I am seeing a play downtown tomorrow with a group of friends who are not aware of my deviant political views. Wish me luck.

Has anybody else been watching Blair on Fox News?

Love the cartoon, by the way. I e-mailed it to my friends earlier tonight. Cox and Forkum rule.

Very precise cartoon! I saw some of those on TV today. Just like the cartoon.

"Funny that in every head opened, a brain was found."

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OT: The French and their aircraft carrier Jeanne d'arc are prepared to bomb the US with chickens from behind! :) Another interesting thing: CNN investigates on anti-Americanism. They say:

"I think it is good we said 'no' and we don't follow the U.S.," one German protester says. This anti-Americanism is believed to be much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies. [...]

The mass of British public opinion is deeply sceptical if not completely hostile to this war, believe it's been fought in the interests of the Americans and nothing else," Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn recently told the House of Commons.

Another MP from Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party, Dennis Skinner, puts this blunt question to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon after he announces more British planes will be sent to the Gulf:

" Will he confirm that this is all in aid to satisfy the whims of this tinpot American president?"

Can anyone help me out? Though I'm not against this war, the conclusion drawn here - saying no to a war means hating America - is a bit bold? Strange.

Well here is a little message I sent my fellow NZ. About how I feel about the anti-war movement!!!!

Please count me in!!!!!
I'm against American freedom, against those bastards bringing freedom to the rest of the world!!. They should have never stood in the way of the Japs., or fought the NAZIs. Who do they think they are?? Such arrogance, to think that democracy and freedom was what the rest of the world will want!!!!

I'm with you, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the other protesters!!!! Why what arrogance the American's have in thinking that it is not ok for Saddam Hussain to kill his own people. What arrogance it is that the americans have to think that destroying the marsh Arabs and the kurds is not OK.

I'm with you!!!! Please sign me up!!! I too want to hear the screams of children as the Republic gaurds cut off their fingers. I want too look into the eyes of the mothers and see their pain. It will make me feel good as it does you to know that I was one of the brave that stood up and protested
this war!!!

Count me in!!!!

It isn't the oil!!! We all know that!!! It is our hatred of the J-E-W-S!!!!

Take a look at the Kiwis.

Come and join the Society for the Advancement of Dictators, Criminals And Suicidal Extremists (SADCASE) rally today.

Remember to bring your placards (replacing out Saddam with Hitler on 'Can't we live with Hitler' placards).

Remember not to wash as that's far too capitalist.

Remember to congratulate the lefty celebs that are marching with us because being a popstar makes you an expert in geopolitics.

Remember to blame Israel for everything even the weather.

Forget the unfortunate fact that by going to this rally we are giving support to a dictator who has murdered thousands.

Hehehe good one ral!!!! I'll send it there.

Let's dance the saddam waltz. LOL.

Colin Powell couldn't find the U.S. Army perps who torched and killed the villagers of My Lai...

Now he's seeing WMD inside every 18 Wheeler in Baghdad...

Just cut the guff and give us the news, neat.

It's about the oil, stupid!

The Hubbert Peak of Oil Production - The WOLF is at the door

If you haven't seen it yet, you should watch Colin Powell on the UN webcast. I am not a big Powell fan but he seems to speak from the heard (rather from a script). You can listen to all the security council members on on the issue here: UN BS. Other nations on the security council also lie ... oops I mean speak. Only listen if you want to hear the insanity of the UN.

Arggg! Must...vent...anger.

Today is going to be bad for my blood pressure. The peace creeps are all over the news this morning. Caught scenes of marches in England on MSNBC and the odious Teriq Azziz (sp.) meeting with the equally odious, dottering, old fuck of a Pope. Why don't you go bugger some boys, you ammoral prick! Any respect or affection I had for the Roman Catholic church (and it used to be some) has evaporated.

And what's this No Blood for Oil shit from the protesters? Even if it is about oil, so what? Oil is fucking blood, you dolts. How do your organic veggies get to the supermarket? By dilithium crystals? What heats and lights you homes? How do you get to work? What are all the trucks I see everyday on the highway doing? Burning fossil fuel for the pure destructive joy of it? No, they're delivering shit you and I want and need. Like it or not oil is vital to our current civilization. So fuck you!!

Lastly, I caught CSPAN's airing of Iraq satellite news. Saddam is using these protests for propaganda to stay alive and continue his oppression. Congratulations, peace morons, you're helping the cause of a murdering bastard. Your protests can only make some Iraqis fight more vigorously because they feel world opinion is on their side. So let's create more deaths in this war. Sleep well, motherfuckers.

...Oh, and God bless Tony Blair. He's the only one who sees the moral imperative out of this miasma of U.N. flatulence.

dead Iraqi babies for oil.

yeah, schaffman, that's a really good rallying cry. keep that up and you warblers will remain about as popular as a fart in a hottub.

Ausyankee:

Give it a rest. These noble protesters haven't given a shit about the "dead Iraqi babies" (as if no other dead Iraqis matter; "Won't somebody please think of the children?!?!?") that have resulted from Saddam's regime in the past, and if they succeed in preventing war (not a chance), they would stop caring instantly. It's all about Bush, stupid.

Ausyankee,

Just to add to Evil Otto, where were these noble protestors when it was Saddam killing Kurds? Where were they when it was Saddam handing out blood money to the family of paleostinean terrorists? Where were they when it was France invading Cote D'Ivoire? (Still the case, incidentally.) Where were they when it was China killing the Tibetans? Where were they when it was North Korea which announced that it had kidnapped Japanese citizens and held them for most of their lives? Where were they when it was Pakistani terrorists shooting at the Indian parliament?

Nope, these protestors only have time for two things: Down with the US. Down with Israel.

>>where were these noble protestors when it was Saddam killing Kurds?

I can tell you where I was anyway: outside the Pentagon, protesting against Rummy and Saddam sugardaddy Reagan's decision to give Saddam the WMD in the first place.

Guess what? Don't think I saw many of you folk there either.

#5 - The only thing that's strange is that Communist News Network is "investigating" anti-Americanism. They should understand it quite well seeing as how they wrote the book on it.

#5   hans ze beeman  "Can anyone help me out? Though I'm not against this war, the conclusion drawn here - saying no to a war means hating America - is a bit bold? Strange."

Well, in time this too shall pass—like maybe by next year. Fiscal realities will take prescedence. However, in the meantime the US has painted itself into a corner thanks to the undiplomatic cowboy bravado of GW et al.

MILLIONS of people, all across the globe, are marching today for peace and against the US.

After yesterday the US cannot get a new resolution passed in the UN. The only countries with us at the moment for that vote are Spain and the UK.

REALITY CHECK!!!

Saturday, 15 February, 2003, 14:06 GMT

Millions join anti-war protests worldwide

"Millions of people worldwide are joining in demonstrations against a possible US-led war against Iraq.

Hundreds of rallies and marches are taking place in up to 60 countries this weekend. . . " [Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

The Price We Pay

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

"War in Iraq will not come cheap — and neither will peace. The aftermath of a war can be even more costly than the war itself. No one knows what the ultimate price will be. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, says the conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion, less than half of what Lawrence B. Lindsey, the former chief economic adviser to the White House, estimated last fall. The cost of the war is not included in the budget President Bush submitted to Congress earlier this month. . . "

No matter how the dreamers and the hawks want to deny it, the US needs allies, perhaps even more in peace than in war. We also need trading partners.

...Ah, the dead Iraqi baby line...It's been used from both sides...Remember the incubators in Quwait? How about the Baby milk factory we supposedly bombed in GW I?

