Anyone remember Mr. Margolis’ previous column?
“No one can accuse me of sympathy for Saddam…” –Eric Margolis, January 2, 2007.
My response then was: “When someone has to say ‘No one can accuse me of sympathy for Saddam,’ it means he’s feeling defensive over his sympathy for Saddam.”
Well, I had no idea Mr. Margolis would reveal himself so soon. Just seven days later our esteemed columnist is hailing Saddam’s “courage and dignity on the gallows…”
By the way, if the long and publicized process of trail, appeal, and execution can be called a “lynching,” then what do we call what happened to Mussolini? Perhaps America should have been put on trial in 1945 for liberating those Italians who shot him and strung him up without any trial at all?
Posted by jkwilson at January 8, 2007 03:48 PM
jkwilson,
You are misrepresenting Mr. Margolis’ quote, which I reproduce here.
“Ironically, Saddam’s courage and dignity on the gallows will reinforce his claim to martyrdom and make him the hero in death that he certainly was not in life. This process has already begun.”
Note that Mr. Margolis is making an observation about how Hussein conducted himself just before his death, but that this same conduct could not be attributed to Hussein previously in his life. Making a positive observation about one instance of a person’s behaviour, does not imply general support or sympathy for that person.
Posted by Weary at January 8, 2007 04:15 PM
You are quoting out of context: he is not “hailing” Saddam’s courage and dignity on the gallows- he is pointing it out.
No- it does not mean he is feeling defensive- that is merely your own interpretation and perception.
It means he does not feel sympathy for Saddam.
Posted by Joshua at January 8, 2007 04:15 PM
jk,
It’s not sympathy for Saddam to say that the manner of his hanging was a disgrace. And he did show more dignity than his executioners. That said, I’m glad the murderous thug was hanged.
I just wish Rumslefd was next up. That would be proper justice.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at January 8, 2007 04:20 PM
jk, gotta agree with the others here - you are misreading Margolis. Granted, he can’t even condemn the likes of Saddam without crapping on America too, but his still, at least, condemns Saddam.
Re: the article, I take issue with this steamer:
“Their goal is not a stable Mideast, but the total destruction of Iraq, then Iran”
What a stupid, stupid comment. And that is what gives me a rash about Eric’s reporting – the offhand, ridiculous, baseless claims like that.
Posted by Bino at January 8, 2007 04:44 PM
Bino said:
“What a stupid, stupid comment. And that is what gives me a rash about Eric’s reporting – the offhand, ridiculous, baseless claims like that.”
to EM’s comment below:
“Bush continues ignoring his generals while still heeding the siren song of the pro-Israel neoconservatives around him. Their goal is not a stable Mideast, but total destruction of Iraq, then Iran.”
Are you telling us that Bush and the neo-con cabal is not responsible for the mess in Iraq and their desire to see the same result for Iran.
Please tell us what is offhand, ridiculous and baseless about EM’s comment or claim, in your estimation.
Posted by oldfan at January 8, 2007 05:07 PM
Bino, I suggest you read Jonathan Cook’s “The End of the Strongman”. Granted, none of us can know the motives of the people in power, thus we must speculate based of the actions we see and, unfortunately, the biases we harbour. Mr.Cook puts out an interesting theory and I keep that theory at the back of my mind as I observe what is going on in the world.
When I look at the Real Axis of Evil’s actions and how they have destabilized Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and most recently Somalia, I do wonder if Mr.Cook is right - That the men in power believe that the best defence against “terrorism” is to get all these people fighting amongst themselves. How often have we heard right wingers claim that Iraq is good because the terrorists are there, rather than attacking America?
Will the strategy work(if it is in fact THE strategy?)? Who cares! It is an extraordinarily cynical and destructive idea which will make America, Britain and Israel forever a menace to world peace and stability. Forget North Korea and Iran. It’s clear who is pulling the strings and letting the blood flow. The only question now is how far will they go…and how far the international community will allow them to go?
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 8, 2007 05:31 PM
Here Bino I’ll make it easier for you to read the article that Paul Whiteside has cited, just follow the link below.
After reading it, you may find that it will help you clear that rash of yours.
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0293.htm#Top
Posted by oldfan at January 8, 2007 05:43 PM
Bino, we are waiting for your reply to oldfan.
You accuse Eric of offhand, ridiculus, baseless claims. Well, as far as I can see all evidence is to the contrary. You have gotten better at your reputation trashing, shifting from calling Eric names to trashing his reporting. Yet as before, his citing the agendas of Israel and/or neocons gets that reaction from you. So, you have to substantiate your lashing out. What say you oh great B-defender Chatman?
For a really cynical take at the Bush strategy, go to: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml
An excerpt: “… The reason that George W. Bush insists that “victory” is achievable in Iraq is not that he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised. No, it’s that his definition of “victory” is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and online. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned “surge” of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand.”
Posted by shazam at January 8, 2007 05:50 PM
More from the above article:
“At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve a new “hydrocarbon law” essentially drawn up by the Bush administration and its UK lackey, the Independent on Sunday reported. The new bill will “radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world,” says the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law. “It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972.” If the government’s parliamentary majority prevails, the law should take effect in March.”
