Ugh. . . Those *sneers* U.S. MARINES. . . ;).

[Essyne]

A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the
lion's cage.

Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her
inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on
the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back
letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents,
who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says,
"Sir, that was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole
life." The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind
bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right." The
reporter says, "I'm a journalist from the New York Times and tomorrow's
paper will have this story on the front page... so, what do you do for a
living and what political affiliation do you have?" The biker replies, "I'm
a U.S. Marine and a Republican."

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed
brings news of his actions, and reads, on front page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

[Essyne]

 .   .

[michel dvorsky]

So true. 

[mephisto]

Can you give examples so as to show that this actually is satirical and should be funny?

[Kassaa]

[retrouvailles]

Haha. That was pretty damn funny.

[michel dvorsky]

Can you give examples so as to show that this actually is satirical and should be funny?

Many regard the journalistic standard of the NYT as having degraded in the last decade or so.  A lot of people think it has become too editorialized, knee-jerk, and pretty much a mouthpiece for the loony left.

But you probably could have inferred that from context. 

Here's some more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times

The McCain lobbyist article is pretty much a classic example of this phenomenon.

[horizontal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abeer_Qasim_Hamza

More valiant marines.

[Essyne]

Come off it, horizontal.

Really, it was just some light-hearted fun. The military has its bad members as does the musical world, whatever.

These men die for my country and other countries as well, for that matter. These are the bravest men on our frontlines *Semper Fi!*. Don't you dare trash them. Trash our foreign policy, trash those individuals who did that to that little girl. But men who give up their lives so that you can sit around disgracing their names. . . well, you get my point.

[Essyne]

Furthermore, I don't CARE if you're European. It's still deplorable.

[general disarray]

Many regard the journalistic standard of the NYT as having degraded in the last decade or so.  A lot of people think it has become too editorialized, knee-jerk, and pretty much a mouthpiece for the loony left.

But you probably could have inferred that from context. 

Here's some more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times

The McCain lobbyist article is pretty much a classic example of this phenomenon.

All true, of course.  The NYTimes has its left-leaning tendencies.  

But, far worse, is its recent gross inaccuracies.  Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction it reported Iraq was hoarding?  That story essentially propped up the America RIGHT's cynical rationale to go in there and kill the "Infidel."  The story was totally false.  What the US is doing there, as we all very well know, is to secure the massive oil fields for rich Texans associated with the Bush family.  

All this going on, while Osama bin Laden -- the architect of America's destruction -- was and still is running free as a lark and shopping at Harrod's, no doubt.  Hell, I swear I saw him surfing off the northshore of Oahu last week.

The NYTimes is just a stupid rag -- not really Left, not really Right.  Just stupid.

[Essyne]

Hell, I swear I saw him surfing off the northshore of Oahu last week.

Why didn't he wait for the winter, dangit?! Then he would've saved us all the trouble and killed himself. . . .

[maul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

More intelligent human beings.

[michel dvorsky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abeer_Qasim_Hamza

More valiant marines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings#Legal%20proceedings

Yeah, the Marines don't actually encourage war atrocities.  It's a sad fact that with almost 150,000 American and British troops in Iraq, a handful are psychos and commit some atrocities.

This is quite a bit different from our enemies, whose modus operandi includes the intentional murder of innocents, non-combatants, etc. to inflict terror.  It takes a special kind of psychotic ideology to promote the beheading of innocent female aid workers, the bombing of women as they vote, young men as they enlist in the police, and children as they go to market.

Why do you think so many former Al-Qaeda sympathizing Sunnis are now taking up arms with the coalition and Iraqi army against Al-Qaeda?  

It's OK to be critical of the US government. It's OK to be critical of the invasion, the occupation, and the reconstruction of the Iraq.  But every educated, civilized, and moral person on the planet should be rooting for a free and stable Iraq, and not sympathizing with the dark-aged murderers against whom they fight.

[mephisto]

Many regard the journalistic standard of the NYT as having degraded in the last decade or so.  A lot of people think it has become too editorialized, knee-jerk, and pretty much a mouthpiece for the loony left.

Thanks, although I dissagree. The way I see it calling NYT as a mouthpiece for the left reminds me of those people who say that US foreign politicy is extremely hostile to Israel. But we all see things differently.

But every educated, civilized, and moral person on the planet should be rooting for a free and stable Iraq,

That's what we all hope for, but that is not the situation in Iraq. If the Nuremberg Laws (supported by the US) were applied than America is responisble for everything that has happened in Iraq.

