Town Square

Post a New Topic

Invasion Burma

Original post made by Jane, Professorville, on May 11, 2008



Time Magazine has an article entitled "Is it time to invade Burma?" In it, they argue that "with as many as 1 million people at risk" from the leaders of this Chinese-allied country, "it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma." In a very clever phrase the author says, "we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance".Web Link

Comments (69)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of College Terrace
on May 11, 2008 at 4:42 pm



If their own government doesn't give a flip, why should we? Because it's the humanitarian thing to do? That'll just translate to support of the junta to impose more repression.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by typical Time mag
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Hmmm...let's see..it wasn't ok to invade Iraq with the support of 75% of the Democratic nations when it was very definitely in our strategic interest (in addition to rescuing 80% of the population from the oppression and massacres from the dominating 20%) ....but it IS ok to invade a country with no relationship to us at all, no threat to us at all, no strategic interest to us at all, no support from anyone else in the entire world, no democracy waiting in the wings to take back the country, ...

Of course I would love it if we could go rescue every brutally oppressed peoples in the world..who will volunteer to die for the Burmese, the North Koreans, the Somalians and the majority of the rest of Africa, the brutalized amongst the Chinese, the brutalized amongst Pakistan?

Who will pay the costs?

Will the same people marching in the streets and complaining for the last 5 years about Iraq continue if it is other countries?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 11:09 am

In view of the success Bush & Co. have had "rescuing" Iraq, the most humane option is to leave these people alone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 11:41 am

Paul, how cute.

We left Rwanda alone. For some reason, Bill Clinton regetted that inaction on his part, although I saw no strategic interest in that country for the USA. If the EU wanted to lead the humanitarian charge there, then it should have sent about 50,000 of its own troops. Clinton, since he was not a leader, could have followed on with a few plane loads of food and water purifying devices (then back to Monica!).

I actually agree with you, Paul, although perhaps not in a way that you might think. Burma has little, if any, strategic value to the USA, other than the humanitarian angle. So, we can just let them kill themselves off, as you suggest. However, Paul, please no hand-wringing when they accomplish their own genocide. Perhaps Obama can take the case to the U.N., and make a pretty speech, lamenting how the USA was negligent (under Bush, of course).

Since Barack is now wearing an American flag lapel pin, again, thus symbolically demonstrating the patriotism that he insisted he did not need to demonstrate, he will, surely, tell the U.N. that he will take unilateral, and preemptive action, when it benefits this country. Ya think?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Clinton's caution in Rawanda was smart. He learned the lesson mopping up after Bush 41's bungled invasion of Somalia, the dress rehearsal for Boy George's full-scale debacle in Iraq.

The last thing the Burmese need right now is to compound their misery with a Bush-style regime change. Let's leave the relief effort to the UN and the competently-run governments.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by logic fails you, again
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I suspect the over 70,000 INNOCENT people, mainly Shias, NOT killed per year by Saddam and Co. since Saddam was deposed think that Bush and Co. were pretty successful.

Let's do the math..70,000/year dead Iraqis by Saddam, NO more than 70,000 total in the whole 5 years of war, mainly by suicide bombers and insurgents. ( half of whom are mercenaries from other countries).

That means over 250,000 alive Muslim Iraqis, alive today because of the coalition of the willing. I suspect most people would consider this a successful rescue.

Once again, you prove that your hatred is illogical.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by reality check
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Ok, the UN is running the changeover in Afghanistan..I note how well that is going. Please note, Iraq is making much faster progress.

I note that the UN has run the Bosnia portion of the world for....hmm..count on your fingers..gosh, could it really be that long? And how WELL that is going!

The UN is running the "control" of the carnage in Africa..how many more have died from ethnic cleansing since the well-run UN came in to assure no more deaths?

Have you noticed that the Iraqis are smart, they haven't asked for the UN to "help" them?

Paul, try to come into the world as it is, not as you wish it were.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by reality check
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Clinton did not show caution, he showed what happens when you let the UN, or any other country, run your own troops.

He ran because he knew he had lost control of the situation.

Either we go in with the intent to do the job and do it all, or we don't go in. We don't go in then allow our troops to have their hands tied behind their backs, especially by countries hostile to the USA.