I'm not in favor of killing Iraqi babies. I'm in favor of killing Saddam. Period. Next question.

here we go again...disagree with my personal Dr Strangelove view of the world and you are anti-american.

David Simon, why do you hate America? Is it our freedom of speech that causes you to hate?

Why aren't Cox & Forkum in every American newspaper to balance out the idiocies of scribblers such as Trudeau? This is why I no longer subscribe to a newspaper. The worldwide media are part of the SADCASEs Ral refers to.

ausyankee #15,

Congratulations. What about the other points? Anything that you have protested there? Anything that you think is morally wrong there? Just out of curiousity.

You definitely wouldn't have seen me there, since I was living in Japan at the time.

I'm not in favor of killing Iraqi babies. I'm in favor of killing Saddam.

Just sweep him under the carpet, eh Schaffman?

Terminate with extreme prejudice, just like the preferred method of your hero, General Colin Powell and his war love buddy Richard Armitage?

Wonder how many babies those two American heroes killed or covered up in Laos and 'Nam? Got any hard body counts, anyone?

Hey #11 you said:
Oh, and God bless Tony Blair. He's the only one who sees the moral imperative out of this miasma of U.N. flatulence.
Did you hear him also say that there will not
be peace in the middle east until there
is peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
He speaks from both sides of his mouth.
He is saying the same thing as all those
peace marchers and Aziz!
He is covering his tush big time.

Freebourne writes:

MILLIONS of people, all across the globe, are marching today for peace and against the US.

And who cares? MILLIONS of people, all across the globe, think it would be just dandy to impose Sharia on us all. MILLIONS times zero is still zero. All they will accomplish is blocking traffic and annoying a lot of people. Whoop-dee-doo.

After yesterday the US cannot get a new resolution passed in the UN. The only countries with us at the moment for that vote are Spain and the UK.

And even those are just gravy. We don't need (or want) the UN's support on this -- not that there was ever any chance of any such resolution passing, because Germany and France have a rich vested interest in keeping Saddam in power, and "standing up" to the United States.

The only determining factor here is whether the Bush Administration decides to invade Iraq, or not. All the noise you've heard from the "peace" camp is just that.

#6, from your link....

2.40pm In Auckland the crowd of 8-10 thousand people was diverse, including Christian groups, Greenpeace, and lots of children. The march was lead by an Iraqi nun and a samba band.

....gee, sorry I missed that....hehe

Is it just me or do trolls come out more on Saturdays?

#19 - Sorry, but I need to answer your question with a question: Huh?

#21 Ariel,

What is your point?

As an American, it is only right that one need mainly to worry about what America is doing, not what China is doing or North Korea is doing.

As Joe Blow American, you can't do diddly squat if Kim Jong-Il wants to kidnap actresses or eat puppy fat and drink chivas regal while his people gnaw on twigs.

But you can -- indeed you must -- try to expose the crimes of your own government officials.

That said, I've also been active on China's Laogai forced labor camps for years.

That's another issue not getting airplay in the United States, thanks to the feigned ignorance of the corporate media memoryhole that passes for "news" in the home of the free.

ausyankee #28,

What is your point?

My point is trying to find out about your moral compass. If you have the time to reply to the rest of my questions, I would appreciate it.

As an American, it is only right that one need mainly to worry about what America is doing, not what China is doing or North Korea is doing.

Perhaps I mistook your moniker for someone who might not be primarily American. That said, I don't think there's any reason to protest immorality by Americans and not by others. Clearly, you don't think so either - since you're active in the Lagai movement. Clearly, the mass media doesn't either since they're more concerned with what Israel does wrong then with what the US does wrong. Clearly, the Europeans are not, since they're more concered with what Israel does wrong then they are with what they do wrong (cf the Dutch peacekeepers @ Srebrenica).

There are billions of people demonstrating in favor of the war by....staying at home and not making a public fool of themselves.

Its no sweat demonstrating against distant matters over which you have no influence, but most importantly, that carries no personal responsibilty with it what-so-ever.

If you dont like it like it is in the free West, there are a lot of countries you can resettle in. Only the demos come with an instant prison and torture sentence.
Tiresome when these largely un-individualstic, casual and sentimental people profess all matter of absurdity, critizing nations of law and freedom, knowing they can do so only here and not in the hell holes they pretend to support. Tiresome, but sort of amusing.

And that character, is he maybe a historian, knowing so much about the war in Viet-nam?

Ausyankee:

"That said, I've also been active on China's Laogai forced labor camps for years."

Whoop-dee-do. What have you accomplished, other than making yourself feel good?

I mean, in one sentence you say "As Joe Blow American, you can't do diddly squat if Kim Jong-Il wants to kidnap actresses or eat puppy fat and drink chivas regal while his people gnaw on twigs," but then you tell us that you're "active" (whatever the hell that means) in addressing China's human rights violations. By your own logic, you're not doing shit.

It's not just Saddam that must go... his sons and whole family and his corrupt govt. must go.... No pity.

Everyone is afraid of what will come after they're kicked out or killed. But could it be worse? Of course, it was fear of what might follow that stopped GWI from completing the task. It's all the more difficult today.

Will the allies get sucked into a quagmire..? Probably. It's the price of not finishing the war 12 years ago.

C.

#29 Ariel

>>Clearly, the Europeans are not, since they're more concered with what Israel does wrong then they are with what they do wrong (cf the Dutch peacekeepers @ Srebrenica).

Dude, the Dutch eventually got rid of every trace of the government who fucked up in Srebrenica. As so they should have.

The Butcher Sharon on the other hand, found guilty by Israel itself for allowing the slaughter of 2,000 civilians in Lebanon but never punished, is now running the country.

In America, you have the pitiful shreds of Reagan's Secret Team desperately trying to convince a world with google that there remains in their withered hearts some shred of moral credibility.

Ausyankee,

Yes, I think that we should sweep him under the carpet. He's a hideous dictator; and why, as a liberal, don't you agree? And why would you put words in my mouth about Powell and Armatage? I didn't vote for Bush. But I believe in human rights and I think I know who the real bad guy is here. Is it Bush or Saddam? You decide.

...And don't ask me about the shitwads that America has supported in the past..I know..I, too, am angry and ashamed about it. But listen to your heart and ask what's right here. Churchhill calls.

#31 Evil Otto

>>Whoop-dee-do. What have you accomplished, other than making yourself feel good?

Not much, Evil Otto, which of course proves my earlier point that Americans should mainly stick to exposing their own leader's criminality, rather than spend too much time working up a good fart into the wind.

Personally, I do it so I can look my kid in the eye and say, "kid, I tried."

Please don't feed Aussie trolls, this one belongs to the Sydney Morning Herald/Margo Kingston mob, even if he is in Queensland.
auswanky............GAZE

Rod

I see Tyler's back.

ausyankee writes:

I'm not in favor of killing Iraqi babies. I'm in favor of killing Saddam.

Thank God -- moral clarity at last! I guess we'll have to recall our 12th Specialized Infanticide Brigade now.

Just sweep him under the carpet, eh Schaffman?

Terminate with extreme prejudice, just like the preferred method of your hero, General Colin Powell and his war love buddy Richard Armitage?

I'd support that, if I believed it could work. Unfortunately, all you'll do is hand his weapons program to some successor, most likely his offspring Uday, who is even nuttier than he is. Kill Uday too? Marvellous -- now it's some other relative of Hussein's. Kill his entire tribe? Well, that could work, except you'll create a power vacuum in a country with an advanced weapons program. (Of course, killing people just because they are members of Hussein's tribe would also be honest-to-God genocide, but we'll skip that little problem for now.) No thanks -- I prefer we go in and take control of the place ourselves. Even if it's only long enough to uncover and destroy all the weapons depots, though as long as we're there we might as well make it into a stable, workable place, the better to stand up against the shitholes around it.

