« Show Your Support for Kerry (sort of) | Main | tastes like subservient chicken! »

Us v. Them is not just a cliche

This link just came through in one of the breaking news alerts I get via email: 4/10 1:30pm: About 1000 people have gathered at UN Plaza for an emergency demonstration in opposition to US imperialism and solidarity with Iraqi insurgents, and are marching up Market Street. Solidarity with Iraqi insurgents. You have got to be kidding me. Speaking of protests, there was one in Times Square today with the motto: Iraq's Falluja is Palestine's Deir Yassin and Jenin Too bad Jenin is a complete fallacy, you idiots. But you just keep believing your little fantasies. In a way, you are right. Just as Fallujah and Jenin do have a common link: anti-American, anti-Jew terrorists. You guys really know how to pick them. Look at this one: Under a picture of the Japanese hostages in Iraq is this caption: How do we know these are not actually American special operatives terrorizing Japanese citizens? Perhaps they are Blackwater recruits? Maybe they're all actors? How do we know these are not actually American special operatives terrorizing Japanese citizens? Perhaps they are Blackwater recruits? Maybe they're all actors? The gist of that article is that America so wants us to hate our enemies that they will stage something like this. The black helicopters are circling. The moonbats are losing whatever teneous grip they had on reality. They are so hell bent on winning their war on Bush that they will grasp at any conspiracy their hateful minds can think up and pass it off as real. And then the hordes believe it. Don't be fooled. The far left really is our enemy if this is the tactic they choose to use in their war to stop the war.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Us v. Them is not just a cliche:

» Off the rails from Inoperable Terran
The protestors and their conspiracy theories have gone completely nutsoid. Michele takes 'em down a notch.... [Read More]

» Anything for the cause! from Classical Values
Aren't fanatics wonderful? Michele points out the latest spin from Indymedia -- a picture of one of the Japanese hostages, knife held to his throat, with the following caption below: How do we know these are not actually American special... [Read More]

» There's no "News" like Yesterdays "News"!!! from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "Favorable Endorsements" Nicky said: "You know, just when I think that BushCo.'s terrorists, er, supporters have gone as low as they can possibly go...I run across a site like this." - Nick It's too... [Read More]

Comments

dumbasses

I have kept this bit in the back of my head for a long time now. I can be abit of a militant if I don't keep myself in check. Now, I'm thinking that it isn't my militant side but the truth. If the Far Left of America's political spectrum is saying these things then they are no better than the barbarians we are facing. Yes...I am saying that. The far left, these loons that would have us all believe that our SOLDIERS would do something like that to foreign nationals, are absolutely aiding these barbarians. Providing aid and comfort to the enemies of our country. So...they are the enemy and the only thing...THE ONLY THING...protecting them is the fact they have citizenship here and are protected by our First Amendment.

Folks...the first amendment is fine but where I come from there is still something called fighting words...and I can't keep writing because my words just might be mis-understood.

This makes me apoplectic.

Shitstains who gather in "solidarity with Iraqi insurgents" need to leave this country. Now. Or face treason charges.

My GOD.

Oh good lord. I'd ask "are you kidding me?" but the article link says you're not...

As the saying goes, they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side.

I didn't agree with the militia movement in the early 90's...too many nuts involved. I'm beginning to rethink that because the enemy is inside the gates.

Apoplectic? no no...my reaction is something more...bloodthirsty.

"About 1000 people have gathered at UN Plaza for an emergency demonstration in opposition to US imperialism and solidarity with Iraqi insurgents"

Where is Chemical Ali when you need him?

This makes me apoplectic.

-Emma

Apoplectic? no no...my reaction is something more...bloodthirsty.

-Wayne

Good, I can feel your anger. I am unarmed. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.

-Emperor Palpatine

Well, I'll stick my neck out here. What was this war about? First round, it was WMD, threats to America, links to al Qaeda... no, those didn't quite turn out. Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant. We captured the tyrant, killed his evil sons, set up our own government, ok, that was done. Now it's -- what?

Now the war is America versus the Iraqi people, who do not want us there. I hate to say it, but they have every right to fight for their own sovereignty. You'd do it, I'd do it, if some foreign country came in and imposed martial law here in the United States.

I don't think most Americans hate Iraqis, and I really really doubt that we would have supported the idea that our military should go through the cities of Iraq killing people for resenting our killing them. But that's all this is now. The enemy has been removed, the people are liberated, we just don't like the fact that they don't like us.

What we've got is a fuckin' mess there, made by our clever leaders who thought you could march into a country and impose freedom. Again, I cannot find it in myself to blame the Iraqi people for fighting back against us. I don't support anybody who kills Americans, but I have to say it is not hard to see their side of it.