Posted by shazam at January 8, 2007 05:53 PM
A link to the Independent article cited by Shazam
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece
Posted by oldfan at January 8, 2007 06:04 PM
Shazam:
“What say you oh great B-defender Chatman?”
Why suck me into your drama with Bino? First and foremost, I am a defender of civil discourse, and after that, reasoned discourse. As often as Bino may ‘lash out’ when the Israeli-American axis is condemned, you seem equally susceptible to ‘lashing out’ when Bino says anything at all. Again, I’m not sure how that sort of behavior stands out as being positive in the eyes of the moderator.
Also, if you could repeat the questions you are awaiting answers for, I am more than happy to give it a go.
Bino:
Eric’s comment about the destruction of Iraq is, in my view, an incomplete statement. A better expression might be ‘destruction of a SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT Iraq.’ It is my belief that our troops entered Iraq to turn it into a client state that would subsidize our energy needs while regulating the amount of oil that ships out to India and China. The early war priorities would seem to bear this out; our troops did, after all, protect the oil ministry before doing just about anything else.
Bush’s little “democracy” experiment, had it remotely succeeded, would have resulted in little more than a dominion state within a larger empire, similar perhaps to what early Indian independence fighters sought for British India. Iraq would not be sovereign, and they would not control their destiny. I don’t know if they would have been better off than they were before (given the history of imperialism, I doubt it), but an independent Iraq would certainly cease to exist.
Interestingly, if you look at the way Cheney and Co. staffed the reconstruction teams, you’ll likely note that their experiment within an experiment was to establish a ‘right wing’ democracy in Iraq; some of the evidence of this is chronicled in Rajiv Chandrasekhar’s ‘Imperial Life in the Emerald City;’ it’s an interesting read on the history of the CPA and the Green Zone.
Finally, with respect to your response on the ‘heroes and villains’ thread. I am willing to admit that Ahmadinejad threatened to ‘wipe Isreal off the face of the map,’ but I don’t remember him ever saying that he was going to do it with nuclear weapons. But even if he did, do you really take it seriously? Our politicians promise all kinds of things they will never deliver; victory in Iraq, a prosperous Afghanistan, health care for all Americans, a balanced budget, lower taxes, higher taxes for the rich…. the list goes on and on. Why are you so willing to take the jingoist rhetoric of an Iranian politician at his word? He has a lot more to lose than an election if he makes so catastrophic an error.
I am not saying that his threats or the man himself are terribly intelligent; both endanger, to some extent, the constituencies he represents. That said, I hardly think his nationalist “bogeyman” rhetoric rises to the level of a true nuclear threat to anyone.
Posted by chatman at January 8, 2007 07:25 PM
A key question regarding Bush & bad Company is whether they will be content to just double-up.. they are giving every indication of going a hundred-up or a thousand-up as we stare at the possibility of nuclear war and a global economic malestrom…
The cries for inflicting punishment & venegance are always the loudest from those on the sidelines in no danger themselves.
Posted by Evan Palmer at January 8, 2007 08:51 PM
Oldfan”
“Are you telling us that Bush and the neo-con cabal is not responsible for the mess in Iraq”
No, that is not at all what I’m saying. Of course Bush & Co. is. That doesn’t mean their intent was this mess. That’s a byproduct of their idiocy.
“…and their desire to see the same result for Iran”
No, I certainly do not believe that Bush and Co. want this debacle to occur again in a much larger country given the self-made sh*tstorm in which they currently find themselves.
“Please tell us what is offhand, ridiculous and baseless about EM’s comment or claim, in your estimation.”
Sure. Eric claims the goal is the destruction of Iraq and Iran. Wrong. The goal was the removal of Saddam. That was the goal. The result, sadly, is the destruction of Iraq.
I see a difference beyond semantics here. And the Iranian addition by Margolis is more Sy Hersch nothingness.
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 09:01 AM
Shazam – no offense or anything, but I don’t live for this forum, and certainly feel zero responsibility to you in any way. I don’t much care if you want to waste time posting stuff like “Bino, we are waiting for your reply”, but feel free – it’s better than the ad hominem bunk you posted yesterday - but don’t expect results.
Thanks!
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 09:06 AM
Chatman:
“Finally, with respect to your response on the ‘heroes and villains’ thread. I am willing to admit that Ahmadinejad threatened to ‘wipe Isreal off the face of the map,’ but I don’t remember him ever saying that he was going to do it with nuclear weapons.”
LOL. Yeah, he meant he should use a Bounty paper towel (the quicker picker upper, BTW) and try to wipe them off the map he has in his office.
“But even if he did, do you really take it seriously?”
When it is said in conjunction with the development of nuclear weapons, then yeah, call me responsible, but I do take those sorts of threats seriously.
“Our politicians promise all kinds of things they will never deliver; victory in Iraq, a prosperous Afghanistan, health care for all Americans, a balanced budget, lower taxes, higher taxes for the rich…. the list goes on and on.”
Just my opinion, but broken election promises relative to health care are a far cry from threatening the destruction of a UN member state.
