Rockn Roll Band Ringtone Rockn Roll Band Ringtone Mars Ringtone Mars Ringtone Fly High Ringtone Fly High Ringtone Dont Bring Me Down Ringtone Dont Bring Me Down Ringtone God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen Ringtone God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen Ringtone Fresh Ri…

I seem to remember Reagan’s UN representative defending the Khmer Rouge regime as the legitimate government of Cambodia long after it was apparent how crazed they were and the North Vietnamese stepping in and overthrowing Pol Pot. How does that fit into your prefab version of who the bad guys are ?

# reg Says:
March 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am

“challenged Bill O’Reilly to travel with him to Darfur - even raising money from readers to finance a trip by Bill - so he can report on it extensively for the FOX folks”

Oh…Wild Bill responded that he didn’t have time.

I’m sure this won’t count, since you demand INCENDIARY STATEMENTS OF OUTRAGE THAT TARGET AMERICA-HATERS AS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL, but I thought you would like to know that I commented on the way this Darfur tragedy is being played dishonestly as a liberal-bashing talking point by right-wing nutcases this morning on another thread.

reg Says:
March 16th, 2006 at 9:40 am

Tom Grey: “…the Dem liberal bias press. (The one that does NOT talk about Darfur every week, every night — even though it’s a slo-mo genocide.)”

Far be it from me to defend the press on their coverage of horrors in relatively remote countries, but if you search the New York Times site for ‘Darfur” you get 71 hits from the past 90 days and 255 hits from the past year. Nicholas Kristof, one of those biased liberals the Times tend to feature on their op-ed page has posted videos from Darfur on the Times website and challanged Bill O’Reilly to travel with him to Darfur - even raising money from readers to finance a trip by Bill - so he can report on it extensively for the FOX folks. But searching the flagship right-wing Washington Times for Darfur over the past year yielded jsut 81 articles.

Unless you’ve got some evidence better than unhinged bullshit, please cut out the “liberal MSM” as the prime suspects responsible for inaction as regards Darfur. (And to paraphrase Stalin, “How many regiments does the ‘MSM’ have ?”)

THANKS, SAMUEL

The CAPS are a nice touch. I feel so…small.

It’s telling that you hinge your view on a hypothetical, rather than historical fact.

U.S. aggression in Vietnam had consequences. The bombing of Cambodia had consequences. Agent Orange causes deformed babies today. No one directly responsible for this has ever been held accountable in the U.S. There is nothing hypothetical about this, so perhaps it makes a better basis for assessing what the meaning of those events is.

Nevertheless, even if “most” leftists said what you say they did, why would that matter to you. The My Lai view you attribute to “most leftists” is clearly not a view I have taken here, so it’s completely disingenous for you to attempt to respond to my comment as if it represents what you claim is the view of “most leftists.”

How about responding to what I said?

No I’m saying was an effort to eject the Soviets BY Afghans. The sinister campaign by bin Laden is a far offshoot of that effort. Since ad populum is all you have this twisting of goals is disingenuous, but I see the general drift: any effort by native guerilla forces against a foreign invader supported by the US will always be seen by the far fringe left as against the local population. It isn’t and wasn’t then. This may as a surprise to you but we don’t pull the strings on every screwed up country in the world. We’re far too incompetent for that. Your argument is reductionist and fallacious on its face.

Because of My Lai type murders, in the hundreds, it was better for the US to leave SE Asia.

When we left, and the N. Viet commies murdered 600 000 (after unconditional surrender), and the Khmer Rouge murdered some 1.5 million — thanks to the US leaving (after breaking those countries). As the Dem Party Congress decided when cutting off funds in 1974.

And most Leftists, like Reg here, usually blame the US for these murders — not the murderers.

While I blame the US for not staying; yes, up to another 15 years to fund S. Vietnam, even if they would be like Pinochet or the S. Korean General who was dictator at the time.

“Our bastard” would likely have been better than theirs.

Yet the goal is to go beyond dictators, to democracy (first), and then to human rights (second?). Like Bush is doing — but most Leftists hate the slow progress.