Wonder how many babies those two American heroes killed or covered up in Laos and 'Nam? Got any hard body counts, anyone?

Wow, oh great master of the red herring, what's this got to do with whether or not Iraq needs to be invaded? Oh, I forgot, nothing -- you just wanted to show how morally superior you are, because you have always lived in a nice bubble, under the protection of those icky gun-totin' men like Powell. Well, hate to break it to you, little man, but right now you are standing against the removal of a mass-murdering dictator to whom the body count at My Lai would have been a day's rounding error, just so you can pat yourself on the back for "standing up for peace." (Oh, right, you are not actually in favor of the Saddam regime, you just don't want anyone to do anything about him, lest the precious International Order™ be violated. That makes it OK for some poor Ahmed to be tortured to death in an Iraqi prison, while you stand on the side and look all saintly. There's no perfect solution, so you will just stand still and shriek your moral perfection to the world. "Sorry about your children being killed in front of you, Mrs. Saeed, but we can't very well do anything about it without consent from Belgium, now can we? Besides, you wouldn't want to put up with all that U.S. imperialism -- McDonald's will come to town, and destroy your culture!")

I'll take a Powell with ten My Lais over the millions of Hussein's useful idiots like you.

ausyankee #33,

Thank you for showing your moral compass. It just shows: scratch an anti-war protester, find an antisemite.

Dude, the Dutch eventually got rid of every trace of the government who fucked up in Srebrenica. As so they should have.

Right, but they're still much more concerned with what Israel does wrong then they are with what they did wrong. Did anybody in the peacekeeping team get charged with not fulfilling their duty? (Forgetting about war crimes or anything like that.) Did the government formally apologize for its error, like Israel does after every time a civilian is killed unintentionally - yet it still receives the disapprobation of the Euros?

The Butcher Sharon on the other hand, found guilty by Israel itself for allowing the slaughter of 2,000 civilians in Lebanon but never punished, is now running the country.

See here:

Estimates of the number killed range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence. Palestinians claim 3,000 to 3,500 dead and call the action "genocide".

Note that paleostinian estimates have been shown to be extremely reliable in Jenin and many other instances. Note also that you seem to be relying upon them, or simply making things up (just as your oil argument shows not even a basic understanding of oil economics, forgetting that oil companies are universally against the war, etc).

Sharon was found to be indirectly responsible - which is not at all the same as guilt. Again, you probably would march against Sharon but would you march against Elie Hobeika, the guy who was actually behind it? No, Hobeika's not Jewish, I know that you wouldn't march against him, call him a "butcher", or do anything.

Or, since he's dead, have you marched against Arafat? He's known to be responsible for the civil war in Jordan and Lebanon. He's known to be responsible for killing Americans. He's known to ally with Saddam at various instances. Well, which is worse: Arafat or Sharon? You don't have to answer; since Sharon is Jewish, we already know what you will say.

Think those protesters are the compassionate? Check out this photo from foxnews:

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

#38 E. Nough

>>I'll take a Powell with ten My Lais over the millions of Hussein's useful idiots like you.

You'd love to just...pop me into the ovens, E. Nough?

Whey did you start to hate America?

# 41 Ausyankee

You have been thoroughly fisked and honestly challenged by ENough (& Ariel) and you give the "oven"
remark as reply?

You appear to be of limited integrity.

Ausyankee writes:

Dude, the Dutch eventually got rid of every trace of the government who fucked up in Srebrenica. As so they should have.

Wow, so first they betrayed thousands of people who were counting on them for protection, and then they sent the men responsible into retirement? Dude, let's hear it for the principled Dutch!

The Butcher Sharon on the other hand, found guilty by Israel itself for allowing the slaughter of 2,000 civilians in Lebanon but never punished, is now running the country.

Hey, Sharon was forced out, too. He just happened to get re-elected. Apparently most Israelis weren't that concerned over whether or not he should have done more to keep one set of Arabs (who were friendly to the Israelis) from killing another set of Arabs (who had tried to wipe the Israelis off the face of the earth). It's not like the Israeli army went to Lebanon to safeguard them -- unlike, say, the Dutch UN force.

In America, you have the pitiful shreds of Reagan's Secret Team desperately trying to convince a world with google that there remains in their withered hearts some shred of moral credibility.

Which strikes me as far less ironic than people who apologized for communism right up until the Wall fell, who today wrap themselves in the cloak of sainthood and march for "peace" at rallies organized and dominated by Stalinists. You'd think being so horribly wrong once would teach them to shut up. Oh well, more fodder for mockery.

#39 Ariel

How does thinking Sharon is a bloodthirsty killer and a negligent war criminal make me anti-Semitic?

I suppose it's in much the same way that opposing Shrub's insane, illegal unilateral attack plans for Iraq makes me anti-american?

In other words, not at all.

I guess we'll have to let the Court in Belgium sort out the Massacre a la Sharon won't we?

#41 Aww, relax, ausyankee! No one is popping you into an oven -- not even to baste in your own non-sequiturs! Poor baby -- he's all for dissent, just not against his viewpoints! Here he was, all puffed up to show how saintly he is, and I called "bullshit"! Help, help, he's being repressed!

yawn. what would ausy do? Let Saddam continue to torture and murder thousands? Let Saddam develop nuclear weapons? Let Saddam hand over bio weapons to terrorists? Let more sanctions strangle Iraqis while Saddam siphons off all the cash for himself?

You can complain about the US and the players in the gvt all day. I find it absolutely irrelevant to what the US must do now.

Ausyankee:

Not much, Evil Otto, which of course proves my earlier point that Americans should mainly stick to exposing their own leader's criminality, rather than spend too much time working up a good fart into the wind.

Why should we worry about our "own leader's criminality" then either, Ausyankee? I mean, by your dark worldview the Earth is a dangerous, nasty place, full of people who can't do ANYTHING to solve the woes of the world (such as yourself). You protest to make yourself feel good and so you can look in your kid's eye and claim you tried. Like I said before, whoop-dee-do. Am I supposed to be impressed? Is your kid supposed to be impressed?

As if "trying" means anything, especially when you can't accomplish anything. I mean, who here is the one "farting into the wind?" Most of the posters here at LGF are in favor of invading Iraq, putting Saddam and his cronies to the sword (or, in my case, feet-first through a woodchipper), and imposing a government that is as close to a democracy as is possible.

Are people in Iraq going to die in this? Yes.

ARE THEY DYING ANYWAY? Yes. How many hundreds of thousands has Saddam killed? Your answer to this seems to be to attend an impotent protest, shrug, and say, "well, I tried." No, you didn't try. You didn't do anything. In fact, you didn't protest Saddam at all. That's the whole point to this rambling: you bitch about the "corrupt US government," but you aren't willing to bitch far more about the murdering, raping, torturing Iraqi government.

Well, since you can't accomplish anything about the corrupt US government, I suggest you sit down, STFU, and enjoy the ride.

#42 Pig-Dog

>>You have been thoroughly fisked and honestly challenged by ENough (& Ariel) and you give the "oven"
remark as reply?

I've been fisked (more like ad hominemed) harder by giggly teenage girls.

You guys are pantywaistes!

Ah, now I see the troll has successfully diverted the topic to . . . Israel and Sharon! It always does. Great big yawn.