“Why are you so willing to take the jingoist rhetoric of an Iranian politician at his word?”
Why are you so willing to not listen to what he is saying?
“He has a lot more to lose than an election if he makes so catastrophic an error.”
He is the Mullah’s bitch. Nothing more, nothing less.
“I am not saying that his threats or the man himself are terribly intelligent; both endanger, to some extent, the constituencies he represents. That said, I hardly think his nationalist “bogeyman” rhetoric rises to the level of a true nuclear threat to anyone.”
Yeah, I suspect an ovenload of folks thought the same thing in the late 30’s.
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 09:23 AM
The Project for a New American Century defines the goals of the neo-cons, which is simple - total domination of the world. The neo-cons will use any means necessary to achieve this goal, including nuclear anihilation of countries that oppose them.
Posted by Weary at January 9, 2007 11:24 AM
As usual, Eric, right on the noggin and in every aspect.
The man should have been given over to and tried by an international court, wasn’t and for obvious reasons. Now to his enthusiasts in Iraq he is a hero. Beside our acknowledging the fact of the utter stupidity of our having embarked upon this agression in the first place, is there any particular during its course that Der Fuehrer hasn’t botched? And now, like Hitler during the defense of Berlin, the sacking of generals and the ordering into battle of phantom formations. What’s next, the drafting of 55 and 16 year olds and the playing of Bruckner on the radio?
John Lowell
Posted by John Lowell at January 9, 2007 11:43 AM
Thank you, John, for not resorting to hyperbole.
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 12:01 PM
I find it is diffiuclt to discuss things with Bino because he only describes comments in vague labels: stupid, ridiculous, or wrong. In addition, he wildly accuses people as being hypocrites or the like without knowing how they live according to their values.
Time and tiime again, he refuses to answer specific requests for him to explain why he thinks an idea, opinion or claim is stupid, wrong or the like.
Moreover, he quotes people out of context in base and unspophisticated attacks.
Other persons that I disagree with on this forum engage in delightfully challenging discussions and explain where they are coming from;
I am not sure it is worth engaging Bino over and over again in this manner.
Posted by Joshua at January 9, 2007 12:13 PM
Ok - usually I attack Bino is a very placid way. But this time, I’m going to say that Bino is like, one necessary voice of his particular type of reason in this very delicate plain of political expression.
Bino, do you have an email address that I can contact you at? I’d like to have private conversations, even compliment you for occasionally turning this whole discussion group on it’s head.
I especially liked these quotes:
“Yeah, I suspect an ovenload of folks thought the same thing in the late 30’s.”
and the ever-sarcastic, but truthful;
“Thank you, John, for not resorting to hyperbole.”
You remind me that we are programmed to generate certain emotional responses to certain stimuli.
There IS indeed the fact that extreme factions in Iran have been plotting the demise of the west for years. There’s the notion that groups of fundamentalists, both in Israel and in the arab world, sit around preaching the destruction of one-another.
Again, I repeat my latest theory - Fundamentalism is the enemy, and I fear the moderates have already lost.
The problem with taking an extreme perspective is that you create an extreme counter-view point. This fact is unavoidable.
Anti-Abortionists create pro-choice zealots, the same way as anti-abolitionists created pro-abolitionists. Much of the time, we are living in the moment, which can be deceptive.
Bino, for better or worse, is one of the only balances in this blog to keep us from becoming rabid extremists.
Please email me at tovyp@hotmail.com - put Bino in your subject so I can spare it from my Junk Mail!
Bino, once again, you stir the pot, but it is a pot that would stagnate without you.
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at January 9, 2007 12:56 PM
OK, Josh. Let’s never engage one another again.
Deal? Deal.
I’ll keep using “vague labels”, calling things like the notion that America’s “goal” is the “destruction” of Iraq and Iran “ridiculous” (I needed to be more specific?), and you can keep justifying the imprisonment of political dissidents in Cuba and whatnot.
Take care, buddy!
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 01:18 PM
Tovy - email sent. If I get 3,000 emails for penis enlargment, I will sign you up for every single evangelical/republican/neocon newsletter on the planet!
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 01:31 PM
rofl - you got it buddy.
Meanwhile, check out these nice YouTube videos on McCain & Bush’s latest gaffe:
http://www.youtube.com/v/xWgJTDspbSU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwLNio9eE-E
Posted by Tovy at January 9, 2007 01:56 PM
Bino said:
“Sure. Eric claims the goal is the destruction of Iraq and Iran. Wrong. The goal was the removal of Saddam. That was the goal. The result, sadly, is the destruction of Iraq.”
EM is not wrong, you are dead wrong in your claim. The removal of Saddam Hussein was merely a pretext, as was the myth of WMDs in Iraq, the association with Al-Qaeda, as is the façade of establishing democracy in Iraq.
The destruction of Iraq was systematic starting with the senior Bush’s regime and culminating in the Junior Bush’s term that is entirely subservient to the neo-con cabal.