Try learning some real history, Paul.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Coulter Loves Limbaugh
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 12, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I just love how one person (who shall be nameless) posts under different identities (usually to attack someone who dares to offer a different opinion)--the style is all the same and usually concludes with claiming that the poster they are attacking is a hatriot or some other insult or putdown. this approach is straight out of the Limbaugh/O'Railly/Hannity/Coulter-right wingnut, chicken hawk playbook. this person is fooling no one


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 pm

You carefully overlook the 600,000 Iraqis killed in the first 4 years of Bush's benevolent stewardship, which is about 150,000 per year on average. And do you know how many have died in Darfur while W feebly whines about genocide and looks away? Do you care?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Wow. This is getting lively. I can't keep up with the fan mail. Sorry about the tardy replies, 'ol buddies.

"Ok, the UN is running the changeover in Afghanistan..I note how well that is going. Please note, Iraq is making much faster progress."

The UN certainly inherited a big mess in Afghanistan, which Bush made as he doggedly wrested defeat from the jaws of victory. But unlike Bush, they have a real chance of turning it around.

And Iraq has indeed gotten somewhat better since our generals took over running the war from cheney, Bush, and Rummy. Quite a policy change, actually: we all remember how General Shinsecki got fired for advocating a surge in 2003.

"He [Clinton] ran because he knew he had lost control of the situation."

As the first president to balance the budget since Johnson, Clinton was too smart to continue a fight that he clearly saw was unnecessary and doomed from its conception. Unlike Nixon and Bush 43, he did not need to keep on killing other people's children to salve his ego.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sherman
a resident of Menlo Park
on May 12, 2008 at 12:50 pm

BRUMA - Simple 5 point plan

1) Put Burma up for sale to highest bidder.
2) Chevron will buy Burma
3) Chevron to contract warfare through hiring US Military
(all combatants pay elevated to Blackwater levels)
4) Chevron to pay contract premium based on ground security levels.
Bonus paid if combat is ended prior to contract date.
5) Price of oil to pay for operations and to repay the US Government.
(note, nothing is for free).

Result
1) Junta out of business, poor people fed.
2) Peace will have been given a chance and O-Bomb-Bomb will have the change he promised.
3) HooohRah!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Professorville
on May 12, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"Intervention to prevent a humanitarian disaster, or to save people from a monstrous regime is theoretically justifiable. If there were another Hitler sending millions to the gas chamber it would be worth dropping a JDAM on him.

But the problem is that nobody really wants to do that. Not really. Ironically nobody who advocates invading Burma actually wants to invade Burma. Because that means enforcing a regime change. Rounding up the Generals and sticking them in the hoosegow. Etc.

They only want to fantasize about it because they get a thrill down the side of their legs imagining themselves the saviors of the Burmese. But the devil is in the details. When video comes back of Burmese army soldiers being chased around by 40 mm AC-130 bursts or whole companies disappearing under a JDAM, or some pitiful Burmese armored vehicle getting turned into shards by a 120mm tank round, then the liberals will round on you with a vengeance.

"Brutes! Killers! Bitter, gun-loving, furriner-hating, Bible-thumping, NAFA-hating, unsophisticated brutes! We didn't know this involved violence." Not really, anyway.

And God help us if the invasion lasts for more than 2 weeks; or if we actually capture some enemy generals. The ACLU will be all over the court system filing pleadings for them. And if the successor regime is less than perfect, or commits a massacre or indulges in the all-too-human impulse for revenge, look to the International Criminal Court to file war crimes charges against the good old American military.

But if the liberals were willing to sign up to the proposition that some regimes just need changing, then why not start shipping arms to the Burmese resistance? Why not assassinate the Burmese generals with deniable assets? Why not? Because if we don't do that to a Teheran, which daily attacks US troops in the field, how can we bring ourselves do it to Burma.

And besides, notice what's involved in toppling the Burmese regime. Arms. Assassins.Subversion. Yup. Them's the ugly words. And unless we're prepared to utter them we'd best leave the subject of Burma alone." Wretchard


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 1:28 pm

"You carefully overlook the 600,000 Iraqis killed in the first 4 years"

The most believable sources say it is about one-quarter of that number. If you are going to lean on the Lancet number, you will fall over the cliff. Besides, it was the Baathist holdovers and Al-Qaeda types who did most of the killing,followed on, later, by the Shias, not the USA.

