the people lumped together as Iraqi's must find an equitable way to either coexist or reform their nation(s).
None of this would be happening now if not for the US intrusion, but would it have happened eventually? Who knows...
In either case, I think your estimation of Bush's historic reputation is right on.
I guess we might have to forget about being greeted with flowers as "liberators", then, won't we??
But you know there are still those who in their moronic blind allegience will tell you, "but they're better off than they were under Saddam thanks to us". Forget history, I curse them now!
hang in there shea, keep on keepin on. it sucks that we had to stray from the subject of the post.
Thank you, Chickenhawk. I am sorry if any of my comments upset the others who contribute to the blog, but I am not sorry if they upset Jack Mercer, nor am I sorry for anything I said to him or the way I said it. I stand by those statements.
The fact is, I refuse to tolerate insults from him, and his statement was a deliberate personal insult. He claims not to take things personally, but I suspect he was still bent out of shape from my words against him in a previous post, and he obviously took it personally and decided to do what he did. I won't rehash everything here (much), but the fact is he insulted me and lied about me, and then got upset when I pointed out what he did. It's not the first time he has insulted me - in the past he has been extremely insulting, offensive, and condescending, and if anyone has the time and inclination they can do the research into the Liberal Thought blog's archives and see for themselves.
I refuse to tolerate that behavior. I grow weary of his pattern of insulting me, then trying to win me over with obsequious, patronizing compliments, then turning around and stabbing me in the back. That shit gets old, and his empty pandering compliments are just more of his bullshit. At least he has backed off on the blogwhoring.
I'm sure he is busily writing something about how offended he was about my use of profanity. It will give no mention whatsoever of how he lied about me, or of his deplorable, bigoted characterization of Iraqi people.
I ask you: which is more offensive, his horrible statement and subsequent lie, or me truthfully calling him a fucking liar? I'll take my profanity over his complete lack of integrity any day. As far as I am concerned, the guy is beneath contempt. He is a hypocritical asshole, and a liar.
Judgment day for the W, rove and co is going to suck for them.
Shea,
I offer some constructive criticism that I doubt will be taken or even taken well. Instead of emotional bluster you need to read and think vs. react. Most of your blog, most of your comments are reaction. Shea, is your life a reaction to what goes on about you? This would truly be a sad thing if so. Shea, have you also ever really sat down and read what you write? What are you angry at? Do you react in such a way to people on the street, within your job, friends, family, etc?
Shea, one reacts violently when confronted with something one doesn't like. I pointed out something that you said, reminded you of it, and you did everything to back out and act like you meant something else. As a black man, I have faced more bigotry and intolerance from many liberals who in their condescention do not even realize or acknowlege their prejudices.
Shea, I don't see how you can say that I lied when I just put your remarks down, and gave my impression of them. For instance:
"We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here."
Can this be read any other way than that a theocracy is an inferior form of government that you look down on and we are better than that? Especially when within the article that you wrote you were heaping prejudiced, biased, intolerant vitriolic and reproachful language upon Christians and the proponents of intelligent design. How else can one read this Shea? In all seriousness, I want to know!
The second one:
"At best, Iraq will be a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that will quickly ally itself with neighboring Shiite Iran, and almost certainly become an enemy of the United States."
AT BEST, Shea. You said the best they can do is theocracy. That means that they aren't capable of democracy. Can it mean anything else? Again, I seriously want to know, Shea.
The last one:
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy."
Websters defines barbarian as:
1 : of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2 : lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
You have talked about your love for democracy and that it is a superior form of government, but say that muslims cannot attain democracy. Therefore that makes them inferior to those of us who can. Are you saying that you would rather have us go back to tribalism, do you endorse tribalism, do you endorse the form of government that these people have as being better or equal to democracy?
Shea, I post this here and not at Neo Libs in all sincerity asking that you review what you wrote and ask yourself what you accomplished with your reaction. Anyone who reads that string is going to see a proud, arrogant and reactive person who when faced with what he said did everything to deny it.
Shea, I have admitted many times in my life that I am wrong. I have changed my opinion with new information more times than I can count. My impression of you is that you have never been wrong--or at least have never admitted it.
Shea, truth hurts. If you want honesty, look back over your last two posts on Neo Libs and see what happened. You indiscriminately attacked and alienated both friend (CH and WSC) and foe (Jack) alike in your crusade to be right, to be heard, to advance your cause. Passion destroys more often than preserves, Shea, and at your ripe age in life its not too late to learn that. Anger--hatred--it consumes. More often the bearer than the recipient.
No, Shea, as much as you want to project your feelings of offense upon me, I am not offended. I have to remind you that I don't know you, will likely never meet you, and in my universe you are simply one voice among many?