Preponderantly the members of this cabal are zionists, as you yourself are, with sympathies for the state of israel. Their goal by design is the total destruction of any state in the Middle East that poses a challenge to the apartheid state of israel to remain the hegemon in the region carrying on its sadistic policies and the gradual genocide of the Palestinian nation.
Iran’s rise to power in the region is a threat to the zionist regime’s objectives and to become accountable and democratic for all the people within israel and dismantle its apartheid structure and policies and that is what drives the zionists in israel and America to neuter any upcoming country that would hold their feet to the fire, to reform.
Iran does not pose a threat to the Jewish population in the region as evidenced by its own indigenous Jewish communities that have lived and prospered within its boundaries for centuries.
Making Iran the new bogeyman in the region is by design, to ready it for its destruction.
The governments of the region or the people of Iran have no desire to destroy israel they merely wish to bring about a regime change that would be more in line with the aspirations of the people of the region and not of Europe and North America.
After all isn’t that what Bush, the neo-con cabal, israel and America seek to do in their sphere of influence and throughout the world, bring about regime change.
So, Bino as Joshua has duly noted you are continuously being disingenuous in your posts and replies to other posters that do not share your viewpoint.
It is not the pot that you stir as Tovy puts it, but your lack of objectivity and sincerity that pisses off people unless they are of the mindset as you.
Chatman said:
“Finally, with respect to your response on the ‘heroes and villains’ thread. I am willing to admit that Ahmadinejad threatened to ‘wipe Isreal off the face of the map,’ but I don’t remember him ever saying that he was going to do it with nuclear weapons.”
I am surprised that an erudite poster as you has come to the conclusion about Ahmadinejad’s intent to ‘wipe israel off the face of the map’.
Have you made a scholarly investigation of the issue or simply have imbibed the misinformation campaign that exists out there in the MSM to vilify Iran and prepare for its destruction using its President’s uttering as a pretext for the impending attacks that are to follow in the upcoming future.
For your preview I link articles by two very respectable authors on the subject.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
Posted by oldfan at January 9, 2007 03:08 PM
Chatman:
I would urge you to read the comment sections to both the articles I posted previously.
Posted by oldfan at January 9, 2007 03:19 PM
“LOL. Yeah, he meant he should use a Bounty paper towel (the quicker picker upper, BTW) and try to wipe them off the map he has in his office.”
If you’re going to criticize others for hyperbolic commentary or obnoxious retorts, you might want to refrain from them yourself.
“Yeah, I suspect an ovenload of folks thought the same thing in the late 30’s.”
Speaking of hyperbole, don’t you find it a little incoherent to compare Iran, which to my knowledge has never initiated an offensive war against its neighbors, with Nazi Germany? The Nazis were at the helm of what was regarded as one of the most competent nations on earth before WWI; by 1936, the Germans had the most formidable military machine on the planet. Further, the Germans had a history of conflict that predated the First World War. Remember the six-week war against France?
By comparison, the Iranians are probably a decade away from a technology its adversaries already possess in spades (The Israelis reportedly possess over 200 missile-deployable nuclear warheads, and the Americans possess countless thousands). What would happen to Iran if it were to deploy nuclear weapons it may ultimately possess in an offensive capacity? They’re the ones that would get wiped off the map; a population of moderate Persian muslims 10 times larger than the entire population of Israel, and all of their prosperity and infrastructure, would be instantly annihilated.
Your entire analysis of Iran assumes that Iran’s leaders are irrational actors who can act with unfettered authority against the national interest. But few regimes are irrational when it comes to their self-interest. Ayatollah (not Mullah) Khatami and Ahmadinejad are no different. While they may not understand the damage a repressive theocracy might have on their people, they certainly understand the consequences of a war against hostile nuclear powers; they need only look next door to see the consequences of Washingtonian regime change; even if they cared nothing for the people they govern, they have their own survival to worry about.
Even the Nazis rationally believed with some basis that their military was powerful enough to conquer Europe; in fact, it was. The Iranians cannot rationally believe that they could sustain a real war against the combined might of the U.S and Israel. To promise your people that you can do so may make you popular among nationalist Iranians, but acting out such a promise is about as realistic as providing health care for all Americans. The degree of menace may be different in the latter promise, but the political will to carry it out is about the same.
Posted by chatman at January 9, 2007 03:21 PM
Oldfan:
I am prepared to admit it for the sake of argument. As the rest of my post indicates, even if he HAD said that, I don’t think it matters, as I don’t think there is sufficient political will in Iran to carry out such a threat, whether or not it was made. Nor will there ever be.
Posted by chatman at January 9, 2007 03:22 PM
Thank you for that Chatman. Saved me time pointing such things out. It’s funny how the people who bring up the Hitler analogies shudder when such analogies are used agaist their side. I for one believe that demonizing politicians to that extent to be oversimplistic and counter productive towards any rational discussion.
For those not aware, the Iranian President did NOT say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. It is a mistranslation of what he actually said about getting the Jews out of Jerusalem(he was quoting Khomeini).
Bino accused Iran of saying it wants to wipe Israel off the map and that it was seeking nuclear weapons. A powerful argument to make…if it was true. However that’s not what was actually said and one must speculate that Iran is after nuclear weapons because everything they have said is contrary to that belief.