Ausyankee is incredulous:

How does thinking Sharon is a bloodthirsty killer and a negligent war criminal make me anti-Semitic?

Well, you certainly seem to be concentrating on him for no apparent reason. He just kind of popped out of the blue in the discussion, at which point I'd have to ask why Sharon, when he is probably the worst example you could give.

I suppose it's in much the same way that opposing Shrub's insane, illegal unilateral attack plans for Iraq makes me anti-american?

They are perfectly sane, unless you consider the removal of a dictator amassing a huge weapons arsenal to somehow be a bad idea. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them insane.

They are not illegal, because contrary to all the huffery, there simply is no binding law that says a country may not attack another country. International Law is a polite fiction; it certainly isn't binding, if for no other reason than because it's unenforceable.

"Unilateral" is just outright bullshit.

#47 Evil Otto

>>As if "trying" means anything, especially when you can't accomplish anything.

*yawn.

Why can't Evil Otto read?

ausyankee #44,

How does thinking Sharon is a bloodthirsty killer and a negligent war criminal make me anti-Semitic?

Because he didn't do Sabra and Shatila. Because you don't think the same of Hobeika (or at least you haven't said as much). Because you don't think the same about Arafat (or you haven't said as much).

Because if he really was a bloodthirsty killer and a war criminal, there wouldn't be a Jordyptian between the river and the sea.

Because, despite the preponderance of evidence pointing the opposite way and despite my calling you on it, you persist in saying he's a war criminal. This suggests to me that you are doing so because he is a J-E-W.

I suppose it's in much the same way that opposing Shrub's insane, illegal unilateral attack plans for Iraq makes me anti-american?

No, opposing the attack doesn't make you anti-American. There's nothing wrong with opposing the war, as such. There is something wrong with indicating that you would prefer Saddam to Bush.

I guess we'll have to let the Court in Belgium sort out the Massacre a la Sharon won't we?

Sure, if we let the Belgians be tried by the Israelis (or the Congolese) for their real depredations in the Congo (unlike Sharon's mythical ones).

#49 Solomon X

This conversation started about Colin Powell and his My Lai coverup (#9)

I am happy to turn the thread back there to shed more light on this man, who tonight stands discredited in front of the entire world.

Ausyankee:

Why can't Evil Otto read?

Whatever. That's the only thing you're going to reply to in my whole post? Your debating skills have vanquised me, good sir.

You're the only one farting into the windstorm here, Ausyankee. You'e already Godwined yourself out of this debate with your "ovens" crack, so why should anyone here care what you have to say anymore? Go ahead and protest. Shreik until you are blue in the face. Dress yourself in clown makeup and sing show tunes. It doesn't mean anything. YOU don't mean anything.

#52 Ariel

Ok. I think Arafat is a fool and a thug too. I am happy to argue the finer points of his mendacity with his supporters as well.

Since there are no such supporters hanging out here at LGF, that would get kinda boring wouldn't it?

I am happy to turn the thread back there to shed more light on this man, who tonight stands discredited in front of the entire world.

Actually, it started with Iraq; you tossed My Lai in there to discredit Powell. It won't work, least of all because you of all people are not in a position to discredit anyone.

Today is a dark day : (

Evil is winning.

Please attack soon!

# 48 ausyankee

What are you in this world? Do you possess superior opinions, a better morality and a more "caring" personality, which you might think should make you a better and more humane judge of Sadam, Bush, Reagan, Powell and Viet-Nam?

Go look at some of news photos from todays demos. You are just one of many, small, invisible and insignificant. But with intellects and emotionas fully consumed with self-indulgence and moral narcisism:

It was a wonderful feeling to be with over 150,000 people all opposed to our government's stance on the war. Ann de Hugard, Melbourne, Australia

bbc today

>>Sure, if we let the Belgians be tried by the Israelis (or the Congolese) for their real depredations in the Congo

The real place for this too will be with the ICC. You know, the International Criminal Court Powell won't sign up with.

Wonder why? Oh yeah, right. He's a Good American.

ausyankee,

Here's something that makes you anti-American: You call it Amerikkka, without apparent irony.

OK, let’s stop feeding this one, folks. His "arguments" (if you want to call them that) were about one micron thick, and he's now collapsed into a quivering mass of insult-spewing biowaste. Any more would just be cruel to the poor widdle Jew-hating trolly troll.

Let him go back to pineapple world and write about how he smashed the dreaded warbloggers to bits. Go on, now, troll. Go.

ausy, my point was that your original rant about Powell and My Lai is irrelevant. You attempt to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger, even then by grasping at ancient history. You offer no solutions to the problem facing the US now.

Your diversion to Israel and Sharon is revealing, but also a further detour to irrelevancy.

What would ausy do? Shut your eyes and pretend nothing bad will happen? Forget the fucking people in government you love to hate. what would you do?

The real place for this too will be with the ICC. You know, the International Criminal Court Powell won't sign up with.

Yep. That's one thing that this Administration agrees on with the previous one, only they won't bullshit about it. Good for them.

(And it's actually not up to Powell; that's a decision made by Bush. Nice try.)

ausyankee #59,

The real place for this too will be with the ICC. You know, the International Criminal Court Powell won't sign up with.

This seems to contradict what you said in #44:

I guess we'll have to let the Court in Belgium sort out the Massacre a la Sharon won't we?

So which is it? Of course, the paradox can be solved quite easily. Sharon is only a J-E-W so it's OK for any country to try him.

Also, as to the substance of your argument, why should the US yield sovereignity to the ICC? Especially given that many countries who belong to the ICC have no concept of the rule of law. For example, how do you think an Iranian judge would judge a woman for showing her ankle? War crime. How do you think an Egyptian would judge an Israeli for staying alive or protecting his children? War crime.

#62 Solomon X, it's like I said: Ausyankee just loves to his red herrings. Now it's the ICC. I'm waiting to see what other Lephtist clichés he's got for us.

Ah, Charles is right. My attempt to provoke self-reflection is a waste of keystrokes.

YAWN

#50 E Nough

>>They are perfectly sane, unless you consider the removal of a dictator amassing a huge weapons arsenal to somehow be a bad idea. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them insane.

There you go again, quoting Powell's bad John Foster Dulles flashback experience

Hello? Blix fisked him out of the water this week. There is no "huge weapons arsenal", because UNSCOM destroyed 90 percent of it years ago.

The method you choose, i.e. blow the crap out of Iraq, is more sanely accomplished via the proceedures currently underway. That's why 10 million are on the march.

ausyankee

#9 I agree with your point about the impending peak in global oil production. That is why I believe that it would be madness to allow Saddam to have effective control of the Persian Gulf oil, which he would have, once he gets nuclear weapons.

# 15 I haven't seen good documentation that it was Reagan and Rumsfeld that gave Saddam WMDs. Actually, from what I've read in Instant Empire: Saddam's Hussein's Ambition for Iraq by Simon Henderson, it seems much more likely that is was European firms, particularly German firms which supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons (or components) which he used in the Iran/Iraq war. I would appreciate any info to the contrary. Were you aware of the possible role of Europe in arming Saddam at the time, and if so, did you protest against them as well?

As for assisting Saddam against Iran in that war - he was the lesser of two evils - at that time. It was a temporary alliance of necessity, similar to say our temporary alliance with the Soviet Union in WWII. Do you think we shouldn't have stood by and let Iran win the war outright?

z

COMMIES=NAZIS

THE NAZIS CONQUERED EUROPE. WHEN THEY WERE GONE, STALIN CONQUERED MOST OF IT. WERE THEY MORE GENTLE THAN THE NAZIS?