The Kurds and Shias were freed by the USA invasion. Obviously, Sunnis were trying to hold onto power. However, even they are now coming around.

As long as Obama, should he win, not cut-and-run from Iraq, this thing is a done deal. And Iraq will prosper for many decades, thanks to GW Bush. So will the USA. Almost unfortunately, France and Germany and Spain and Russia will also benefit. American blood and treasure, European benefit...been going on for too long, now. The EU needs to start paying its own blood and treasure. Same for Japan.

Hmmm...the EU and Japan could take on the entire Burma relief program, by sending in their own aircraft carriers and helicoptors and troops.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 600,000 has no basis in reality
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Iraqi Body Count has no more than 91,000 people dead from the violence of the Iraq War.

Not exactly a right-wing agenda based website.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by reality check
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Clinton was the first president to "balance the budget" because he was the first one to dump 30% of the military ...which left us in such GREAT shape for dealing with 9/11, which took shape under his terrific leadership.

Sorry, facts are facts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by reality check
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm

That was my last comment, btw ,...having been down la-la land far too many times to do it again.

So, have fun Paul!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on May 12, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Strategic interest? Where does that end? And, where does it begin?

Is it in our strategic interest - long-term to ignore the fate of almost a million people? So-called "leaders" who fail to act NOW in a humanitarian crisis the size of Burma, or Zimbabwe, or Sudan, are nothing more than the most shallow of cowards, with their manipulative and soothing words fo "caution" twisting in the wind.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by can't wait for you to volunteer
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm

So, Mike, are you going to join the military as soon as it looks like we are going into Zimbabwe, Sudan or Burma?

We have a volunteer military....not too many of us are willing to risk our lives and "endless war" if there is no benefit to us in security of some sort.

Our military are usually thinking of how they are protecting the future of this country for their loved ones, not the future of a country on the other side of the world.

That is the difference between where it begins and ends for "strategic interest".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Mike,

Actually, I do appreciate your ideals, although not your socialist ideology (so often expressed). Humanitarian concerns, specifically the prevention of genocide, can be a strategic interest, but only if we are in it for the long run, which means decades or even a century. Put another way, it is neo-colonialism, which is NOT a bad thing, IMO. In fact, the older colonialism was beneficial to the stone-age cultures which were taught to read, write, develop basic infrastructure, lower death rates, etc.

I could go on and on, in this vein, Mike, but I think you are, down deep, a neo-colonialist. Am I right? BTW, I am not being critical, if this is the case. It is a legitimate ideology.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of College Terrace
on May 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Greens Going for the Green
[Al Gore]

Even with the human tragedy of Cyclone Nargis still unfolding in Burma, environmentalists aren't wasting any time linking the disaster to global warming. Or at least one isn't: Al Gore. Citing the deadly Burmese storm and recent storms in China and Bangladesh, he declared on National Public Radio: "We're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

There's just one problem -- it's not clear there's any link between climate change and hurricane numbers or intensity. The number of big storms has been falling, not rising. As for intensity, researchers led by Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Center have found that earlier generations of hurricane-watchers using inferior satellite imagery incorrectly classified many storms as weaker than they actually were. After correcting for this mismeasurement, the "increase" in storm intensity since the 1970s nearly disappears.

But Mr. Gore is perhaps too busy these days to follow the science closely. In April, a London-based company he chairs began selling shares in its so-called Global Sustainability Fund to small investors in New Zealand, following a similar offer to investors in Australia (interestingly, out of sight of the U.S. press). He was also a conspicuously invoked presence when the Silicon Valley firm Kleiner Perkins this month announced a new $500 million "green growth" fund in partnership with Mr. Gore's London firm. Asked by the San Jose Mercury News if Mr. Gore had been helpful in raising money, co-manager John Denniston replied: "That's not been his primary responsibility."