New York better prepare itself for the moonbat insurgents who are presently preparing their plan of attack upon the RNC in late August.

Busloads of moonbats, oh my!

That stuff is really crazy, hard to tell which side of the crazy meter it falls on when you compare it to Cheneys' claim that we would be welcomed as liberators. About equal crazy, I guess.

Has this generation come up with a new version of "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!" to chant as they support the folks killing US soldiers, or are they just recycling golden oldies?

Mr. North,

We're all soldiers now...have been since we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. In war, there are no innocents anymore and the far left's friends Hammas, Mr. Sadr, and that ilk are only driving the point home. I will GLADLY take action against these people and the people that support them and have no nightmares for it.

THEY have kicked this tiger in the balls...I don't think they have a plan for his teeth. Ever wonder why we don't have suicide bombers in the US? Because they know we can carry firearms and would waste no time arranging their meeting with the virgins.

Wrapper -

Check out this blog: http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/

it's by an Iraqi. There are MANY more like this one that other's can provide. The majority of Iraqis WANT their country to be democratic. They know they can't defend themselves from the barbarians so they rely on us for now. Some like it...some don't...but they all accept the fact that WE are the only nation how apparently gives a rat's arse about them.

Why do so many Americans insist that Iraqis all are of the same mind on the war (or chicken, or laundry soap for that matter)?

It's like the media speaking about "Europe" as if there were one great big collective European consciousness that is in constant agreement over every issue.

I wonder who made the decision to close down Sadrs' newspaper and arrest some of his people?

Everything went to hell after that, but no one in the media or anywhere else talks about it.

Appropo the Japanese conspiracy theory...

Zeyad at Healing Iraq reports the conspiracy theory that the Japanese citizens (all anti-war protesters) staged that video to pressure their own government.

He didn't give the theory much credence, having seen the video, but one of them had been touring Palestine as well.

well. I give up. after three years of trying to understand the people i used to associate with, i'm done. I can't. My brain doesn't operate that way and i can't force it to. I'm just done. I've never seen such an irrational group of crazy motherfuckers in my life, and i can say i've known some pretty insane people. I'm finally speechless, i think. !

Well, I'll stick my neck out here. What was this war about? First round, it was WMD, threats to America, links to al Qaeda... no, those didn't quite turn out. Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant. We captured the tyrant, killed his evil sons, set up our own government, ok, that was done. Now it's -- what?

Your strawman. You tell us.

You see, WMD wasn't the "first" item. It was one of them. The one that got the most press coverage.

I know: when this one falters, you can go with the other claims like, oh, why not invade Korea or Zimbabwe, repeat the "imminent threat" claim, etc.

You see, WMD wasn't the "first" item. It was one of them. The one that got the most press coverage.

It got the most coverage cuz of a little PR hustle called the "state of the union address." Then a spam sort of pop-up talk called the "address by the Secretary of State to the UN security council." Our Big Guys told us that's why we need to go to war against Iraq.

No, it didn't just get the most press covererage, it was the reason. But you miss my point. You and I both know that was a lie, the WMD thing, the al Qaeda thing, the threat-to-America thing. That wasn't what we went there for, you know, I know. We went there to liberate the people.

And now we are at war with the people. Now we are slaughtering the people. Sunni and Shia, warrior and civilian. Now we are wading into their cities, ankle-deep in their blood, and telling ourselves they are savages, and they are terrorists, and they are brutes, and killing them left and right.

We have lost our perspective. We have forgotten what our mission was.

Y'know, I was going to do one of my long-winded replies to "Pass the Gas," but what's the point? He/she isn't going to be convinced by anything I have to say. I mean, PtG, it's not like EVERY point you mentioned hasn't been argued to death for going on two frikkin' years now. If you don't get it now, you won't ever. I mean, you're someone who thinks US forces are "slaughtering the people." There's nothing I can write that will penetrate a shell of ignorance that strong.

Two years, yeah... ignorance, nah. It was wrong when it started, and it's even wronger now. Just because it's been going on a long time doesn't mean we should accept it as right.

Now we are at war with the people of Iraq. Every fake reason our government gave us has dissipated. We aren't defending ourselves, we aren't liberating anybody. We're fighting them because they don't like us being there. We're pissing off the whole Arab world, we're promoting terrorism, we're showing the world how belligerant we can be, we're killing innocent people by the hundreds.

Call it a cliche, I don't care. We are deep into a mess we never should have started. It's ... well, it's embarrassing.