THE NAZIS HAD CONCENTRATION CAMPS. THE COMMIES HAD GULAGS. IS A SLOW DEATH IN THE ICE ANY BETTER THAN GASSING?

BUT NOWADAYS, IF YOU WANT TO SHOW DISAGREEMENT, CALL YOUR OPPONENT A NAZI. CALL BUSH A NAZI. CALL ISRAELI JEWS NAZIS. EVEYBODY'S A FUCKING NAZI.

BUT IF YOU CALL AN ASSHOLE A COMMIE, THEY SWELL WITH PRIDE. UP WITH ANTI-SEMITIC MARX. UP WITH LOONY LENIN AND 6 MILLION-MASS MURDERER STALIN.

I LIVE FOR THE DAY WHEN CALLING SOMEONE A COMMIE WILL BE THE SAME AS CALLING THEM A NAZI!!

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THE DIFFERENCE?

DAMMIT DAMMIT
DAMMIT DAMMIT
DAMMIT DAMMIT
DAMMIT DAMMIT
DAMMIT DAMMIT

>>Also, as to the substance of your argument, why should the US yield sovereignity to the ICC?

So the rest of the world can bring the criminals who plan "shock and awe" in a couple of weeks to justice.

ausyankee #67,

Hello? Blix fisked him out of the water this week. There is no "huge weapons arsenal", because UNSCOM destroyed 90 percent of it years ago.

Evidence? Citations? Has anybody actually stated that they believed he had destroyed 90% of his arsenal?

The method you choose, i.e. blow the crap out of Iraq, is more sanely accomplished via the proceedures currently underway. That's why 10 million are on the march.

Because inspections worked so well for the first 12 years, eh? 10 million out of a population of 6 billion is pretty pithy - about 1/6%.

I've never read an E. Nough fisking before.

Quite something.

Auswankee is a lefty pinko follower of the Margo Kingston school of crap. He probably thinks Carmen Laurence can remember what she did yesterday.

Pig Dog (#42) - You appear to be of limited integrity.

He also appears to be of limited intelligence.

If I had a dollar for every cliché I've heard over the past few months (eg: "It's about oil!!!") I'd be wealthy. People like this chappie have to use a kind of check-list of phrases and insults drawn up by some little guy writing them out in some dark basement. Look at the facts and the alternatives? Not a chance.

The world will be a far better place once people such as this start to genuinely love their fellow man more than they hate Bush... or J-E-W-S for that matter.

#69

I agree with the rest of the post, but this isn't quite right:

6 MILLION-MASS MURDERER STALIN

Next time you confront a commie, remind them that, domestically, Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

...on from #75

I believe it was closer to 30 million.

What Ausyankee says are opinions that only work in group-think: to bestow the group with a self-made, free, (to them) purely fabricated image of superior morality.

Although this type of people is meaningless now, they would be among the first to become prison guards, secret police officers and otherwise comply with glee and self-righteousness in the next communist or nazi dictatorship.

Ausyankee tries to lecture me, with predictable results:

There you go again, quoting Powell's bad John Foster Dulles flashback experience

I wasn't, though. We've known about Iraq's weapons production long before Powell went in front of the esteemed members (plus France) of the Security Council.

Hello? Blix fisked him out of the water this week.

Wow, that must have been a different speech from the one I heard. It sure sounded like, "we have no idea, and the Iraqis aren't cooperating." The closest he came to saying anything definitive was that they hadn't found anything yet, which is not exactly surprising given that Iraq is a large country unwilling to let them find anything.

For Pete's sake, North Korea is a small country, much poorer than Iraq, and they managed to keep a nuclear program going as IAEA inspectors were in the country. You'll pardon me if I quit pretending that inspections are anything other than bullshit designed for onanistic fans of "International Law."

There is no "huge weapons arsenal", because UNSCOM destroyed 90 percent of it years ago.

Uhh, sure, Ausy. Because they were such capable chaps that they could even tell you how much was there in the beginning, so that we now know that "90 percent" of it was destroyed.

Also, it's not like the Iraqis could have rebuilt that arsenal in 12 years or anything... no no, it must all be Powell's lies, because Bush wants oil, see, and Powell covered up a fuckup in Vietnam back in the 70s.

The method you choose, i.e. blow the crap out of Iraq, is more sanely accomplished via the proceedures currently underway.

I didn't choose any such method. Here's some straw to go with the red herrings you have in abundance.

68 ziphius

#9 Your point on Hubbert's Peak: now we are getting somewhere. The war is really about keeping the cheap oil spigot open so Yanks can fill their Hummers without taking out a second mortgage.

So let's cut the moral crap about freedom and dictators right out of the question and deal in cold, hard realpolitik. Like our friend Rummy back in the 80s.

Only problem is, we might, just might, be allowing true evil to enter the body politic.

Ausy,

is that you on the war protester checklist?

Charles,

I think you should institute a maximum sub-thread script. Perhaps when replies to one poster grow beyond a legal limit, everything posted in the same vein is just deleted. I know it wouldn't work and it would quash both good and bad thoughts, but it's a nice thought.

79th!

Who cares about killing Iraqi babies?

...or ANY babies? Abortion is legal and hence the method is irrelevant.

What's more important is what's on TV, on the radio, in the record stores, in the movie theaters, who won the Superbowl and the price of tickets to see the White Stripes. Not to mention the vast importance of gay people to legally marry other gay people or their gay pets.

Money for schools, nor bombs! it's more important to pay public school teachers a living wage than it is to buy an F-16. What's more important is that the public school teachers identify and eliminate those excellent students who will one day get their Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering and design the next generation of fighter-bombers...

By gosh, it's more important that kids grow up to be doctors so they can cure other kids who've suffered broken necks after crowd-surfing at the Lex Talionis show.

The next Star Wars movie is more important...

Or 81st I suppose :P

>>Also, as to the substance of your argument, why should the US yield sovereignity to the ICC?

So the rest of the world can bring the criminals who plan "shock and awe" in a couple of weeks to justice.

Sorry, but the only ones who will judge American actions are Americans -- not Belgians or Libyans or Indonesians. You're an American; if you want Bush or Powell or whoever "brought to justice," work for their impeachment and arrest. (Of course, you'll actually have to convince enough other Americans. Well, you're going to "try," right? That's what's important. You'll go through all the motions, and then you will feel good about what a morally superior person you really are.)

As for "the world" -- i.e. the hundreds of governments, all of whom put their own self-interest above any of your ideals, and many of whom have self-interests in clear conflict with the people we all pretend they "represent" -- it can't even bring Robert Mugabe to justice. And were it not for the U.S., the farce currently going on in The Hague with Milosevic wouldn't be playing out, either. Counting on "the world" to do something useful is a sure way to disappointment. They sure can rack up parking tickets, though. And for cliché-filled speeches? Second to none.

Folks -E. Nough is enough. He laid the definitive smackdown on Ausyankee and got a bunch of pixilated demagoguery in return. Let's leave this troll to his peyote buttons and move on.

ausyankee

So let's cut the moral crap about freedom and dictators right out of the question and deal in cold, hard realpolitik.

OK, lets do that. Saddam has killed 500,000 Iraqis since the Gulf War. Most were during the ensuing revolt that was stamped down, c. 100,000. Otherwise, its around 30,000-40,000 per year. Civilian casulaties are going to exist, but I doubt that they'll reach 40,000. And even if they do, 40,000 won't get killed the next year, or the next or the next.

For the US, a war in which several hundred US troops die is a better option than waiting for a nuke in LA or nerve gas in Washington.