Uh huh. Mr. Gore's primary responsibility, from the looks of it, is to spread alarm about global warming and create the political conditions (subsidies, mandates) without which Kleiner's "green" energy ventures are unlikely to flourish. Expect the payoff to come next year as a new Congress and President debate global warming policy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter E. Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Not just anybody can become a soldier on our side, but the left acepts anyone to soldier on the "other" side.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm

"You carefully overlook the 600,000 Iraqis killed in the first 4 years" 'The most believable sources say it is about one-quarter of that number. - Gary'

So, you say in 4 years of Bush's benevolence "only" 150,000 Iraqis died. I think we should spare the Burmese even that level of kindness.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Professorville
on May 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm



In three NIGHTS bombing in Japan in WW2 150,000 innocent Japanese died.

20 million Russians died in 5yrs of war with Germany.


War is war, the sooner we win the better for everybody.


If Iraq decides to go to civil war many millions will die, 15-20% of the population.

We can have a Pax Americana but it has to further our interests and there will be blood, much from our enemies than from us


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Oh come on, Paul, even you can do better than that!

GWB liberated Iraq from Saddam!!!! Iraq will probably build a statue to him someday, all funded by contributions from the oppressed of Iraq.

The USA only killed a small percentage of those who subsequently died, post invasion, largely at the hand of those who opposed the liberation. Even the invasion istelf (shock and awe) was a relatively low kill affair (played hell on Saddam's military infrastructure, though!).

Paul, you truly need to get over your insistence on moral equivalence. It doesn't exist, exept in jaded leftist minds.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of College Terrace
on May 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Do not expect anything useful from the UN
Following an investigation earlier this year, Benedict Rogers, a human rights officer with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, reported appalling conditions in the country and among Burmese refugees.
"Burma continues to deteriorate into further political, human rights and humanitarian crises," Rogers writes. "Forced labor, rape, torture and the destruction of villages . . . continue to be perpetrated on a widespread and systematic basis."

Yet reports of this kind are met, at best, with empty proclamations by U.N. institutions charged with upholding human rights protections.
As anti-Americanism has become the raison d'etre of various U.N. member states, attempts by the United States to ratchet up international pressure against Burma have gone nowhere.
China and other human-rights abusers make sure that tough U.N. Security Council resolutions--an arms embargo, for example, or sanctions on banking transactions targeting top leaders--never see the light of day.
U.N. special rappateours, who have volumes to say about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo Bay, are mostly mute about the ethnic cleansing of the Karen and other indigenous groups.
The plight of tens of thousands of refugees, fleeing persecution and living in "severe and desperate poverty," receives almost no international attention.
The corrupt Human Rights Council--which confines most of its moral outrage to the state of Israel--has yet to unequivocally condemn Burma's chronic human-right atrocities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Sorry, Gary, but my left brain has extreme difficulty with your logic. Why are those 150,000 Iraqis (your number) better off having been killed under W. Bush's aegis?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 4:18 pm

"Sorry, Gary, but my left brain has extreme difficulty with your logic. Why are those 150,000 Iraqis (your number) better off having been killed under W. Bush's aegis?"

Paul,

That is so easy! I will let you attempt a guess, before I give you the easy answer.

Give it a try, Paul. You may grow, intellectually, in the process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mike w b
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 12, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Bush Wedding Photos!
by Mahler3
Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM PDT

Side by side with Iraqis who's special day was turned into a living hell by the father of the bride from Crawford, Texas:
Here is a taste of Kos patriotism Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Once upon a time only liberals used to quote those casualties, Jane. Right thinkers considered them demeaning to America. Just proves that yesterday's leftie radical stuff is today's right wing chickenhawk staple.

Look at the facts. In 1941 Roosevelt, a Democrat, simultaneously took on the two mightiest war machines yet seen in history, and with a coalition of the truly willing definitively defeated both in less than 4 years. In 2003 W Bush took a pick up coalition into a fight he picked against a third-rate power, and 5 years later a bunch of ragtag insurgents has got the mightiest war machine yet seen in history pinned down, with no end in sight. A possible future president thinks we could be still trying to win this one 100 years from now. How far America has fallen.

Yes, the sooner the war is over the better for everybody, except for the chickenhawks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 4:28 pm

It may help you if I rephrase the question, Gary: HOW are those 150,000 Iraqis (your number) better off having been killed under W. Bush's aegis?

Answer whichever one you can.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joel
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 12, 2008 at 4:45 pm



We won the sharp edge war in Iraq years ago, we have been trying to save them from a civil war ever since, that should have been the job of the UN but they are too scared to get involved.