Thus it’s not a very powerful argument when one point is false and the other questionable. Of course it is a good enough argument for other people, which is why we will see a nuclear attack on Iran this year.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 9, 2007 04:03 PM
From the 2nd link posted by oldfan, with bracketed phrases by me. Anyone here come to mind?
“I’d like to take this opportunity to complain about the profoundly dishonest character of “attack journalism.” …He never sought clarification of anything. … he should behave like a[n objective truth seeker], not like a hired gun for the far Right, smearing hapless targets of his ire. That isn’t [analysis]. For some reason it drives the Right absolutely crazy that [Eric] keeps this little web log, and so they keep trotting out these clowns in amateurish sniping attacks. It is rather sad, that one person standing up to them puts them into such piranha-like frenzy.”
Posted by shazam at January 9, 2007 05:17 PM
“Saddam’s principal crime was launching an unprovoked war against Iran…”
The war provoked by the USA. The republicans believed then about Iran as they believed about Iraq - that the civilian population would rise up in revolt against the religious government given the chance and welcome in an American imperial government. They were wrong about Iraq and they are wrong about Iran, still. If anyone could explain why the USA turned against Saddam, Eric could. This is perhaps the great untold story of the whole messy affair.
Posted by doppleganger at January 9, 2007 05:58 PM
Semantics.
He did it again just last month at the Holocaust deniers conference.
Eliminated. Wiped. Whatever.
Here is something funny – the Guardian is one of Oldfan’s links, and that June 2006 piece was supposed to prove his point (as he is scholarly) but here is a link to a Guardian article (updated today!) which states that he did indeed say that very thing!
First aljazeera, now the Guardian? Damn you MSM! You’re all in bed with the Haliburton crowd, you cherry swilling imperialist yacht monkeys!
Here in the money quote:
“ Iran’s hard-line president said Tuesday that Israel will one day be “wiped out” as the Soviet Union was, drawing applause from participants in a conference casting doubt on the Holocaust”
And the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6332993,00.html
Again, wiped, eliminated, removed – tastes great, less filling.
Paul, re: Nuclear attack on Iran by year end - I’m going to be here January 1, 2008, to serve you some crow.
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 06:00 PM
To second/repeat oldfan’s words: If, as Bino says, the goal of America’s war against Iraq was the removal of Saddam from power, then why is America still occupying Iraq years later? I thought America’s goal was to find and remove Saddam’s WMDs. Or build democracy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East (of course, a better place to start would have been with one of America’s undemocratic clients, like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.).
Bino, do you understand, or care to understand, the difference between pretext and reason, between rhetoric/ideology and reality? Maybe, like the neo-cons, you don’t. So, you worry about Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric against Israel and not Israel’s violence against the Palestinians. And likewise the neo-cons/Bush administration focus on ideology in their Iraq policy and ignore reason, history, rational/scientific observation, etc. No wonder Iraq is such a mess.
Eric is right on target this week.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 9, 2007 07:17 PM
http://alternet.org/waroniraq/46440/
Good article.
In my opinion, the US would partition Iraq into its Shia, Sunni and Kurd components.
The oil rich iraqi shia state would give them a base for the Iranian shia dissidents.
The Kurdish state would have problems with everyone in the equation… divide and conquer
Posted by _RealityBites_ at January 10, 2007 04:07 AM
“…do you understand, or care to understand, the difference between pretext and reason, between rhetoric/ideology and reality? Maybe, like the neo-cons, you don’t. So, you worry about Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric against Israel and not Israel’s violence against the Palestinians. And likewise the neo-cons/Bush administration focus on ideology in their Iraq policy and ignore reason, history, rational/scientific observation, etc. …”
You said it more concisely and eloquently than I. Spot on commentary. Bravo!
Reality, that was a fantastic article. Scary.
Posted by chatman at January 10, 2007 10:27 AM
Bullsh*t.
Why can’t you rail against both?
Hey, Israel, remove the settlements, step away from the Golan Heights and get back to your pre-’67 border.
Hey, Iran – pretty much the entire UN has had enough. Stop the enrichment now.
See how easy that is?
Just because I take issue with Iran doesn’t mean I give Israel a pass. But it is much easier for most of you to claim that I do now, isn’t it. Sure it is. Strawmen are simple to deconstruct.
At least I can smell sh*t from all angles. Many of the forums myopic hypocrites don’t.
Posted by Bino at January 10, 2007 11:00 AM
Off Topic:
I watched Eric last night on the CBC. He was talking Africa. I was curious how Eric felt about the situation in Darfur, so I checked the archives. Man, was I ever reassured to read that in August, 2004, Eric noted in his article titled “No Time for a Crusade in Darfur” that a mere 30,000 were dead and, “The worst of Darfur’s crisis appears over. Let humanitarian groups do their work”. Then I remembered that a number of humanitarian groups were having a really hard time, to put it mildly.
