<$BlogRSDURL$>
Attila the Pun
Monday, January 10, 2005
 
Their true face

After reading the Bunyip's excellent fact checking of Tim Dunlop, I was sucked into the vortex that is the comments section of the original post. It makes for interesting reading.

"Brian" posts this:

It is a poorly held secret that the reason Iraq was invaded was because: 1) It had the weakest army. 2) The leader of Iraq had an open desire to produce WMD. 3) Sooner or later something had to be done about Saddam Hussein. 4) Iraq was the seed. Seeding democracy in the Middle East with the hopes that it will flourish elsewhere.

Not a completely unreasonable point of view I would have thought, and certainly not a blatant attempt at trolling on what is a lefty website. So what thoughtful responses did it generate?

Brian:

You are insane. There can be no other explanation for

'3) Sooner or later something had to be done about Saddam Hussein.'

Why not shower him with bribes from Halliburton, like Dick Cheney had done? Why not provide him with agricultural subsidies, as Republicans did throughout the late 1980's? Why not provide him with CIA support against his enemies, as the US did earlier in his career?

Gee, I don't know - how about because even if any of that were true, it didn't work?

Why on earth did something have to be done about Saddam, and why did it have to involve the US invading another country without provocation, using weapons of mass destruction (depleted uranium, napalm) against its citizens, and opening up GW Bush torture rooms at Abu Ghraib?

It takes a certain type of US hatred to ignore Saddam's well documented horrors and ask "why on earth did something have to be done about Saddam?" The left used to be the ones worried about foreigners, and the right prefered isolation. Now it appears that if a dictator doesn't bother us, we shouldn't bother him.

And I won't even start on the depleted uranium and napalm as WMD BS. The misuse of language always annoy me (see previous diatribe on the overuse and subsequent dilution of the word "genocide"). But in a wonderful ironic finish, a person who can happily ignore mass graves and the gassing of Kurds has the cheek to finish with this:

A person would have to be very far removed from reality to wind up where you do.

"Scott" is less insane, but more patronising:

Brian, you honestly sound like a bright guy who is now hopelessly trying to convince himself or others that he was right to begin with.

Your talking point #'s 1 & 3 blatantly contradict each other. If he had a weak army, then why would we need to address him in the short term?

Thanks genius, but in suggesting the contradiction, aren't you a) assuming that something had to be done about Saddam soley because of the strength of his army and b) ignoring the desire for WMD point? He continues:

Also, your #4 point is incorrect due to human nature. It doesn't matter that free-market democracy is a better way than a repressive autocracy. The point is, you cannot force people to change if they're not motivated to do so. Gunboat democracy does not work. Even the Iraqi's admit that they are probably not ready for Western democracy. They generally may be glad Hussein is gone, but simply will not accept a European or American system of gov't. Not now, at least. Maybe by the end of the century, but not now.

More condescension - the Iraqis are too simple for democracy, for a 100 years or so. Maybe then they should be allowed to be free. Until then, they would be better off with a nice contained thug, who only murders his own people and doesn't bother the West. Have these people learned nothing? We have used that policy in the middle east for 60 years, and look where it has got us.

But the winner of most loathsome response goes to this piece of steaming excrement:

Brian, I definately want to see the United States fail in Iraq, preferably at huge monetary expense with massive US casualties. I consider the US to currently be the largest threat to World Peace, the largest source of terror, torture, bombings, illegal detention, pollution and environmental destruction. The US currently has more WMD than any other country. Thus it is grotesque hypocrisy for the USA to critise other countries over any WMD issues.

I am simply speechless. Not to mention sickened:

The US deliberately chose to start this war and has deliberately choosen to bomb, torture and kill defenseless Iraqi civilians in pursuit of this war, for possession of the oil and projection of US hegemony. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. So yes, Brian, I most certainly do want the US to fail in Iraq. However I do feel great sorrow and sympathy for the Iraqis killed and maimed by the monsterous agression of the USA. The Iraqis didn't deserve this. The US does deserve the revenge that is to come against it over the remainder of this century. Karma's a bitch.

Yes it is, and I hope you get yours.

Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger