Blogs that suck time

my pooTUBE
my pUtube
my poopics

avoid the bummerlife

need to reach me? pedalhome at hotmail

Friday, September 07, 2007

from day one

"the American people that are against the war today are not anti-war ... they're anti-losing." (watch it)

Some of you will know that I've been condemning for a long time the Iraqi invasion as an illegal and immoral act by our government. I want an immediate pullout of American military forces and corporate interests, a massive war [p]reparations agreement signed by our government to the Iraqis, and UN led peace-keeping forces installed in Iraq (entirely funded by the US) until the insanity of its civil war can either be remedied through political means, or the idiots fucking kill themselves enough that either the Sunni or Shia rule the day (because the killing and civil war will continue whether we are there or not - Saddam's tyranny was what kept the Shia supressed).

I despise this occupation (oh, sorry ... "war") - and to be honest, I have a rationally irrational condemnation of anyone who supports it.

fuck this fucking fuckplate of a fuckball president.


shawndoggy said...


Heh Heh, you said "preparations"


Won't ever happen (any more than the "nuke em to the stone age" folks will get their way) but keep pushing and perhaps the "center" will start to shift a little left.

Olaf Vanderhoot said...



jeninsb said...

"a massive war preparations agreement signed by our government to the Iraqis,"

I think you want reparations there (my former line of work, here, this diplomacy shit). I s'pose we could borrow up some cash from China, if we still have any credit left.

Doubt there'd be too many volunteers - or more to the point votes - for that UN peacekeeping thingy. No gov in their right mind wants anything to do with the place these days. It would look a little too much like picking up after the American mess. More likely attitude from the world's governments? Americans should fix it themselves. Break it, it's yours.

No way the civil war is going away any time soon.

Anti-losing. Whatever. Winning - which I suppose meant a democratic Iraq, though that was never especially well articulated - was never a possibility. Sadly, American governments since at least the beginning of the twentieth century have failed repeatedly to perceive the contradiction inherent in imposing democratic institutions on others. This was a doomed enterprise from the start, even if one is willing to believe the administration acted in good faith. Which, I must say, I do not, since anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge of the middle east could have pointed out the very obvious barriers to success. Indeed, many such experts did, only to see their advice unheeded and their worst fears come to pass.

Surely, there is a special place in hell for statesmen - I hesitate to use such a term in relation to the present administration - for those who lie so destructively and willfully as this government has, who act so zealously on the basis of false premises, who so heedlessly expend men and treasure in pursuit of their personal, not their state's, welfare. May they rot.

Sorry for the long rant. Guess I had that one stored up for a rainy day ;-)

jeninsb said...


you were editing while i was rantin'


dr-nitro said...

Given that we s(*&ed Iraq up the a$$, I think that he meant to say that we need to send massive amounts of Preparation H. So yeah, very Freudian.

And as for intent and predicted outcome, one only needs to listen to Cheney 94 to know what would happen as a result of toppling Sadam. Damn, that guy was smart.

mark said...

Well you know how "right" I am.

I'll just say I'm with you and you are correct.

As for the people who say we need to pull out and stay out..............Shouldn't we get out of Germany and Japan first?

War sucks, Bush Sucks and I'm still a liberal republican....kinda


Troy Walters said...

If I were living under a dictator, I would want someone to come in and change things. I realize that mistakes were made and the contempt that exists between the Sunnis and Shiites was underestimated, but is there any possibility that trying to bring some semblance of freedom to so many people might have been a decent thing to do? I'm asking you an honest question here.

Anonymous said...


dr-nitro said...

If I were living under a dictator, I would probably not like it. Nor would I like anarchy. If we could have replaced the dictator with some form of functioning government that provided security and maybe something like say, electricity (Bagdad went form 24 hrs to 6 hrs a day of electricity), then I'd say let's start invading.

However, we tried to bring in democracy through a foreign gun. Maybe a noble cause, but an impossible endeavor. Democracy must come from within.

We caused chaos. We've killed, been killed, and created an environment for killing. We are going bankrupt. And we have made it more difficult to combat the spread of terrorism.

So, it is not a matter of saying that dictators suck. It is a matter of how do nations come out of such regimes and improve their well being. It is clear that we have not figured that out.

Olaf Vanderhoot said...

well said, Nick. and encapsulates much.

but i think there is more to be said on this subject - the question that Troy asks is one that ... when answered, can persuade many.

gotta eat, but gonna come back to this one.

Anonymous said...

that is a awful lot of fucking swearing from someone running for the fucking fucakass board of fucking track directors

fuck you used fuck so many times i had to ban my daughter who is just trying to get into the track scene from reading your threads

Anonymous said...

What I've been wondering; As long as we're there spending all of our borrowed American money and sacrificing all of our soldiers. Why don't we put the entire country under American led government and run it like a colony until it settles down. The Iraqi's have shown they'd rather duke it out than collaborate on democratic led government. If we stay, we should run the place. If we want to continue this charade of providing security to the Iraqi government, then we should pull out now and let them duke it out as they wish. Just guard the borders to keep the Iranians and other countries out.

Anonymous said...

Let's just assume for a minute that this war was actually about removing a dictator and bestowing freedom on the Iraqi people.

The fact is that political freedom is not something that can be given to those who are not ready for it. If the people under a dictator do not wish to take responsibility themselves to initiate and own change, then efforts from the outside to create it can never work.

Put another way, you can not force a people to be free. In fact, forcing "freedom" is not freedom at all. It's just another form of oppression.

The only way to truly be free is to first choose to be free.

With this in mind, I don't see an outcome in Iraq where a true liberal democracy is realistic. At least not in the next 10 years, and certainly not if we continue our attempts to force it.

I feel that the best possible next step for the average Iraqi citizen would be to achieve a state where they can simply count on the basics in life -- security, water, electricity, food, health care and education.

How to achieve these basics is a tough one. In my view, we owe it to the Iraqi people to support WHATEVER realistic means are available for doing so. Per the comment about Iran above, if that means soliciting Iran's help to stabilize Iraq, then I honestly believe that we should support it.

In the end, we must stop believing the rhetoric that our way of running a country is the only way. It may be best for us -- due to a very complex set of cultural, historical and economic variables -- but those variables change substantially in the middle east.

- Paul