Unfortunately, it seems as though Humanitarian organisations are regarded with deep suspicion by the Sudanese Government. One such agency, the Norwegian Refugee Council, was expelled in late 2006. “More than half of the population of Darfur is dependent on emergency relief, and the expulsion of the NRC … It is unacceptable that the Sudanese authorities continue to obstruct humanitarian workers in their efforts to help those in need,” said the leader of Norway.
Last year, a World Food Program official reported that food aid has been cut off from at least 355,000 people in the region. Kofi told the UNSC that “the tragedy in Darfur has reached a critical moment. It merits this council’s closest attention and urgent action.”
Of course, China will not allow the slaughter to stop. China repeatedly thwarted U.N. attempts to stop the ongoing rape, massacre and systematic starvation of non-Arab Sudanese at the hands of Janjaweed militia forces armed and controlled by the Sudanese government.
But I’m not sure Eric much cares. After all, his last line in the article is a very telling and humanitarian:
*“Allow Africa to solve its own problems.” *
Nice!
Posted by Bino at January 10, 2007 11:15 AM
realitybites - that was an incredibly credible article by the famous Tom Hayden. Glad to see he is still about and on the case.
Bino, if Israel disappears in the way he Soviet Empire did, that is a good thing. It is not about a holocaust but rather about removing the legislation, institutions and military presence that enabled the Soviets (and Isreal) to occupy, exploit, and oppress others. Good riddance to that!
Your red herring distraction about Darfur does two things - slams Eric and presents anti-Arab sentiments. Well done!
Posted by shazam at January 10, 2007 11:43 AM
Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dead Africans is a “red herring”? My, how callous!
Posted by Bino at January 10, 2007 12:24 PM
Oh what a great humanitarian you are Bino, concerned with all the dispossessed of Africa and all those languishing in Castro’s jails.
Now great compassionate one, the voice of the dispossessed and needy, the elixir of truth and honesty can we all have your dissertation on the plight of the Palestinians under the boot of the apartheid zionist regime in israel.
Our eyes collectively wait for your profound words to appear on our monitors to enlighten us.
Posted by oldfan at January 10, 2007 01:18 PM
“Oh what a great humanitarian you are Bino, concerned with all the dispossessed of Africa and all those languishing in Castro’s jails”
Thanks! Don’t you care about them too?
“Now great compassionate one, the voice of the dispossessed and needy, the elixir of truth and honesty can we all have your dissertation on the plight of the Palestinians under the boot of the apartheid zionist regime in Israel”
I see, don’t want to admit that either a) Eric is wrong and callous and cruel on the Sudan or that b) you are cold enough to agree with him (and they are not mutually exclusive) so, per the usual, you’ll challenge me on the plight of the Palestinians, who have so little to do with the genocide in Darfur it hurts. But I’ll answer your question, because that’s just how I roll!
I, personally, support a two-state solution. It is really the only alternative at this point – barring anything unforeseen like Iran equipping Hezbollah with a suitcase nuke and making it one uninhabitable piece of earth (fingers crossed, eh guys!?). There are some things that need to happen, as I posted above, Israel needs to withdrawal to its earlier boarders, remove the settlements, etc, etc.
“Our eyes collectively wait for your profound words to appear on our monitors to enlighten us”
Oh, I’ve got no profound words to share, my facetious friend. I just want to make sure everyone is crystal clear in their morality when they rail on and on about the Great Satan while saying nary a word (although two years ago Eric did state, if I might paraphrase, “Who cares?” with respect to the Sudan) about the genocide occurring because China buys its oil from the Sudan or try to rationalize the fact that Castro’s regime jails people for speaking their mind or turn a blind eye to the nuclear ambitions of a bunch of freaking clerics. Just want to make sure everyone can do a little gut check, look in the mirror, and still insist they aren’t hypocrites and liars.
Posted by Bino at January 10, 2007 02:31 PM
Just dropped by to tip my hat to Bino. It’s like watching Gary Kasparov play ten games of chess at once!
Now if I may make a few simple points:
The trade off between Israel and Iran isn’t the occupied territories for nuclear enrichment. You’re mixing to completely different issues. If you want a trade off it’s a nuclear free Israel for a nuclear free Iran. Oops! I forgot. Israel doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Iran doesn’t either. But because Iran has played by IAEA rules then their motives are naturally more hostile than Israel’s which skipped the IAEA all together.
Regarding Sudan, I believe the big difference is that the West has in no way created the crisis in Darfur. On the otherhand, we are to blame for the crisis in Palestine and our most recent actions have brought the Palestinians to civil war. It’d be nice to fix Darfur, however the West should first end the crisis it is creating in Palestine.
Finally, Israel giving up the occupied territories is like asking America to give South Dakota back to the Sioux. All Israelis(even the ones our media call left wing) want to keep the major settlements. You have to really pretend that Israelis want a fair peace to believe they’d give up that land.
BTW Bino, I hope you’re right about Jan 1st 2008. It will really suck if I’m wrong and the attack comes Jan 2nd!
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 10, 2007 03:18 PM
Folks,
Some of you guys are getting a bit petulant, somewhat along the lines of…
“Have a nice day!
“Don’t tell me what to do1’
Well, at least the language isn’t as disrespectful as it used to be. I guess that’s some kind of progress.