Shall we look at money? The WTC itself cost $100 billion, nevermind the economic downturn afterwards. Throw some WMD in to the mix, and we're looking at 100s of billions. Versus a $200 billion war.

Iraq is developing WMD, Saddam won't disarm and we will go to war with him eventually (due to his threats, an Iraqi WMD terrorist attack, or, God forbid, a long range strike). Once he has WMD, he can do what he likes, and, short of nuking Baghdad, there's not a lot we can do. Nuking Baghdad will kill more Iraqis than this war.

Realpolitic says we go now.

#78 E. Nough

You should start visiting some different blogs. Then you might have a feckin clue about what is going on in the world.

Bush Undermining Inspector's Work

"When [Shrub's CIA] has taken the position that inspections are useless, they are bound to fail. We have undermined the inspectors since the beginning."

#84:

"the world"

You forgot the trademark sign.

#87

Um, we tell the UN where the WMD are, UN inspectors find them, Iraq starts taking hostages and moving the WMD to other hiding places. We go in, hostages may die and the WMD are somewhere else, so we have to find them, which will take an unacceptable amount of time.

If that's undermining, fine by me.

#85 David Simon

>> He laid the definitive smackdown on Ausyankee and got a bunch of pixilated demagoguery in return. Let's leave this troll to his peyote buttons and move on.

Sorry to have interrupted your circle jerk gentlemen. Carry on.

#9 Your point on Hubbert's Peak: now we are getting somewhere. The war is really about keeping the cheap oil spigot open so Yanks can fill their Hummers without taking out a second mortgage.

Nice theory. So why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? Easy excuse, easy conquest, tons of oil.

Also, the oil lobby has been begging the U.S. government to normalize relations with Iraq for years. If all we wanted was cheap oil, we could do that, without endangering the very oil fields we supposedly covet so.

No, the real oil-barons in this case are French and Russian, who have very lucrative contracts with Iraq. And -- look at that! -- they both oppose an invasion tooth and nail. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

So let's cut the moral crap about freedom and dictators right out of the question and deal in cold, hard realpolitik. Like our friend Rummy back in the 80s.

You're the one who got all moralistic on us, "killing babies" and all. Personally, I view the invasion of Iraq as a necessity to disarm Hussein and destroy his weapons program, before he goes nuclear and is thus able to take control of the entire region (and its oil supply -- that is strategic). If Hussein was just a small-time dictator dangerous only to those who live under his rule, I'd consider him unimportant, and certainly wouldn't be pushing for an invasion.

And yeah, the U.S. did help arm Iraq against Iran. And that was a good thing, too, as there were very reasonable fears of an Islamic revolution at the time. Personally, I'm pretty glad we were able to knock the nutballs against each other, and weaken both sides.

Now Hussein has outlived his usefulness, and is getting dangerous to its neighbors, and therefore the world (since the world depends on the oil in the region, and will for the foreseeable future). Thus it's time to get rid of him. That we will also be ridding the Iraqi populace of a mass-murdering dictator is a bonus. It's not by itself a reason to invade, but it's a good additional reason.

#87:

"When [Shrub's CIA] has taken the position that inspections are useless, they are bound to fail. We have undermined the inspectors since the beginning."

Wow, I didn't know that. Makes me think a bit.

hans

"When [Shrub's CIA] has taken the position that inspections are useless, they are bound to fail. We have undermined the inspectors since the beginning."

If the UN inspectors are dependent on the CIA for getting results... why the hell are we giving the UN our money? UN bodies are supposed to be neutral, yet this senator said that without the CIA they cannot function.

You should start visiting some different blogs. Then you might have a feckin clue about what is going on in the world.

It clearly doesn't work for you. Incidentally, the only blog I linked to in this discussion was ...yours. And anyone who thinks that International Law is the ultimate arbiter of justice, or that the UN represents "the world" and can actually bring someone to said justice, is really not in a position to lecture anyone about having a clue. Your arrogance would be funny if ...well, actually, it is funny.

Bush Undermining Inspector's Work

That whole article is based on the premise that the inspectors were supposed to uncover Iraqi weapons sites. They weren't; the Iraqis were supposed to do that, and the inspectors were only supposed to confirm that everything had been uncovered. Bush couldn't prevent this if he wanted to.

"When [Shrub's CIA] has taken the position that inspections are useless, they are bound to fail. We have undermined the inspectors since the beginning."

That statement refutes itself. If the UN inspectors can't find anything without the CIA finding it first and then telling them where it is, they are completely worthless. Which they are, of course, by definition. Oh, but, they represent The World! They are part of the International Order! That's gotta count for something! It's just gotta, Mister!

#93: Hey Colt - just took this up from #87. I am not an expert at all in this field - but the UN, as I perceive it, is financially starving, and has no own intelligence service, or do they. One might argue that if a political solution is intended, the UN should be provided with necessary information for disarmament. Isn't there any paragraph in the UN charter or something? really, I don't know. I'm just a bit doubtful that the US intelligence hides information from the inspectors concerning their very aim. At least, it appears strange to me.

hans,

One might argue that if a political solution is intended, the UN should be provided with necessary information for disarmament.

That might be the argument if the inspectors' job was to be detectives and spies, and find arsenals that Iraq keeps hidden. But that wasn't their job, under the terms of SCR 1441.

Iraq was supposed to open up its arsenals, with no attempt to obfuscate them, or frustrate the inspectors. The inspectors' job was to drive to each site, find the arsenal, make sure it's all there, and then supervise its destruction. The CIA shouldn't have to be involved.

#96: Thanks, E. Nough! I see - the inspectors were intended to be rather bureaucrats than sniffers. It does make sense to me.

hans #95,

but the UN, as I perceive it, is financially starving, and has no own intelligence service, or do they.

They have no intelligence service. While the may not have a lot of money, a lot of this is their own fault. They host major conferences about "Racism" which accomplish nothing positive.

One might argue that if a political solution is intended, the UN should be provided with necessary information for disarmament.

Nope. The UN chose to refuse any information from the US because they didn't want the Iraqis to think they were spies. In the end, they did accept some information from the US, but only a very little bit.

Isn't there any paragraph in the UN charter or something? really, I don't know.

Nope. See here.

I'm just a bit doubtful that the US intelligence hides information from the inspectors concerning their very aim. At least, it appears strange to me.

There's no reason the US should reveal its intelligence information to a body that consistently votes pro-Arab. Also, the intelligence information is probably available from a variety of other countries (France, Germany, etc) which have not chosen to reveal it either.

The millions of cowards mendaciously demonstrating their support for Saddam today are a relatively small group, compared to the tens of millions who were fighting and murdering in the name of Nazi Germany, Militarist Japan, and Fascist Italy before and during WW II. Those were much more dangerous, but were defeated by the US+UK (with the help of willing, true allies).

Iraq will be liberated, with the US officially re-launching military actions on March 2nd. Today's peacenik, anti-freedom Saddamites are irrelevant, except to serve as a vibrant example of delusion, envy, and hatred.

Looks like Al-Qaida missed a major opportunity to strike a dense congregation of dense people... but that wouldn't have convinced them either. Nothing would, because they are not motivated by fact, reason, or our freedom -- rather, they systematically invoke transparent lies, superficial emotions, vile anti-Americanism, and primitive anti-semitism. These are people who would have opposed the 300 Spartans on their way to make their noble stand at Thermopylae, for the sake of Ancient Greece and the possibility of our existence. As the future of the Western world is at stake, again -- God bless the American+British soldiers who stand between us and the Dark Ages. May they be remembered and praised centuries and even millenia from now.