PtG:

Blah blah "war with Iraqi people" blah blah "we aren't liberating anybody" blah blah blah blah blahdiddy blah "we're killing innocent people by the hundreds" blah bah drool snort blah.

Seen it, read it, tired of it. Go sell it to someone who's buying, fart-boy.

Your argument is that... because you've heard it before ... it doesn't matter?

Oh, plus the very clever innovation of calling me ... "fart-boy"?

Wow. You're very convincing.

PtG:

Whatever.

Yeah, that pretty well summarizes your point.

Never argue with a gas-huffer. Dain-bramage, you know. It's just... embarrassing.

I live in New York and this is the first I heard of an "insurgent solidarity" demonstration at the UN. Needless to say, in NYC you can always round up a few hundred nutcases for just about anything. That doesn't make it a movement.

As a flaming liberal and patriot myself, it sickens me that people are so stupid as to express solidarity with anyone who is killing American soldiers. Please do not delude yourself that these people are representative of Americans who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq; they are not.

Otto--

So, what about this idea--

Whatever the Bush administration's motives for ordering the invasion of Iraq, the American people believed we were doing it for the following reasons:

1. Iraq possessed WMDs.
2. Iraq sponsored terrorist organizations that attacked the United States.
3. Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.
4. Saddam Hussein had ties to the September 11th attacks.
5. Saddam Hussein must be removed from power for humanitarian reasons.

I submit to you that, had items 1-4 been removed from the list, a significant majority of Americans would have opposed invading Iraq. I further submit that the number of Americans who would have opposed the war under such circumstances would have been high enough to derail the Bush administration's invasion policy, either in congress or through other means.

Now, I have often heard such points responded to with something to the affect that, "Well, Bush can hardly be blamed if people are too stupid to get the real news." Speaking only for myself (obviously), I find such statements disingenuous in the extreme; if it isn't the president's responsibility to ensure that the American people are well-informed about the logic behind decisions leading up to a war, I don't know whose it would be.

Essentially, it is almost irrelevant whether Bush told a specific lie about the reasons for invading Iraq. The fact is that, through whatever mechanism, the American people were grossly misinformed about the rationale for invading Iraq. Somebody is responsible for that; the federal government, the mass media, or both. In any case, I believe it is obviously the federal government's responsibility to correct mistaken beliefs about important issues of public policy. And all evidence suggests that the Bush administration has failed spectacularly in that respect.

ps-

maha; exactly.

Gee joshua norton,

I'll bet you never believed the rising tide of terrorism over the last twenty-three years did not exist either.

Friends of my enemy are not my friends.
Your short-sighted thinking is going to get all of us killed one day.

Can you please explain the decade of no-fly zones (30-60 billion worth). Can you explain 17 United Nations resolutions against Saddam. Can you explain why the US Congress and the President declared war against Saddam in 1998. Can you explain why Sen. Kerrey (D-Neb) in the late 90's thought the removal of Saddam was more important than addressing Al Queda. Can you explain the UN/Saddam oil-for-food kickback scam. Can you explain the gassing of the Iraqi people. Can you explain why thousands of documents were found showing Saddam's capacity to produce WMD's. Can you explain the terrorist training camps found in Iraq. Can you explain the fuselages found in those training camps which were a mere 30 miles outside Baghdad. Can you explain the financial ties Saddam had with numerous terrorist organizations.Can you explain why Saddam harbored an Al Queda member for ten years following the 1993 WTC bombing. Can you explain why to this day you feel that removing Saddam was a bad idea?

Yeah, Joshua, the American people were lied too about the real threat of Saddam but the lies did not come from the current Bush adminstration. The lies came from the prior Clinton adminstration which fully realized the real threat of Saddam yet lied to the American public by simply pretending to do something about the real threat Saddam posed.

We had ignored Saddam like we had ignored the rising tide of fascist Islamic terrorist. Perhaps the giant hole located at the tip of lower Manhattan will reminded you of our past ignorance.

So, what about this idea--

Whatever the Bush administration's motives for ordering the invasion of Iraq, the American people believed we were doing it for the following reasons:

1. Iraq possessed WMDs.
2. Iraq sponsored terrorist organizations that attacked the United States.
3. Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.
4. Saddam Hussein had ties to the September 11th attacks.
5. Saddam Hussein must be removed from power for humanitarian reasons.

#1 was believed by not only the Bush administration, but by both the Clinton and Bush-the-Elder administrations, as well as by many members of congress who now claim to oppose the war. In addition, even those nations such as France and Germany believed that the WMDs existed. The UN believed this. My point is that almost EVERYBODY believed that. So #1 couldn't realistically have been taken off the table before the war, since it relies on knowledge gathered after the fact.