Also,
As callous as it seems, there’s just too many problems in the world to care passionately about all of them. Pick a cause and stick with it. That’s what true activists do. They never comment outside their area of concern. Ever heard Jane Goodall commenting about Soccer Hooliganism? No.
Here’s a novel concept, take 1/1000th of the effort you put into endlessly complaining and contribute your time and/or money to your cause.
DCanuck
The Pious One
Posted by D. Canuck at January 10, 2007 05:51 PM
Re: Sudanese NGOs
My own opinion of NGOs isnt exactly very rosey. Their agenda in most cases(in Pakistan anyway) is their continued existence. That existence is brought about by the funds allocated by donors(whoever they may be). Alot of these funds are gained through ‘creative marketing’.
The NGOs in Islamabad rent extremely pricey houses, hire people at extremely inflated rates. In my opinion, these people are very adept at making other people’s miseries a source of their inflated livelihood. We got something like 6 billion USD in aid for the earthquake. People often wonder where the heck it all went.
I’m sure the accounting books all say that the money went to the right places. They’ve invented new ways of bribery nowadays. They now call it commisions or franchises or somesuch words. This is where the actual waste of resources occurs.
Things which can be done at a fraction of the cost are done by spending alot of money. Some examples are criminal in my opinion.
Posted by _RealityBites_ at January 11, 2007 08:48 AM
I can’t make sense of this surge idea, everything on the ground in Iraq and the polls at home say different but Bush is doing the contrary.
I hear the Yanks violated an Iranian diplomatic mission in Iraqi Kurdish region and kidnapped its officials, wonder what’s up with that, isn’t that against international conventions akin to the Iranian taking of the American embassy.
While I have my thoughts, but maybe a different approach would be better to hear another viewpoint first, especially from some one that is known to have contrary opinions to your own.
So with all facetiousness set aside and in effort to build bridges of sincere discourse with opposing viewpoints, What are your thoughts on this issue of surge of troops in Iraq, Bino!
Posted by oldfan at January 11, 2007 03:35 PM
Surge? I knew that Bush wouldn’t give a shit what that commission recommended. Same for international law in regards to the Iranians. Bush has somehow managed to come up with a plan that ALL parties say will fail. Amazing, if it wasn’t so tragic.
As for NGO’s. Many, many people earn their living solely on the suffering of others. The Cancer Society being the most prominent culprit. Far more people make a living from cancer than die from cancer. A cure for cancer would be an economic disaster, especially for people earning six figures annually. And really, Can anyone name even one organization that actually brought about their own demise? No.
I learned a great deal about this topic after my brother died of AIDS and cancer. I’ll never contribute one cent to the Cancer Society. And I find the guilt promotions particularly offensive. The last window company worked for supplied the windows for the BC Cancer Centre. I was stupefied that they could afford things most big businesses couldn’t, without batting an eye. Check out the link. Those round windows cost tens of thousands more than regular windows. I can’t help but think about all the people who ewre guilt-tripped into contributing because of a lost loved one, only to have their dollars used to provide unnecessary luxuries for bureaucrats. The best solution? Contribute money (not flowers) directly to the family, not to the Society.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/technical-info/images/b-c-research-center.gif
DCanuck
Wandering Way Off Topic
P.S.
Bino, it seems you’ve been promoted to Oracle! Congratulations, oh Wise One!
Posted by D. Canuck at January 11, 2007 04:02 PM
oldfan and I are into Bino-baiting because we sadistically like to burn fire ants with magnifying glasses. DCanuck, you sounded serious in your flattery. Really now.
The Cancer Society IS one of the great scams for all the reasons you mention. Nice windows!! I give my charitiable bucks to causes like the Salvation Army because the SA does truly useful charitable work in the spirit of charity. Its pastors take vows of poverty and live accordingly. Their admin costs are a mere fraction of those of other such charities. I also give to Iraqi and other war torn countries orphan funds.
The kidnapping (spun as “capture” à la Israeli PR) of Iranian diplomatic staff is sure to set off a furor. What are the Americans thinking?!!
Posted by shazam at January 11, 2007 04:50 PM
Strange as it may seem, but many people will give to an organization that seems to be doing well for themselves (ie nice building, nice interior) because it portrays a sense that these people are successful and will be successful with the money given to them. “Why support a loser when I can support this magnificent organization?” is a thought process that goes through many a big donor I suspect.
I agree with knowing the smaller organizations and how they distribute their money and giving to them (while trying not to get on the “terrorist watch list”!).
Posted by guesswho at January 11, 2007 05:06 PM
Paul is right. Because Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is subsidized by American tax-payers and North American Zionist charities/NGOs, and supported by Western governments in other ways, I as a Westerner/North American am somewhat responsible for it, and so criticize it. But, I’m afraid, I feel no such responsibility in the case of Sudan/Darfur.
There’s also the fact that Israel’s violence against the Palestinians is a source/cause of so much more violence around the world, has a much more serious and dangerous effect on the rest of the world, than the violence in Sudan or Cuba(!).