We could just retreat to armed castles in Iraq and let the Sunni and Shiite murder each other until they come to their knees and then impose our will on the survivors.

We could still do that


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Bingo, joel. You break it, you own it. It's the Pottery Barn Rule, as Colin Powell pointed out.

Bush broke Iraq real fast but can't fix it. That's why he's been on his knees begging at the UN, which Bush blew off but used to have an office in Bush's Iraq when Bush was still in his full Mission Accomplished swagger but then left him (us) to learn his (our) lesson there.

Anybody remember those good old days 5 years ago when the UN and Old Europe were irrelevant, Freedom Fries were tasty delicious, and the neocons were about to define the New Reality in the middle east?

How far Bush and America have fallen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joel
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm



Well there is a China expression about the pain of strangers, their tears are just water. --- guess we have more empathy


Powell was a nervous nelly still fighting the last war, Vietnam

Th UN cut and ran when their envoy in Iraq was blown up, Koffy said it was too dangerous, like Rawanda but more sand.

Of course he did have the tar baby of oil for food corruption and his son to consider.

400,000 Americans die every year from tobacco related illness, that is 2million in 5 years.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

"It may help you if I rephrase the question, Gary: HOW are those 150,000 Iraqis (your number) better off having been killed under W. Bush's aegis?"

No, Paul, that didn't help.

It is such a basic and direct answer, that I am surprised that even you cannot get it.

Think hard, Paul, it doesn't really demand very much brain power.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 9:22 am

"Well there is a China expression about the pain of strangers, their tears are just water."

Perfect characterization of the Bushies' tender "concern" for Iraq and its people.

Don't blame you for stalling, Gary. But I'll be back. Same question.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Paul,

Hint: Think Germany and Japan ad the CSA, as examples. Try to take it from there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Coy, Gary, very coy. How/why are those 150,000 dead Iraqis you cite better off having been killed under W. Bush's aegis?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Paul, How were those Germans and Japanese and Confederates better off for being killed in WWII and the Civil War?

Think, Paul...think.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Coulter Loves Limbaugh
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 13, 2008 at 1:42 pm

There goes Gary again--trying to muddy the waters with bogus and irrelevant analogies and then adding in a personal insult or two.
gary never changes his MO.
I guess all of his years of "combat experience" playing Dungeons and Dragons makes him an irrefutable expert


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Real Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

please recall, Iraqi Body Count has fewer than 100,000 dead "from violence" since we, the coalition of 35 out of the world's 45 Democracies, went into Iraq.

"From violence" includes the vast majority of whom have been killed by mercenaries and those who want to defeat democracy in Iraq.

Please try some addition multiplication...70,000/year killed "by violence" of Saddam's government x 5 years...versus 100,000 TOTAL in 5 years.

Which time would you rather live in Iraq? ( Assuming you weren't one of the 20% of the population which were the ruling Sunnis).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Real Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Back to the useless discussion on why we should/should not invade Burma ( useless because there is no way any country will care enough to do the job)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I'm still asking why some people on this thread think the 150,000 Iraqis killed in the first 4 years of the W. Bush regime in Iraq are better off. Or have I gotten the answer, plus some insights into the workings of the Bushie mind?

The Burmese have plenty of trouble as it is. A Bush-style invasion and regime change is the last thing they need.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Everybody: Please replace "workings of the Bushie mind" with "the Bushie mindset" in my last posting. Thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Americans Love War
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 13, 2008 at 4:16 pm

It makes for good TV.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Paul,

According to today's news, France is threatening to force the issue, by 'invading' with relief supplies, despite the fact that the Burma government won't allow it. Could be interesting.

Now to Iraq and the 150k dead. As has already been pointed out by others, Saddam was killing his own at a greater rate, pre-invasion, than has occurred post-invasion. Just in very simplistic terms, there has been a net savings in lives.

However, that is not my main argument. Germany, Japan, CSA and Iraq had governments that suppressed their own people, were of strategic importance to the USA, and needed to be replaced, in order to liberate those nations into a brighter future. All of these countries had many civilian and military casualties. One could naively ask, as you have, Paul, "Well how did all those inviduals feel about being killed?". A better question to ask is, "Did future generations in my country benefit from my death?".