Respectfully,
Jack
P.S. I did do a post on my site using some of your quotes. My association with you has given rise to an article or even a book that I am writing and a theory that I would like to explore. If you would like to comment, I would not mind. Per your request, I also made sure that I published the comment string so that people could view it within its context. With your permission I would like to publish your comment above too.
What is 'blogwhoring?
Hey Jack, maybe you should start reading the conservative blogs and see just how much anger, hate, and bigotry is printed there....and then tell them that they are full of the afore mentioned items.
Hi Grandpa Eddie!
I do that also. Especially when they are.
-Jack
Jack says: "...you need to read and think vs. react."
There's the holier-than-thou, condescending Jack Mercer I have known. According to him, I don't read, and I don't think. I guess Jack also possesses a magic crystal ball or something, to know what and how much I read. As for whether or not I think, I'll let those whose opinions I respect make that judgment (and that group doesn't include Jack Mercer).
"Shea, is your life a reaction to what goes on about you?"
No more or less than anyone else on earth. What you seem to be obsessed with is the fact that I reacted to your insult and your lies about me. If you choose to behave that way, expect a reaction.
"Shea, have you also ever really sat down and read what you write?"
Yes, and unlike you, I actually understood it.
"What are you angry at?"
How many times do I have to repeat this, Jack? I was angry because you lied about me and insulted me. You made an ugly, hateful, bigoted statement and then claimed that it was me who said it. You are a liar. Maybe everyone else bends over for you, but I won't tolerate your asinine behavior.
"Do you react in such a way to people on the street, within your job, friends, family, etc?"
If someone does what you did to me, then yes.
"Shea, one reacts violently when confronted with something one doesn't like. I pointed out something that you said, reminded you of it, and you did everything to back out and act like you meant something else."
Jack, that is where you are absolutely lying. Why do you insist on repeating that lie over and over again? Do you think that if you repeat it enough you will convince others the way you have deluded yourself? You continue to go to such great lengths to repeat your lie that it is growing quite tiresome.
So that my readers will know what I am referencing, here is what Jack Mercer said: "I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy... Yep, those poor, ignorant, barbaric middle easterners..."
He then goes to great lengths to insist that those offensive, disgusting, bigoted opinions of his, came from me. To me, that is an insult. He might not think so, because to him those ugly statements are normal. To me, however, they are deeply offensive.
Jack, however, is a narcissist: he apparently thinks it is perfectly okay to insult other people and is shocked when they don't enjoy being insulted. He always reminds me that he considers himself to be smarter and morally superior to me. He also likes to insist that he does not take things personally, yet he has devoted so much time to this endeaver that he actually researched my old blog posts so that he could change my statements by adding his own words to them, and then claim that his "edited" versions were mine. Is that pathetic, or what? And still he keeps harping away on this.
"As a black man, I have faced more bigotry and intolerance from many liberals who in their condescention do not even realize or acknowlege their prejudices."
If you think that gives you the go-ahead to be a bigot, then you should work on your own problems instead of coming here to tell me that I don't read or think.
"Shea, I don't see how you can say that I lied when I just put your remarks down, and gave my impression of them."
Aw, gee, Jack, you don't know? Just as you asked me, have you also ever really sat down and read what you write? Look: you gave your impression of them. Let's see an example of that, shall we?
Here is my quote:
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy."
Here is what Jack twisted it into. The remarks in parenthesis are his, not mine:
"Tribal (barbarians) are more comfortable with tribal culture (incapable of civilization) and would rather have Islamic theocracy (don't want democracy)."
That is Jack Mercer's version of "just putting your remarks down": Inserting his ugly bigoted hatespeach into my statements, and then claiming that his edited versions are mine.
How much more plain do I have to be? To write something that I did not say, and then claiming that I said it, is a lie. It is not true. If you can't understand that, then you need some serious psychological help.
"We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here."
"Can this be read any other way than that a theocracy is an inferior form of government that you look down on and we are better than that?"
Jack, for somebody who claims to be th only one in the room who reads and comprehends what is written, you sure do miss a lot. Or do you just choose to ignore the words you don't like? I said "Iran- or Afghanistan-style". I qualified my statement with a specific form of theocracy, for your information, so yes, it can be read another way than you read it. All you have to do is read the actual words, instead of being blinded by your emotional reaction to the word theocracy. That's what happened, Jack: you reacted to the religious word ("theocracy") and let your emotional reaction blind you to the actual statement. So, you are guilty of that which you accuse me. That means you can add "hypocrite" to your resume, along with "liar".
"Especially when within the article that you wrote you were heaping prejudiced, biased, intolerant vitriolic and reproachful language upon Christians and the proponents of intelligent design."