Ceterum censeo, delenda est Mecca.

Good thread, some nicely done fisking, but still not very rough.

To ausyankee, if you are going to try to argue on your own terms (which most people try to do, hey, its the easy way to go), I'd advise you stay on your own terms, rather than try to push a discussion someplace else after you are losing a point.

One good point that came out in this thread I just picked up on (granted it was from someone over using caps lock), these same crowds are probably made up of the pro-abortion groups, so why do they care if Iraqi babies die? Singer wouldn't have a problem with it and the Us has killed 40+ million children ourselves, so the "don't kill Iraqi babies" argument is just what it is, vailed anti-semitism.

Also, to Ausyankee, when we topple Iraq, it won't be an "illegal" war, even under so-called "international law." Saddam has violated the treaty he signed after the Gulf War and has violated several (is it 3 now? I don't feel like checking right now) U.N. resolutions to disarm and stop his WMD programs. So yes, we do have every right to topple his regime because we don't have a treaty with him anymore.

# 91 E.Nough

"And yeah, the U.S. did help arm Iraq against Iran. And that was a good thing, too, as there were very reasonable fears of an Islamic revolution at the time. Personally, I'm pretty glad we were able to knock the nutballs against each other, and weaken both sides."

Not that I want to get into a vigorous debate with you :o), but the US had little to do with arming Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war; the principal arms exporters during that period were the Soviet Union, France and China. The Soviet Union supplied $ 15 billion and France and China about $ 3 billion each between 1984 and 1988. The US sent next to nothing, except some helicopters and of course some satellite intelligence (hard to put a price tag on that). I could be wrong, of course, but I haven't seen any good evidence to the contrary.

I agree that Knocking Nutballs Together (KNT) is a good strategy. I haven't heard anyone say that allowing revolutionary Iran to conquer the region would have been a good idea, notwithstanding the opionions of radical Islamic nutballs.

z

Jay #100,

these same crowds are probably made up of the pro-abortion groups, so why do they care if Iraqi babies die

These positions are not mutually inconsistent. You can believe in aborting a not yet living fetus while not believing in killing a living baby.

I'm starting to get confused by all the marchers messages and commentators comments. Is this terrorists marching for peace or peace marchers for terroism and tyrany? The peace marchers in Bagdad sure were well armed, but only the security police had magazines in their AKs.

#102:

These positions are not mutually inconsistent. You can believe in aborting a not yet living fetus while not believing in killing a living baby.

Wow! Why exactly?

The UN is totally its sell-by-date.
It has become the primary tool for the arab/muslim states, the French and the rest of the nether world to undermine and discredit the free and civilized nations, the US and Israel first and foremost. While many Euro-states are not directly being targeted by the people of the Dark Ages (#99), they are being undermined as well by falsely being blamed for a variety of crimes and fictional injustices.
That the UN is a collection of vastly unequal states being accorded equal position in the international arena, essentially through a whitewash, is unacceptable.
Murderous dictatorships are the same in international law as democratic states of law and order?

It is an illusion of historic proportions to firmly believe in the merits of the UN as a body for peaceful conviviality and development when much of the world’s problems come from states that are totally and utterly illegitimate.
In essence, the continued existence of the UN will almost guarantee the political and geographical integrity of barbarous states the world over.
What is the purpose of having a club in which the worst countries on earth are treated with respect, courtesy and bestowed with legitimacy through the application of "international law"?

The UN is a big part of the problem:

I hope and pray that the US quits this institution of lies and mouthpiece of tyrants.

From the Jerusalem Post

The Horror

Feb. 14, 2003

In 1989, Marc Dutroux, a 32-year-old electrician from the Belgian city of Charleroi, was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison for the rape and torture of five young girls. In 1992, and against the wishes of his family, Dutroux was paroled as part of a general early release for sex offenders arranged by then-justice minister Melchior Wathelet. Dutroux received a $2,700 per month government stipend on grounds he had suffered psychological damage in prison. Part of this money went to the purchase by Dutroux of six homes and several cars.

In 1993, young girls began disappearing from areas where Dutroux lived. That same year, an informant told police that Dutroux had offered him between $3,000 and $5,000 to kidnap young girls. The tip was ignored. Neighbors of Dutroux complained to police of strange noises coming from his houses; police replied that Dutroux could do what he liked in his homes. Police were also informed that Dutroux was building dungeons in his cellar; two searches of his house failed to uncover them.

In early 1995, Dutroux's mother wrote prosecutors that her son had been keeping young girls in his homes. Her letter went ignored. That July, Dutroux was interviewed by police in his home. Asked about the construction in his basement, Dutroux claimed it was for a new drainage system. They believed him. In August, police again searched Dutroux's basement, but failed to find anything suspicious, despite the fact that two young girls were imprisoned there at the time. In December, Dutroux's house was searched for a fourth time. Noises were heard from below; Dutroux explained they were the voices of his children.

In August 1996, investigative magistrate Jean Marc Connerotte led a raid on Dutroux's home, where he found alive Laetitia Delhez, 12, and Sabine Dardenne, 14. Arrested alongside Dutroux were his wife, a grade school teacher, and three other accomplices. A fourth accomplice, Bernard Weinstein, was found dead in one of Dutroux's gardens. Dutroux confessed to sedating Weinstein with barbiturates, then burying him alive. Police later uncovered the bodies of eight-year-olds Julie Lejeune and Melissa Russo, who had died of starvation after nine months of captivity, and of teenagers An Marchal and Eefje Lambrecks, whom Dutroux had repeatedly raped.

In September, Connerotte attended a fund-raiser in Delhez and Dardenne's honor, sponsored by an advocacy group for parents of missing children. The following month, the Belgian High Court found that his presence there constituted a conflict of interest and dismissed him from the case. A new magistrate, Jean-Claude Van Espen was appointed to the case.

In December, La Derniere Heure reported that a Detroux accomplice named Michel Nihoul had organized orgies at a Belgian chateau. At the orgy, it reported, were senior Belgian judges, lawyers, and politicians, as well as a commissioner of the European Union. It later emerged that Nihoul and Van Espen had a prior relationship, forcing the magistrate to resign.

In 1997, a Belgian parliamentary enquiry found that "it was difficult not to conclude" that Dutroux "may have been protected" by police. In 1998, Dutroux escaped prison by snatching a gun from a courthouse but was rearrested a few hours later. In 1999, Hubert Massa, the chief prosecutor of Liege, with overall responsibility for the Dutroux case, committed suicide. No note was found: Massa was known by colleagues for being "as solid as a rock." In 2001, Dutroux filed a legal complaint alleging violations of his human rights: the light in his cell, he claimed, was switched on every night at seven and a half minute intervals.
In the seven years since Dutroux's arrest, he has not been brought to trial, in plain violation of the writ of habeus corpus. Belgium has announced he will be tried this year, or possibly next.

Little headway was ever made in uncovering the ring of child pornographers to which he was connected.

This, then, is the country that now intends to move ahead with the trial of Ariel Sharon. It does so through a Belgian law that gives it the right to try anyone for crimes against humanity, whatever nationality the defendant may be, wherever those crimes took place and wherever the defendant may reside. Our advice to
Belgium: Deal with your own monsters first. There's obviously no shortage of them.

The world is so blind! This is what is most frustraiting.

#99: kalle, I agree with you, except for this

rather, they systematically invoke transparent lies, superficial emotions, vile anti-Americanism, and primitive anti-semitism.