I have already stipulated that many historical actors have blood on their hands. What do you want, egg in your beer? Would it make you feel better if you could dig up the bones of Genghis Khan, Saladeen, Torquemada and George Custer and take a crap thereon?

If I follow your point I certainly do agree: My Lai was cold-blooded murder and really bad. Murder is bad. America commited many atrocities. Atrocities are bad. Gotcha.

Where are you trying to go with this? Are you saying that the Cold War wasn’t worth fighting and that the world would be a better place if the Soviet Union still existed as a counterpoise to American power and Imperial dominion? If you are, I’m sure you have alot of company on this blog.

If you aren’t, you must be making the commonplace observation that many guilty people escape punishment.

“ You apparently think America overreacted to the Soviet threat. I think America did a pretty good job, all things considered.”

Indeed, we seem to agree on what happened and why, we just have different standards for what is “pretty good.”

Unfortunately, there is no intellectually honest way to eliminate one’s personal stake from the moral calculus of the Cold War or any other, really.

I am sure you will agree that the U.S. did not do a “pretty good job” for the civilians at My Lai and the many other atrocities on the way to the death of Cold War mythology as a popular religion.

Those atrocities had consequences and if you think the Americans most responsible for them paid the price for what happened, please tell me who and how. If they did not pay for the consequences, what happens to their moral authority? What happens to the moral standing of their supporters?

On the other hand, I can agree that things do look “pretty good” if you’re sitting in a high-backed leather chair in, say, Dayton, Ohio, munching potato chips and watching MTV.

In reply to which Reg says:

Oh go fuck yourself, you hyperventilating moron.

ANOTHER STERLING PERFORMANCE THERE REG.

YOU SHOULD MEMORIALIZE THESE BRILLIANT ARGUMENTS ON 80 POUND BOND AND MAIL THEM OFF SO THAT YOU CAN CLAIM YOUR CHAIR AT HARVARD OR OXFORD.

BUT MAYBE I AM BEING RUDE. YOU POST ON THIS BLOG ABOUT EVERY TEN SECONDS, SO IF YOU HAVE EVER POSTED ON HOW YOU CARE ABOUT 400,000 DEAD AND MILLIONS TO GO IN DARFUR, FEEL FREE TO QUOTE YOURSELF.

IN THE MEANWHILE, I WILL CONTINUE TO ASSUME THAT YOU ARE THE KIND OF LEFTIST ELECTION-LOSING DEAD-ENDER WHO CAN’T GET EXCITED ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THE PERFIDY OF AMERICANS WHO DON’T REFLEXIVELY VOTE DEMOCRAT.

REG, JESUS LOVES YOU!

I agree with your broad point in reply to my own. Americans are responsible for American policies. Canadians are responsible for Canadian. etc, etc. It is the highest form of patriotism to hold your own country to the highest standards, and the highest form of patriotism neither to deny nor to gloss over history.

For instance, you rightly say that America bears some responsibility for the rise of the Taliban: both through support of jihadis in Afghanistan and through America’s long, sordid realtionship with Pakistan.

You speak of such matters in term of “maturity” but we definately part company in terms of our “mature” judgement. You apparently think America overreacted to the Soviet threat. I think America did a pretty good job, all things considered.

History is sordid and tragic. It always will be. You probably disagree, especially because, if I am reading you right, you are a Commie symp.

Best Regards!

Not a conspiracy. There was no need to hide much of it, as there was no effective opposition to the U.S. backing for bin Laden’s first jihad. The initial support for jihad against the Soviets was “secret” because it was illegal. It violated U.S. and international laws and, thus, the need to direct it through Pakistan and, for much of the money to come from Saudi Arabia.

You “would argue” it wasn’t terror then. Please, do build your assertion into an argument. I’ll respond, be enlightened, or both. Perhaps what you mean is that because the terror was visited upon Afghans who supported the Soviet occupation, it wasn’t terror.

The consequences (the acceleration of global jihad) of that particular view are well known and, as you demonstrate above, its exponents feel no need to accept responsibility for them.