First of all, as I have written time and time again, I speak out against fundamentalism, not just christianity. Just because you, in your narrow-minded ignorance, interpret it incorrectly, does not mean that you are wise enough to judge my intentions. If you bothered to research my blog further you would find posts with positive statements about christians who are not oppressive fundamentalists. But you choose to ignore the facts and make things up to suit your agenda. Whatever.
"How else can one read this Shea? In all seriousness, I want to know!"
I'll tell you, Jack, since you want to know so badly: This may surprise you, or it may be beyond your comprehension, but not everybody thinks like you. You probably can't understand that, but it is true. Other people read things and interpret them differently than you. And furthermore, your interpretation is not the absolute correct one. Your interpretation is just your own opinion (and as far as I am concerned, it is a very narrow minded one). Sorry to have to break it to you, Jack, but you are not the superior being you seem to think you are.
As for this one: "At best, Iraq will be a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that will quickly ally itself with neighboring Shiite Iran, and almost certainly become an enemy of the United States."
Jack rants: "AT BEST, Shea. You said the best they can do is theocracy. That means that they aren't capable of democracy. Can it mean anything else? Again, I seriously want to know, Shea."
Oh, this is delicious! Jack: I did not say that! It was a quote taken from a paragraph from the article I posted, you blithering idiot! Here is the link. Go back and look. You are taking a quote from an article that I posted in my blog, and trying to say that I wrote it!? LOL! All this ranting from you because you don't know the difference between text and a blockquote? HA HA HA! Okay, Jack, I'll concede here that maybe, instead of lying, you were just spinning off the deep end because of your own stupid mistake!
Jack further tries to change this statement: "You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy."
Once again, Jack, you have taken a quote from an article I posted. I did not write it, I simply posted the article with a link to cite the author's credit. You had better learn how to use a computer before you go off half-cocked and start making accusations. Oh, wait, I forgot: you are always rational, you read what is written, and you don't let your emotions sway your reason. That means, if you didn't make a mistake because you were a little emotional at the time, then you must have been completely rational and logical when you claimed that I wrote things that were actually written by someone else. Oh, but I guess that's not lying, is it? What do you call it? "Giving your impression of them?" Take pick, Jack: were you irrational, stupid, or lying? Gee, I really want to know!
"Websters defines barbarian as:"
Nice to know you finally managed to crack open a dictionary, but YOU were the one who called middle eastern people barbarians, not me! YOU used that word, I never did, nor did the author of the article you accuse me of writing. As I said before, "tribal" is not barbaric, and for you to say that it is just reveals what a bigot you are.
You also made this demeaning comment: "Tribal (barbarians) are more comfortable with tribal culture (incapable of civilization)". It just so happens that I grew up among tribal cultures in Arizona, and I know them to be a lot more civilized than you.
Jack makes the accusation, "You have talked about your love for democracy and that it is a superior form of government, but say that muslims cannot attain democracy."
Again, this was taken by you from another author's article, so your accusation is bullshit. However, I will defend my use of the article you so pitifully misinterpret. Here is the (other author's) quote: "You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy".
But Jack says, "Therefore that makes them inferior to those of us who can", and he asks me, "Are you saying that you would rather have us go back to tribalism, do you endorse tribalism, do you endorse the form of government that these people have as being better or equal to democracy?"
Jack, your bigoted interpretation of that passage reveals a real lack of cultural awareness and an obvious bias which clouds your ability to comprehend the actual words. I stated back in the original argument on the Liberal Thought blog that tribalism is a valid societal structure, no more, no less. I don't endorse it or comdemn it, but I accept that other cultures embrace it and I have witnessed first hand that it can be a perfectly functional and nurturing environment. If you have predjudices against tribal people, that is your problem. Don't try to validate your bigotry by accusing me of sharing it.
Anyway, the statement was written by someone else. The author of the article asserts that Iraq is a country that is more confortable with the cultural standards they have known for thousands of years. He makes no value judgement against them, he merely states that they would prefer an Islamic theocracy, and history will prove whether his observation is accurate. But you, Jack, bigot that you are, insist that tribal societies are inferior. I pity you for having such a small-minded, fear-based, predjudiced worldview.
"Shea, I post this here and not at Neo Libs [Jack's nickname for the Liberal Thought blog] in all sincerity asking that you review what you wrote and ask yourself what you accomplished with your reaction. Anyone who reads that string is going to see a proud, arrogant and reactive person who when faced with what he said did everything to deny it."
Wrong, Jack. I review everything I write, obviously with far more scrutiny than you do. And as I have just demonstrated, YOU are the one who lied about me and has gone to great lengths to deny it. I have proven it time and time again, over and over and over in this thread and the one at Liberal Thought. The FACT that you made the original insulting statement ("I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy"), and YOU are the one who took statements from other authors' articles and tried to accuse me of making them. As far as the article quotes are concerned, you can dismiss the error as simple ineptitude or "computer illiteracy". More likely, you knew what you were doing when you tried to put other peoples' words into my mouth, and you had no reason to do so except out of vindictive malice.