As for “the nuclear ambitions of a bunch of freaking clerics”, as Bino so eloquently puts it: as far as I’m concerned, Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, or America for that matter. In fact, theocratic Iran has had a much less violent and offensive foreign policy than any of the nuclear powers, and many of the non-nuclear powers in the Middle East and elsewhere. Surrounded by nuclear powers, threatened by Israel and America, Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons at least as much as anyone else.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 11, 2007 10:42 PM
Shazam, you are very, very much like your friend Rampart in that you both harbor delusions of competence.
Oldfan – I too was shocked to learn about the half-dozen Iranians arrested at their diplomatic mission. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Regarding the “surge”, I’m pretty torn. I can see some validity in both sides of the argument. If by the “Surge” you mean the whole ball of wax (ending Iranian/Syrian involvement, taking down Sadr, stepping up operations) then I am encouraged. If you mean just increasing the troop levels than I doubt that has much of an effect on its own.
————-
From today’s Guardian:
No one has any magic solutions. Iraqi reconciliation seems a distant dream and most Middle Eastern governments, while calling publicly for an end to the occupation, acknowledge privately that any sudden American withdrawal could worsen an already catastrophic situation by turning sectarian chaos into fully fledged civil war. Even a senior Iranian official confided to a European diplomat recently that he feared a far sharper deterioration if the US opted for a “cut-and-run” strategy.
For the moment the hope is that the US military will take the militias on - though no Arab government dares say so openly. “The alternative,” said one gloomy Sunni diplomat, “is disaster.”
—————
I’m fascinated, for lack of a better word, by the notion of some 27 little mini-bases, housing both US and Iraqi troops, right in the neighborhoods they will be policing. That’s pretty wild.
Hyperbolus – you claim, “Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons at least as much as anyone else”, but the entire UN security council – even those who sell weapons and technology to the Iranians, even those who have a large interest in Iranian oil, all happen disagree with you.
Posted by Bino at January 12, 2007 09:32 AM
Chatman:
From an earlier discussion…
An interesting article on female genital mutilation from the Middle East Quarterly, titled, “Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?”
http://www.meforum.org/article/1629
Posted by Bino at January 12, 2007 09:43 AM
Two endless charades continue:
1) US politicians talk about the short leash the Iraqi government has. Excuse me but if that government is a true democracy - as the same American politicians claim - then it’s up to the Iraqi voters to change the government when its term of office expires.
Also al Sadr is an elected representative of the Iraqi people. Yet the same people trumpeting Iraqi democracy want to take him out.
2) The UN is a joke - 99% of the time under America’s thumb. The odd time the US does something so outrageous even the UN can’t go along the organisation immediately looks for ways to indirectly support whatever American indescretion.
I hope - in vain? - for the day the developing world gets fed up and quits this neo-colonial front.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 12, 2007 01:41 PM
Paul,
1) Agreed. The entire concept that the Bush administration respects democracy is a farce. If they truly did, then they’d respect the wishes of the majority. Here’s a basic rule-of-thumb for extremists (at either end of the rainbow) in regards to “democracy”…
a) They get what they want = Democracy Works!
b) They don’t get what they want = Democracy is flawed, therefore should be ignored.
2) Disagree. The UN is a joke because the world’s most powerful nation ignores it whenever it chooses. It’s not the UN’s fault that they don’t have a hammer to hit Bush over the head with. America bullies the UN when it’s getting what it wants, and ignores it when it’s not kissing ass. I often get the impression from UN critics that they believe the world would be better off WITHOUT international dialogue. That’s insane.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at January 12, 2007 03:22 PM
D. Canuck - If I’m a taxpayer residing in the “world’s most powerful nation”, why am I interested in funding a forum where countries like Iran and Cuba hold hands and waste time condemning the treatment of Canadian women in prisons (for example)?
Posted by Bino at January 15, 2007 08:51 AM
More:
The US funds the UN to the tune of double what #3 Germany pays, and at least 10 times what the 7th most contributory UN member pays.
And for what? So that Libya gets to chair the UN Human Rights Commission?
Here is Human Rights Watch from an October, 2006 article titled “UN: Rights Council Disappoints Again”
The UN Human Rights Council adjourned its second regular session today without taking any effective action to address the world’s human rights crises, Human Rights Watch said today. States with poor human rights records dominated the council’s deliberations and countries more committed to human rights failed to exercise effective leadership.
As in the previous session, a number of states with poor human rights records played an active and particularly troubling role in the council’s deliberations. Discussions were frequently dominated by abusive governments, and decisions gravitated towards the lowest common denominator in order to achieve consensus. States with stronger records on human rights, including many that have emerged recently from periods of substantial abuses, were on the defensive. These states were frequently outflanked by the spoilers, who seemed able to act both more cohesively and more strategically. If the council is to succeed, Human Rights Watch said, human rights supporters will need to elevate their efforts and demonstrate greater leadership.
Posted by Bino at January 15, 2007 10:54 AM
The following link provides a chart of the 2006 assessment and payment record for the 15 largest contributors to the UN.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large06.htm
Posted by Weary at January 15, 2007 11:29 AM
Hats off to Japan!
Posted by Bino at January 15, 2007 11:36 AM