Today's Germans do not pine for Hitler. The Japanese do not want their military in control, again. The South does not want a return to slavery. Iraq does not want Saddam back.

At a macro strategic scale, the world needed to defeat all of the above nations, because, in doing so, it would usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for entire regions, not just those individual countries.

All of the above is self evident, Paul. You persist in your hatriot rants, which seem to blind you to reality. Take a deep breath, relax...and THINK!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 13, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Oh Yeah, Let's go to War!

Because they're the Baaaaaaad Guys. Oh, but you mean Georgie's still asking more money for that war in Iraq? Oh, you say it's in the billions?

Who cares because we're America, we're so rich we can afford it.

Yeah War with Burma, War with Iran, War with Iraq, War with North Korea, War with China....just another country added to the list.

Can you imagine what kind of message a mainstream news outlet like Time Magazine sends to the world?

Gosh, We're so smart. All ya all over seas are gonna succumb to the barrel of our gun!

Americans better start watching their backs if all ya all gonna keep making threats to the rest of the world. I would not advise traveling overseas.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wait in Line!
a resident of Barron Park
on May 13, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Wait in Line! Take a number. Here's your beeper, we'll call you when your table is ready Burma.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Gary, I asked how were these Iraqis were better off having been killed under Bush's regime? You think that "A better question to ask is, 'Did future generations in my [their] country benefit from my [their] death?'".

I've never blogged with God before, so please forgive any lapses in my protocol. But how do You decide how many Iraqi citizens can be acceptably dispatched, and can You tell us what the answer is? We certainly don't want to exceed our bag limit over there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Dear, dear Paul,

What was the bag limit in Germany? In Japan? At Antietam? Perhaps you can probe FDR's and Lincoln's mind for that answer. I may be god-like (never said I wasn't! :) ), but I am not in their class.

Iraq is already a done deal, IF the next president stays the course. The alternative is an unmitigated disaster for the region, as well as Europe, the USA and much of the rest of the world.

Your hatriotism has just gotten the best of you. It is never too late to change, Paul. Are you willing to take the first, small step?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 13, 2008 at 6:20 pm

"Your hatriotism has just gotten the best of you."

Gary, oh, you mean your hate for the rest of the world? It's you against the rest of the world Gary, you and your gun. Good luck.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wait in Line!
a resident of Barron Park
on May 13, 2008 at 6:23 pm

"Wait in Line! Take a number. Here's your beeper, we'll call you when your table is ready Burma."

The Gary's of the world still have Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and China to seat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm

"Gary, oh, you mean your hate for the rest of the world?"

a, where did that come from? I am all FOR freedom and prosperity in the entire world. The hatriots would rather smack down Bush, even if it means that millions will suffer and die.

Get real! Then examine your own soul.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 10:16 am

I get your point, Gary: As long as we don't exceed Saddam Hussein's purported body count, it's OK to kill as many Iraqis as we want, or let them be killed.

Your references to the body counts of prior wars are less clear. But, in the context, you seem to imply they confer a killing credit - a backlog to carry forward as to present and future wars.

Sorry pal, I couldn't disagree more on either count. You can say I have a liberal's soul on this one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Paul,

If you continue to pitch softballs, I will continue to hit them. It's fun!

Those two liberals, Lincoln and FDR, had no upper limit on casualties inflicted by the USA. They fought to liberate, and to promote USA national interests, period. Same for Bush in Iraq, despite your hatriot denials.

The current USA war making machine results in far fewer casualties than prveious wars. The U.S. military should be praised for this. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is also less harsh that that of Germany or Japan. In fact, the U.S. handed over significant power to the Iraqis relatively early on, then elections were held. More elections will follow, and the U.S. will slowly withdraw its main battle forces, leaving behind support bases to help the fledgling government. Of course, we will also want a significant sphere of influence in the region, a very good thing, considering the alternative. However, these good things will only happen IF we stay the course. If Obama or Hillary decide to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the burden of history will be on them (and it will be an extremely bloody history, including many more USA casualties). This is why both Hillary and BArack will stay the course, despite lying about it to their gullible flock.