#2 I don't remember the administration specifying that Iraqi-supported groups attacked the US. I do remember them stating that Iraq supported terrorism.

#3 The jury is still out on that one, but the evidence seems to indicate (at least to me) that they did have some ties.

#4 I don't believe I EVER heard anyone in the adminstration making that claim. EVER.

#5 True, and claimed by Bush (though not given as the primary reason)

My point is, your list hinges on several misperceptions by the American people. 1-4 could NOT have been removed because the first was believed to be true by most authorities, even many who opposed the war, and others either were never claimed to be the truth or the jury is still out on.

I submit to you that, had items 1-4 been removed from the list, a significant majority of Americans would have opposed invading Iraq.

Unknown, and far too speculative. Remember, Bush's popularity ratings were astoundingly high from the period post-9/11, and it's arguable that, had he phrased the arguments differently the public still would have supported it. A recent poll found that 57% STILL say we went into Iraq for the right reasons, even while Bush's numbers themselves are slipping.

Here's a quote: Public support for the decision to use military force in Iraq has not changed. The poll found that 57 percent think the United States made the right decision to use military force -- about the same as in early February.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11248556&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=377222&rfi=6

I further submit that the number of Americans who would have opposed the war under such circumstances would have been high enough to derail the Bush administration's invasion policy, either in congress or through other means.

Again, speculation. We'll never know for sure.

Now, I have often heard such points responded to with something to the affect that, "Well, Bush can hardly be blamed if people are too stupid to get the real news." Speaking only for myself (obviously), I find such statements disingenuous in the extreme; if it isn't the president's responsibility to ensure that the American people are well-informed about the logic behind decisions leading up to a war, I don't know whose it would be.

Partly true, but also partly untrue. While I agree the administration could have done a FAR better job in spelling out the reasons for invasion (instead of relying largely, but not entirely, on the WMD argument), it is also the responsibility of a citizen in a free country to inform himself about what's going on in the world. For example, take #4. Bush NEVER claimed that, and a few minutes research on the web or in a library could have told the average citizen that. I mean, I had already decided to support invasion many months before it happened, because I read up on the subject for myself and made my own decision. So had most of my friends, whether or not they decided to support the war. The president is not a babysitter, and he's not a teacher; I mean, the buildup was constantly on the news for months. It actually took effort to stay uninformed, but some people managed it anyway.

Essentially, it is almost irrelevant whether Bush told a specific lie about the reasons for invading Iraq. The fact is that, through whatever mechanism, the American people were grossly misinformed about the rationale for invading Iraq. Somebody is responsible for that; the federal government, the mass media, or both.

How about THE PEOPLE?!?!? I'm sorry, Joshua, but in this day and age people have more access to more information than at any time in the history of humanity. There are networks, cable news channels, magazines, newspapers, the internet, and books of every flavor out there, ripe for the picking. There were debates and conferences and marches and rallies of every sort during the buildup. Anyone who had the slightest interest in forming an opinion could read on it until his brain turned to tapioca pudding.

In any case, I believe it is obviously the federal government's responsibility to correct mistaken beliefs about important issues of public policy. And all evidence suggests that the Bush administration has failed spectacularly in that respect.

I agree that the Bush admin did a poor job in giving the reasons for the war. However, all they can do is state their case, and let the dice fall where they may. It's not their job to spoonfeed information to people, nor is it their job to make sure people are up to date on current events. In the end, though, despite all that's happened, the American people still mostly think that going into Iraq was a good idea. They're stronger than you think.

Anyway, gotta run. There's a serious thunderstorm, and I've got to unplug my computer so it doesn't explode.

"Iraq's Falluja is Palestine's Deir Yassin and Jenin"

They're right, but not in the way they think they are.

What do all 3 have in common? Pitched battles that got spun into unprovoked huge massacres of one side by another. Well, fallujah is still being spun - let's see if the media learned from Jenin not to jump to conclusions.

"Pitched battles that got spun into unprovoked huge massacres of one side by another."

Let me clarify: I meant "spun" as in "media spin," propaganda.

Syn- One word: "Decaf".

Otto- I basically agree with you that it is the responsibility of the American people to be informed in their thinking on maters of national significance. However, I disagree with your assertion that the proliferation of information sources has made it easier for people to stay informed. Infotainment has kicked the spine out of current events reporting and reduced it to sensationalized partisan hype. Most reporters don't even do research anymore-- they just reproduce press releases.

If anything, I think this increases the responsibility of the national government to be clear and thorough in their explanations.