Look, maybe I'm a more emotional person than you. I started to cry when I found out what had happened to the Christians of Iraq; a big community is now destroyed and they have become refugees. Not only that. The Palestinian refugees who were living in Iraq are now refugees again, (making some of them refugees for the third time; 48, 67 and now this war) they are living in terrible conditions:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE14/030/2007

Other Iraqi refugees:
 http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679q
Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States.

As far as I know this is the worlds biggest refugee crisis today.

You say that America is trying to prevent it, but the way I see it America invented it.

Your answer will be:
Americans never intentionally harm civilians and those who do are insane.
Things are going smoothly in Iraq, they are just becoming better and better.
Terrible with the refugees and all, but they will return very soon.
Everybody agrees that things are better now than under Saddam.
Iraq will become  a great democracy and the Iraqi people will love us for what we have done for them: democracy will flurish in the middle east

Hm...

[gyzzzmo]

NYT too editorialized? Is there any big media in the US wich gives real objective news?

[michel dvorsky]

Thanks, although I dissagree. The way I see it calling NYT as a mouthpiece for the left reminds me of those people who say that US foreign politicy is extremely hostile to Israel. But we all see things differently.

Not many people make the argument that US foreign policy is "extremely hostile", or even remotely hostile to Israel; rather that US foreign policy is rather favorable to Israel's interests.  I think more people would make the argument that Israel receives a disproportionate amount of criticism for its actions in the mainstream media. 

That's what we all hope for, but that is not the situation in Iraq. If the Nuremberg Laws (supported by the US) were applied than America is responisble for everything that has happened in Iraq.

You're a bit confused here. Nuremburg Laws were racist laws passed by the Nazis in 1935.  The Nuremburg Trials tried Nazi war criminals after the war.  I don't know what point you're trying to make exactly.

Look, maybe I'm a more emotional person than you. I started to cry when I found out what had happened to the Christians of Iraq; a big community is now destroyed and they have become refugees. Not only that. The Palestinian refugees who were living in Iraq are now refugees again, (making some of them refugees for the third time; 48, 67 and now this war) they are living in terrible conditions:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE14/030/2007

Other Iraqi refugees:
 http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679q
Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States.

As far as I know this is the worlds biggest refugee crisis today.

You say that America is trying to prevent it, but the way I see it America invented it.

Your answer will be:
Americans never intentionally harm civilians and those who do are insane.
Things are going smoothly in Iraq, they are just becoming better and better.
Terrible with the refugees and all, but they will return very soon.

Wars are by nature terrible.   

Could the reconstruction have been better managed? Yes. They really ought to have done a better job ensuring security and stability following the overthrow of Saddam.  But they didn't.  This is more or less in the past now; what economists would call a sunk cost.  That should not impact the decisions about what to do on the margin (next). 

Everybody agrees that things are better now than under Saddam.
Iraq will become  a great democracy and the Iraqi people will love us for what we have done for them: democracy will flurish in the middle east

Hm...

Hopefully. Heh.

[pies]

But every educated, civilized, and moral person on the planet should be rooting for a free and stable Iraq, and not sympathizing with the dark-aged murderers against whom they fight.

Yes.  One should not sympathize with those who invade countries and cause instability, violence, and mass death (100k-1m dead is the common range I've seen).  Also, if one believes in the concept of democracy, one should also listen to the Iraqi people. One Pentagon study from late last year showed that most Iraqis agree upon many points; namely, that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence that's going on now, and that the US should get out and leave the country for the Iraqis.

The Nuremberg reference that mephisto makes is about the laws under which war criminals were tried during the Nuremberg trials.  Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime that could be committed since it contains all of the evil that follows in a war.


On a lighter note:  I have a feeling that Ess is a crazy Christian conservative that speaks in tongues

[michel dvorsky]

Yes.  One should not sympathize with those who invade countries and cause instability, violence, and mass death (100k-1m dead is the common range I've seen). 

This is turning into a debate for or against the Iraq War (which I'm perfectly comfortable in having), but the original issue was who to support right now, and for what ideological reasons. 

So are you actually questioning whether or not the West is really morally superior to Islamic extremists?

Also, if one believes in the concept of democracy, one should also listen to the Iraqi people. One Pentagon study from late last year showed that most Iraqis agree upon many points; namely, that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence that's going on now, and that the US should get out and leave the country for the Iraqis.