"Shea, truth hurts." - I imagine it does for you, since you seem so insistent upon avoiding it.
"If you want honesty, look back over your last two posts on Neo Libs and see what happened. You indiscriminately attacked and alienated both friend (CH and WSC) and foe (Jack) alike in your crusade to be right, to be heard, to advance your cause."
I do look over the posts, Jack, and as I said above, unlike you, I actually read them and understand them better than you. Jack, you go look back at your lies, your insults, and your weird attempt to accuse me of saying things that you took from other authors' articles, and then ask yourself who is on a crusade. My original post was a commentary on the potential for civil war in Iraq, citing an Australian newspaper article. You came along and decided to turn it into a personal attack against me with your insulting "barbarians" comment. Of course, if anyone disagrees with you, it alienates people, but it's okay for you to propagate your malicious slander.
And Jack, you know I have had to chastise you before for your habit of changing the subject away from the post, to turn it into your own little Jack-fest. Why can't you stay on topic, anyway? Is it because the only thing you have to offer are pathetic lies designed to malign me? If so, you need to focus your obsession on someone else.
"...as much as you want to project your feelings of offense upon me" - Gosh, how original: take the concept I originally used to describe your ugly rant in Liberal Thought. Am I supposed to be impressed by the way you've managed to work it into the conversation?
"Passion destroys more often than preserves, Shea, and at your ripe age in life its not too late to learn that."
Here we go again. The wiser-than-thou Jack Mercer again blesses me with the pearls of his vast wisdom. Well, here's something for you to learn: Art, science, and many other beautiful and beneficial aspects of humanity are the result of passion, so don't try to impress me with your two-bit catchphrases about what I need to learn about passion or about human nature.
"Respectfully," - Okay, but what you call "respect" would probably be defined as "condescending, obsequious, thinly-veiled contempt" by anyone else.
"What is 'blogwhoring?" - "Blogwhoring" is the practice of going into other blogs' comments and asking, people to come visit your blog.
"P.S. I did do a post on my site using some of your quotes... With your permission I would like to publish your comment above too."
I can't prevent you from publishing my comments. All I ask is that you refrain from the practice of inserting your own comments in parenthesis into my statements in order to change the context. I consider that a violation of my writing. Aside from that, internet media is freely available to be reproduced on other sites.
I will say this in closing. I have proven my point several times over. I have demonstrated clearly that you made statements and then tried to accuse me of having made them. I have proven that you also took statements from other authors' articles and accused me of having made them, too. I have proven every single contention in my rebuttal to you. And rather than admit that you did those things, you choose to accuse me further, and punctuate your message with condescending statements designed to imply that I do not read the material in the blogs, that I do not think about it, etc.
I maintain my assessment of your character and draw from your behavior to reinforce my observation. You are condescending, obsequious, and a liar.
The matter is closed. Until now, I have taken great pride in the fact that I have never removed anyone's comments from my blog, but if you insist on continuing your obsessive crusade against me then I will remove any future comments of yours.
Bravo, Shea!
Censorship...that's where it always leads!
-Jack
This string of comments just made my day. You guys are funny. In reality you are husband and wife, right?
I do that also. Especially when they are.
Censorship...that's where it always leads!
Jack,
By your first statement you must spend a great share of your time at conservative blogs correcting them, because I have yet to find one that isn't filled with bigotry, gay bashing, or hatred for women's rights.
Censorship...conservative bloggers do this on a regular basis.
While we're at it, why don't we throw in lies and deceit...something else that conservatives and right-wingnuts are proficient at.
Grandpa Eddie, thanks for the support, I appreciate it. Maybe someday we can read the article/book that Jack is writing, and see just how horrible I really am... an emotional, reactionary liberal who doesn't read or think, and who uses foul language on the internet. When I read it, I'll probably say to myself, "Holy shit! Where the fuck were my goddamned manners!?" LOL.
"Well, here's something for you to learn: Art, science, and many other beautiful and beneficial aspects of humanity are the result of passion, so don't try to impress me with your two-bit catchphrases about what I need to learn about passion or about human nature."
The thing that is so scary about passion in a right winger is that it usually results in physical attacks on those people or philosophies that they disagree with. People on the left end of the spectrum tend to do things that expand the horizons of humanity when they let passion drive them.
Oh, by the way you right wing pukes, don't try to give me that crap about the ussr and china being leftist. They're not and anybody with a brain can see it.
And please visit my blog. And who's my pimp? That fucker owes me at least two bucks.
Instead of dollars, charge francs. It annoys the right.
Post a Comment