I mean, if you follow that link to the Knight-Ridder news report on common misperceptions of Iraq and follow that link to the Program on International Policy Attitudes page and download the original study you find shit like:

Support for War and Misperception of Evidence of Iraqi Links to al Qaeda
(June-Sept 03)

Support for going to war among those who believed:

"The US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Quaeda terrorist organization"-- 67%

"The US has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"-- 29%

And notice the wording here-- not, "it's likely that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda", but "the US has found clear evidence" linking them.

People who were just plain wrong about this issue were more than twice as likely to support the war. And that pattern extend all the way down. There is a consistent link between being misinformed-- not about what might prove to be true, but what has been proven --and support for this war.

And let's turn the, "It's the responsibility of the American people to gather correct information," thing around; suppose for some reason that Bush wanted to cut all military aid to the state of Israel. Suppose that, at the same time, the majority of the American people were operating under the misconception that the United States had found proof that the IDF perpetrated a massacre of civilians at Jenin. Would it be a significant breach of the public trust for Bush not to make a substantial effort to correct public misconceptions about the non-massacre at Jenin, while simultaneously moving ahead with his intentions to cut Israel's aid package?

I think the answer is, "Yes, of course it would."

But I guess we might just differ on this point.

Good luck with the thunderstorm. We don't really get those in Seattle, and I'm always a little amazed, when I leave the Pacific Northwest, how crazy the weather in the rest of the country is.

Joshua Norton

Your answer to me implies that you cannot explain any of the questions I had asked.

When I was living in Moscow, Russia back in 1991-1992 I was informed by some very reliable sources of the wide-spread weapons proliferation by Russian mafia into Iraq and Iran and most of the Middle East. The proliferation was not merely ordnance but also information regarding deceptive methods of hiding programs for construction of those ordnance. For me, that was the point at which I knew it was time to address the issues we are now forced to address today. Yet, when I returned to the States the Clinton administration failed, year after year, to disclose to the American public exactly what was really happening in the world. I knew back then that the American public was woefully unaware that the war we face today was an inevitable reality.

This is why I stated previously that your short-sighted thinking regarding world events will lead us all to our demise. Living in a cocoon believing in the idea that Saddam could be contained was not going to protect any of us.

Your answer to me implies that you cannot explain any of the questions I had asked.

On the contrary, my answer to you implies that the questions you asked are not relevant to any of the points I raised. If I wanted to engage in an exposition on every issue salient to the invasion of Iraq, I'd write a fucking book-- I wouldn't be wasting my time sitting here on the internet explaining myself to you.

I write on the internet because I'm interested in discussion with reasonable people who can raise interesting points. Which is why I ignored you and addressed Otto (and god knows I never would have thought Otto would be one of my favorite posters back when I first started coming to ASV-- and yet, here I am).

So, for starts--

Living in a cocoon believing in the idea that Saddam could be contained was not going to protect any of us.

Whether Saddam Hussein could have been contained or not, did I say that's the strategy I would have favored for handling Iraq? No, I didn't. Know why? 'Cause it's not. Over the last two years, conversations with people like Otto, and Ryan over at Rambling Rhodes, have convinced me that an intervention was called for in Iraq.

But.

Not this intervention. And call this the difference between the Allied assault on Germany and the Soviet assault on Germany; did Germany need to be invaded? Yes. Did Hitler need to be removed from power? Yes. Does that mean that Stalin invading Germany and occupying half the country was a good thing? No.

Bush's invasion of Iraq has been carried out much more in the "Stalin invading Germany" model than the "Allies invading Germany" model. And it is my fervent belief that Bush's handling of this situation will lead to an increase in the terrorist threat, not a decrease. But, as much to the point, I also believe that Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq will lead to a degradation of global democracy and a real increase in anti-American sentiment over the face of the globe.

As far as what my answer to you "implies", let me tell you what your statements to me imply: they imply that you're so wrapped up in what you think I said and so wrapped up in what you think is happening in the world ("reliable sources" told you what the Russian mob was up to ten years ago and that convinced you that we needed to invade Iraq? hello?), that talking to you would be a waste of my time.

No Joshua Norton, your answers have left me with the impression that you are living in a coocon filled to the hilt with idiocy.

Radical Islamic terrorism will continue as long as theocracy rules the Middle East. Prepare yourself for a very long battle.

Looked at a map lately, the world is far from any semblance of what you have termed 'global democracy'.

Anti-Americanism around the globe exists because we are a Democracy. Global anti-Americanism exists because theocratic rulers, dictators and Marxists have polluted the minds of those they rule.

In my opinion, the one mistake America has taken over the past fifty years was our humanitarian need to feed the people who live under states ruled by theocracy, dictatorships and marxism.

Where exactly is the hilt of a coocon?