Some actual, you know, stuff from Iraq: lefties please ignore

Wow. Not really sure what the worst part of this is. Probably you taking me seriously as saying we should torture him. Which probably means you think we have prisons where we torture people?

Look he's perfectly free to say whatever the hell he wants to say. The point is that he didn't have that same freedom 5 years ago. You would think that he would have some concept of history that is so recent to understand that if he had his way, and the U.S. never invaded, he wouldn't have said freedom. In fact if they had lost the game he may be tortured or imprisoned. Maybe he wouldn't even be playing for Iraq for fear of that happening to begin with.

The short of this is that while he's free to say what he will, that doesn't mean that he isn't wrong in saying it. Freedom of speech and thought does not make every thought a virtue.

And why in the hell do you put quotes around "suppress the thought through torture"?

Regarding your paragraph about how the rest of the world finds the repugnant: As imperfect as the U.S. is, it has been a much greater force for good in this world than it has been a force for evil. And it has been a much greater force for good in this world than any other country since it's inception 200 years ago. That corrupt dictators, and their ilk, think ill of the U.S. is a good thing, not a bad thing. That they can make the U.S. a scapegoat is not a good thing, but something that comes with the territory.

This is like saying an undercover officer is evil incarnate because the mobsters (i.e. the rest of the world) hate him and want to kill him.

 

Central and South America say hello.

Does that include Somoza? Or Noriega? Or the Shah of Iran? Or Saddam Hussein? Or Pinochet? Or Mubarek?

Come on man, the US has supported dictators across the globe for as long as it's had a foreign policy. We've sent in the Marines to protect the oil industry, the banana industry, or whatever industry is threatened with a strike in Latin America.

America is a great country, but it hasn't exactly been a paragon of virtue when it comes to its foreign policy.

 

Yes: "Perhaps the U.S. should send him to one of those secret torture prisons we supposidly have in Europe next time the Iraqi national team loses to remind him of what he's missing."

 

Seriously, who are you talking about with this imaginary "left" who doesn't want to read something like this by an embedded reporter? Perhaps it is that same imaginary "left" which doesn't support the troops. I would think that this "rational thought" you speak of would need to include not creating straw men to knock down by mischaracterizing the position of the left.

 

Just going by what you write. And many, many critics of extraordinary rendition accuse the US of having foreign nationals tortured because of what they say, so you're really not straying for from reality in your supposedly outlandish statement (assuming the critics are correct, which I have no reason to know one way or the other).

Yes, my guess is he would be willing to give up this "freedom" in return for not having had his nation invaded and reduced to a war-torn semi-state largely governed by invading soldiers. And, moreover, perhaps he wouldn't share your risk-calculus, which may come from information found in press inside the US.

Correct. A wise lesson.

A debatable proposition, but not one worth going into. I happen to think it's a force for good, but the sad tendency to want "freedom", except when it's a freedom we disagree with is widely seen and understood in the US. I trust you are friendly with as many foreigners as I am, and am familiar with the majority view of them (I'd guess around 90% of the foreigners I know) is that the US is NOT a force for good, and this is one reason why.

Sometimes. And sometimes they're heavily supported. In other words, we offer a lot of support and protection of dictators as the lesser of two evils (in our eyes). But the rest of the world certainly sees that as an evil nonetheless. But be that as it may, that really wasn't the point of my post.

 

Troll.

Too bad insulting crap like yours winds up on the front page of BigSoccer instead of the politics forum or someplace.

 

We've only been "turning the corner" or "making progress" or "seeing the light at the end of the tunnel" for four years now - why would anyone expect Baghdad's power grid to be fully operational for more than a few hours a day? Or that the elected Iraqi gov't would meet more than 40% of their goals? Or that John McCain wouldn't be able to go to a market in less than full body armor and a division of troops, with air support?

It's not that things aren't "rosy", it's that we've made no progress towards rosiness. Painting schools and giving Hershey bars to little kids is not progress. Four years later, and we're still playing a variation on the "whack-a-mole" strategy. It ain't working.

 

Did you even read my post?

 

You are calling Bill a troll IN HIS OWN PRIVATE FORUM?

Please tell me your mother taught you more manners than that.

 

He says after I already said was not to be take seriously. e.g. for the apparent San Jose that's wandered over, written as hyperbole.

 

I was responding to Eric B's inquiry.

If you want my response to your post, I made a separate post for that.

 

Umm, that critics accuse the US of having foreign national tortured does not make it reality. You do say you don't know either way, but only after saying i'm not really straying far from reality. This is about the point I think all is hopeless for you to further your understanding on much about anything.

Wait, should he have freedom of thought and speech or not?

Man you're about as thick headed as Mug Root Beer.

Throw ya a bone. Nothing really I dissagree with here, just not sure what you're saying that I didn't already say/imply

 

I realize that. The reason that I call it out is because instead of just letting it go, or admitting that you erred in thinking anyone was seriously "saying the Iraqi or US government should stiffle his criticisms?" you post it as an argument supporting your response when it in fact is not.

 

Gee. Did you make up that post all by yourself? Or did you cull it from Little Green Footballs, Malkin and The Free Republic? Because you worked in just about every little factless truism about those of us who oppose this war that those sites love to spout. Little poison red, white and blue word-darts shot without thinking, even for a second, about whether or not they are really true. You say you are still capable of rational thought? Ok. Some reading for you:

Here's Retired General Anthony Zinni, retired commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, patiently explaining why the Bush administration has screwed up in Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Here is Pat Buchanan writing about why many retired and active generals were/are in total revolt against Bush and Rumsfeld:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/the_generals_revolt.html

Finally, Bill, please take the time to explore the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which states in no uncertain terms that the Iraq war has bred and trained far more terrorists than it has killed and turned Iraq into a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf [pdf]

I could rummage around the Net and find literally thousands of fact-based reasons why this war was not a good idea and still isn't. But the biggest one, for this slightly left-leaning citizen anyway, is that our leaders so egregiously lied to us. Simply add to these woeful outcomes by considering the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated this country into war through a propaganda campaign that Colin Powell now calls the lowest point in his life (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/), and well, I don't think it's fair to say that those of us now opposed to the war have reached our stance simply because we "hate." Do you, Bill?

 

Gee, you think, 5 years ago, he could have said...

"You know, I think Qusay should quit flogging us and give up the Ministry of Sport portfolio?''

He's welcome to say...or think...whatever he wants.

OH WAIT!!! That's....what is it again?....it's on the tip of my tongue...OH, THAT's right.

It's free speech.

What we've given them.

 

is that the freedom to die for a gallon of milk?

 

Do I know if the US tortures people (or has them tortured)? No. I HIGHLY doubt you do with any certainty, though. And certainly many, many Americans would advocate that it's a good thing to do. That was the statement I was keying off. If you meant it facetiously, then I missed your subtlety.

Ad hominem much?

 

Do us a favor...run off and find some generals who are criticizing General Petreaus.

Run off now. Shoo Shoo. Do your research. Come back when you can.