You mention puppets. They are straw, in your case. I made clear that Pakistanis are primarily responsible for the Taliban. But as a citizen, I’m far more interested in what must be done about America’s role there and what our history there means about the present and future.

It’s not that the U.S. created the Taliban so much as it helped it along and, more important, that the very people and ideology that led us into that disaster are again leading us into others. If we fail to acknowledge what happened there, we can’t expect it won’t happen again and again.

You suggest invading Afghanistan, AFTER the Soviets left. You seem to have forgotten that it was our money and intelligence resources that chased them out. We didn’t invade because the occupation was the only pretext–our coveted blank moral check–for supporting bin Laden’s first jihad in the first place.

Domestic U.S. politics drove our intervention in Afghanistan, than much is plain from how it all ended. Once the demonized Soviets had left, the jihad ceased to be useful to “Reagan Democrats” and Cold Warriors and so, could be left to its fate.

America shares responsibility there. Check the history. The U.S. needed Pakistan’s intelligence agency as a conduit and cover for its funding of jihadists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Therefore, not only did it tolerate Pakistan’s tyrant Zia Al Huq and his drive toward radical Islam, it also ignored that Pakistan was developing a nuclear weapon, technology that would eventually show up in Iran, Algeria and who knows where else. This arrangement was the kind of “open secret” that could never gain traction as an issue in the mainsteam media. Where was Marc Cooper?

The important this is to understand why the U.S. was funding jihadis in Afghanistan and why that pertains to today’s circumstances in Pakistan and the Middle East.

There was almost no criticism of U.S. support for terror in Afghanistan because the U.S. had written itself a moral blank check to deal with the Soviets.

It’s worth recalling how the Soviets were demonized in the U.S. media. Their war Afghanistan was called a genocide and the propaganda meme about bombs dressed up as toys so that children would pick them up dripped off the lips of every Reagan Democrat in the country.

Today, Russia is going at Chechnya in pretty much the same way. But this time, apparently, the instructions from the mainstream media are that demonization isn’t required. In the comic book view of history, the plot needs only one uber-villain at a time.

Read George Crile’s “Charlie Wilson’s War” for a detailed history of how the U.S. helped keep Pakistan under the thumb of an Islamic military dictator.

Obviously, Pakistan and Pakistanis are first and foremost responsible for generating the Taliban movement, but there were disastrous consequences for the U.S. policies there and in Afghanistan.

While we can say, broadly, that the American soldiers dying in Afghanistan today and, even, the victims of 9/11, have paid the price for U.S. support for bin Laden’s first jihad. But who, among the people responsible for those policies, has paid any price? Rather, the architects of the policy of supporting jihad in Afghanistan and Pakistan now consider themselves sage, victorious Cold Warriors who saved America from communist takeover. And they are STILL running the country.

Tee hee. It’s always the oil with thise people. Now apparently we’re driving genocide. Unbelieveable. I believe the Taliban comes from Pakistan. Who would be responsible for them? And Sebastian Junger claims BL is there because he could no longer live in Afgh under the current level of watchfulness. Taliban is back though.

Marc’s idea of “expansive,” apparently is cartoonish revenge fantasies and junior high school epithets.

Sorry Marc, but bin Laden’s boys never, ever stood any chance of “annhilating” the U.S. and, unless the U.S. stays on its current path, they never will.

You seem to view this conflict as some kind of superhero comic book. The plot, in your mind, is that 9/11 handed the U.S. some kind of moral blank check.

Of course, your left with the huge mess in Afghanistan to explain because the U.S. revenge attacks there just haven’t panned out. What about rebuilding the country we helped destroy? And if the country isn’t rebuilt, how can the attacks be justified? Is that really a legitimate means of self-defense against a terrorist attack?

The U.S. has quite a history in Afghanistan. Who’s been held responsible for it? Who has had to pay? And if no one has had or will have to pay for it, how can we expect either justice to be served or lessons to be learned?

A simple question, Marc. Did 9/11 erase, for you, U.S. responsibility for its history of fomenting terrorism in Afghanistan? If it didn’t, how can the invasion be squared with that history? If it did, you better introduce me to Lois Lane.