The lies and emotional thing you mention aside, which may be true, I do not think that more than one million people in London alone, forming the biggest ever political demonstration in Britain (and funny - AGAINST war, I would not have thought that - they assembled about as many as the whole continent), are anti-American and anti-Semitic. Nor is this valid for other European countries, I think. There ARE some black sheep among those protestors, extreme-left, hooded cavemen etc., but I think they are really a minority. As CNN tells us, there were people from all professions, social strata and ages. I simply do not understand this either; there is not even a war right now, and still millions enter the street. I'm holding my breath on the next two weeks. I only hope the Americans get in soon. This would end this scenario.

hans #104,

I wrote:

These positions are not mutually inconsistent. You can believe in aborting a not yet living fetus while not believing in killing a living baby.

You responded:

Wow! Why exactly?

People can believe that a baby is not a living thing until it can survive on its own. So far as I know, the majority position among Jews is that a baby is akin to water until the time it is born.

Certainly, in the first trimester there is little to demonstrate brain activity.

Hooray, the WSJ has re-published its edtorial from last Tuesday called Dark Smallpox Winter for free at Opinionjournal.com. While ostensibly about union intransigence impeding our preparedness for a bio attack, the scenario described therein is truly frightening, and a reminder of why we need to stop the proliferation of WMDs now. Hopefully, it is not too late.

#107, why are you always trying to find justifications and excuses for anti-Americans all over Germany and Europe? Your posturing is tiring.

I saw on BBC this afternoon that the speakers at the London orgy of pacifism were making openly anti-American and anti-semitic claims. And nobody could be heard protesting when Red Ken, the mayor of London, shouted his hatred of Bush, America, and Israel (with a pro-palestinian sign in the background). Nobody.

#100 Jay

Iraq is in breach of its sixteenth resolution. I think that must be a record.

#110:

why are you always trying to find justifications and excuses for anti-Americans all over Germany and Europe? Your posturing is tiring.

I NEVER excuse anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, I actually try to fight it when I meet it. I have not watched BBC but CNN, where an American student located in London told: "The overwhelming majority here is not anti-American, but wants a peaceful solution." Red Ken, isn't he senile or something? Well, I'm very interested how Bush reatcs to this or rather - ih he reacts at all. I hope this does not weaken his determination to obliterate Saddam.

hans (#107) an American living in London told me yesterday why she was going to the pacifist demonstration: in her own words "I hate Bush" and "the US has no business sending soldiers into other countries". I asked if she would protest unilateral French intervention in African countries and chant "hey hey hey Saddam's got to go" but she was not amused -- because in reality that's not what these "useful idiots" desire. Otherwise their signs and speeches would be about Saddam the murderer and proposals to get rid of his dictatorship -- and they would actually encourage the USA to promote freedom everywhere possible. The majority of people who demonstrated today are motivated by a most contemptible form of anti-Americanism.

Kofi Annan going wobbly?

Annan: UN Might Issue New Resolution on Iraq

"I believe inspectors should continue their work, but if there is no cooperation then the council will see that the operation has become meaningless and that inspections could end," he added.

And then what Kofi? Cigars?

Ziphius,

Not that I want to get into a vigorous debate with you :o), but the US had little to do with arming Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war;

Actually, you're right, which is why most of Saddam's military hardware is Russian and French. (Unless we've been making knockoff T-80 tanks and MiG and Mirage fighters... after all, that Colin Powell is a devious character, and Bush does want his oil bad enough to invent a time machine.)

I was really getting at the fact that the U.S. held its nose and backed Hussein in the 1980s, but only after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. I think that was a sound tactic, just as backing Stalin against Hitler was sound (and fraught with far graver consequences for much of Europe).

Ausyankee and his ilk are the perfect examples of the perfect being the enemy of the good. They will point to a situation where the U.S. had two lousy choices and picked the one less lousy, and berate it for making any choice at all. Like any other argument based on non-sequiturs, it's impossible to refute, but then no refutation is needed. They themselves can only be sanctimonious because they have done exactly nothing, and live under the protection of the very men and policies that they decry.

I am trying to follow ausyankee's arguement. We should only demonstrate against our country, since that's how we make a difference. But, also, people from other countries should demonstrate against what America may do or not do, and definitely against what Isreal does. Please explain.

I realize Charles isn't doing hat tips anymore, but I posted the cartoon link in a previous thread. (she whined plaintively.....)

#107
Something that Hanz doesn’t mention when he speaks of the level of livid anti-Americanism and convoluted hatred of Jews and overt hatred of Israel in Lala-europe, is that in many European countries individualism is nothing like American individualism. The various Euros all have big (socialist) government and retain a decidedly socialist vision of world affairs which i reflected in its citizens, where the US, being powerful, independent, and rich (capitalist) leads to the belief that America is the "root cause" of the world’s problems.
Yes to Peace is No to America.

Yehudit wrote:

I realize Charles isn't doing hat tips anymore, but I posted the cartoon link in a previous thread.

Where did you get the idea I'm not doing hat tips any more? I see at least 5 of them on the LGF front page right now. Actually, Allen Forkum emailed this cartoon to me this morning...

Everyone else has handled ausyankee far better than I ever could (although, of course, he/she will remain impervious to all the points made here--never letting facts get in the way of an opinion).

However, I want to add (just to beat the dead horse a bit more)--that I am shocked, just SHOCKED, at ausyankee's sexism and anti-gayism!!! He/she is not being very PC, which is a tremendous surprise to me (and, note how very PC I am being by saying "he/she" all the time).

He/she calls us a bunch of "pantywaists" (spelled with an "e" on the end for some reason--is this the Aussie spelling?), and several times has refered to the fact that he thinks we are men. "Pantywaist" is an old-fashioned expression for "an effeminate man." So, ausyankee commits two--count 'em, TWO--offenses against PC thinking: assuming we are all men, and then calling us effeminate men, to boot.

Ausyankee, I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future, and correct these mortifying errors.

This is what I got when I went to ausyankee's site:

DefenceLink News Service HACKED

Was there anything there to start with?

Evil Otto,
in my case, feet-first through a woodchipper

You are my hero! Hat-tip to you.

Didn't moral outrage, conferences, discussions and memos stopp Hitler? I mean, if having "substantive and fruitful discussions", passing condemnatory resolutions and spouting good intentions could stop killers like Milosevic, Hitler and Stalin, they should handle smallfry like Saddam, right?

The most informative statement in this thread was: "So let's cut the moral crap about freedom and dictators right out of the question and deal in cold, hard realpolitik."

When the issue of tyranny vs. freedom is considered "moral crap," then any perversion of moral reality becomes acceptable. In this case, a terrorist-sponsoring socialist dictatorship is viewed as morally superior to the free, constitutional republic that acts militarily to protect itself and others from the dictatorship. From this distorted perspective, America is seen as a fascist, imperial aggressor while Iraq is a sovereign nation with inviolate borders.

Today's "peace" demonstrators are demonstrating only one thing: their moral bankruptcy.

Yehudit #117 ... For what it's worth, I can give you a Cox & Forkum hat-tip. :-)

this is an excerpt from a protest rally faq list for the nyc rally:

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Bring Mardi Gras Beads, costumes, instruments, drums, beats, boom boxes, dancing shoes, noisemakers of all kinds, bring posters and banners and puppets. Bring yourselves and friends. Be prepared to mock the Axis of Oil without mercy.

puppets? mardi gras beads? the target participant has the downs.

yofi tofi (#126) does the "Axis of Oil" subsume the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, France, and Venezuela? one could add North Korea, since they're threatening nuclear war if they continue don't get oil for free from the US. What a world we live in!