I only pointed out that we had not exceeded Saddam's pre-invasion casualties, becasue it is a simple fact, and becasue you were whining so much about the post-invasion casualties (caused mostly by internal Iraqi elements). I think you whine too much. At least get the facts and put them in context before you start whining.

Any more softballs?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by just thinkin
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 14, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Gary-
What is the origin of the word "hatriot" - can't find one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm

just thinkin,

I heard it expressed once, perhaps on a blog, or maybe on the radio. It just struck me a a very descriptive word for those who hate some national figure (e.g. Bush) so much, that they would flush this country down the drain, in order to disparage him. It is such a rich word, in its meaning, that it will probably enter the dictionary someday. I suspect it will take on nuanced meanings as many new words do.

If you Google the term, you will find that Ergun Caner, a converted Christian (from Islam) used it extensively in his book. However, I do not know that he originated the term.

Glad to be of service.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 3:48 pm

"post-invasion casualties (caused mostly by internal Iraqi elements)"

Saddam's casualties were caused ENTIRELY by internal Iraqi elements. But some people didn't like that state of affairs, so they made an invasion that removed Saddam and his statue, and now Iraqi casualties are caused only MOSTLY by internal Iraqi elements. Gary seems to think that's much better. The Iraqis ought to be relieved he's safely escounced in his armchair and not over there with an M16.

This forum has been an excellent window to the Bushie mindset. I used to wonder how any reasonable person could support him; now I understand that it's not reasonable people who do. It never occurred to me, for example, that past mass slaughters by our own forces justified mass slaughter today. That's every bit as fanatic and irrational as any Jihadist their hero may be shadow boxing in Afghanistan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Paul,

Huh?

Try to be rational.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Later, Gary. I'm in your mind right now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Paul,

Don't flatter yourself.

When you have something serious to say about Iraq or Burma, without whining, or hatriotism, I am here to entertain your missives. I am interested in a serious ideological discussion. Thus far, you, apparently, are not.

Are there any smart lefties out there, who want to take me on? No whiners, please! Let us discuss Burma or Iraq, just to keep it focused.

Let the games begin!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on May 14, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Gary, just as a laugh, take a look at the latest Time mag to hit the shelves.

The last gasp of my ( and I suspect your) generation of residual leftists are trying desperately to remain relevant by.....trying to compare now with 1968. "Bad economy, bad war, bad President - 1968, what can we learn from that time?" or something like that was the cover title.

I completely cracked up in the store.

Give it up aging hippie boomers, your time is done, except for the damage you've done that lives on.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 5:54 pm

ol'lady,

Not only am I of that generation, but I WAS one of the lefties. Shame on me, in retrospect. However, it gave me the ammunition to take them on. I am completely immune to their propaganda. However, I still enjoy aguing ideology. It provides a way to relax and sleep well at night.

With respect to Time, it is getting thinner and thinner, both in pages and content. It is dead time walking.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by coulter loves limbaugh
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 14, 2008 at 6:45 pm

nothing changes with Gary (and his alter egos)--- insults, name calling and complete dismissal of anything that does not toe the bush- Cheney ideological, chicken hawk line. No dungeons and dragons tonight to home your " military" know how, Gary???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2008 at 6:52 pm

coulter,

I generally just ignore your puerile missives. Consider yourself honored that I have just responded to your nonsense. Try to put two neurons together, then get back in touch.

Start with some logical and defensible arguments. I have no other advice for you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by coulter loves limbaugh
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 14, 2008 at 7:35 pm

see what did I tell you about gray.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 14, 2008 at 8:46 pm

coulter,
that was a good one :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jr
a resident of Professorville
on May 15, 2008 at 9:51 am



coulter loves limbaugh,

I see you have gotten out of the shower finally,that was a long one you must be squeaky clean

just saying


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 15, 2008 at 9:57 am

Aw, go easy on Gary. He is what he is.

As a perfect example of the true believer Bushie mindset, he is a reliable foil to help make points for the general forum readership. And no other Bushie on this forum has his tenacity, which has proven very useful and I appreciate it a lot. But he always runs out of substance, as all Bushies must, which he signals with a volley of personal attacks. That just means it's time to moveon.

That said, I half apologize for my last post. There are some straight lines that cannot be resisted.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,461 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,697 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,624 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,372 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 881 views