I'd love to see that study.  The notion that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia is absolutely insane considering they've been at each others' throats since the death of Muhammad 1400 years ago.  True, there has been a big flare up in sectarian violence since Saddam was removed in 2003.  Slavery under a dictatorship wouldn't be my preference to a civil war (2003-2008ish).  Things are better for Shia now than they were under Baathist, Sunni dominated Iraq, and FAR better for the Kurds, who had genocide infliced upon them by their own government in the 1980s.  A better question to ask Iraqis now would be: "do you have more or less opportunities and prospects now, or under Saddam"?  The security situation is starting to change. 

The Nuremberg reference that mephisto makes is about the laws under which war criminals were tried during the Nuremberg trials.  Aggression was defined as the supreme international crime that could be committed since it contains all of the evil that follows in a war.

Maybe you two should read up on the causes of Second World War and compare it to the run up to the invasion of Iraq.  Do you think Benes posed the same threat to the Third Reich that Saddam did to the West?  Is the Bush Doctrine truly comparable to Hitler's desire for lebensraum living space for his volk in the East at the expense of all the native "untermenschen"?

This is why people with an elementary understanding of world history should be careful before attempting to parallel important historical events.

On a lighter note:  I have a feeling that Ess is a crazy Christian conservative that speaks in tongues

That comment isn't "on a lighter note" - it's a condescending remark illustrating your frustration and inability to construct a proper rebuttal to any of the arguments in the thread.

[horizontal]

Come off it, horizontal.

The military has its bad members as does the musical world, whatever.

The only difference is that members of the musical world are typically not equipped with automatic rifles.

[michel dvorsky]

The only difference is that members of the musical world are typically not equipped with automatic rifles.

So you basically are in agreement that psychotic behavior/tendencies are not exclusive to those in the armed forces.

Glad you had that revelation.

[pies]

So are you actually questioning whether or not the West is really morally superior to Islamic extremists?

Iraqis accept moral principles that the West professes while the 'West' (in this case the US and Britain) does not.  This ties into the Nuremberg trials..

Maybe you two should read up on the causes of Second World War and compare it to the run up to the invasion of Iraq.  Do you think Benes posed the same threat to the Third Reich that Saddam did to the West?  Is the Bush Doctrine truly comparable to Hitler's desire for lebensraum living space for his volk in the East at the expense of all the native "untermenschen"?

This is why people with an elementary understanding of world history should be careful before attempting to parallel important historical events.

I'm not trying to draw historical parallels here.  I'm pointing out that the principles on international law developed by the West during the Nuremberg trials (which were ratified in 1950 and still apply) aren't accepted by the US.  The Iraq invasion is case of aggression and therefore, according to the Nuremberg principles, it encompasses all the evil that follows, like

[the] big flare up in sectarian violence since Saddam was removed in 2003.

and Abu Ghraib, civilian casualties, etc.  The US committed what it defines as the supreme international crime.  The shared beliefs of the Pentagon study (I'll try to find/post it tomorrow) show that Iraqis believe that the US is responsible for the violence /evil that has occurred since the invasion, as the principles hold, and that the US should get out.

That comment isn't "on a lighter note" - it's a condescending remark illustrating your frustration and inability to construct a proper rebuttal to any of the arguments in the thread.

It was a joke, meant to be facetious and therefore on a lighter note.

[Kassaa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings#Legal%20proceedings

Yeah, the Marines don't actually encourage war atrocities.  It's a sad fact that with almost 150,000 American and British troops in Iraq, a handful are psychos and commit some atrocities.

Yeah and out of the 1.300.000.000 Muslims in the world a handful are psychos and commit some atrocities. Based on that the US invaded the whole f.ucking middle-east..?

[mephisto]

You're a bit confused here. Nuremburg Laws were racist laws passed by the Nazis in 1935.  The Nuremburg Trials tried Nazi war criminals after the war.  I don't know what point you're trying to make exactly.

Ok.

Didn't the Americans and the British and the Soviets commit war crimes in world war two? Of course they did. But the German Nazis were the only ones who got hanged. That was because the Nazis were punished for everything that happened in the war. Because they started it. The war in Iraq doesn't have to be a copy of the 2nd world war for that notion to be applied.

Crazy Al Qaida terrorists have commited war crimes in Iraq, but America is responsible for everything that has happened in the War if you apply the same standars as America did after world war two.

Simply put:

4 million Iraqis wouldn't have become refugees if America hadn't attacked.

And:

Saddam's worst acts were ALL commit in the 80ths when he was supported by America:

Gassing of the kurds and his war against Iraq.

Btw a question to Dvorsky: Do you read the current historical reality in the terms of Samuel Huntington (Clash of Civilization)?

[mephisto]

Not many people make the argument that US foreign policy is "extremely hostile", or even remotely hostile to Israel; rather that US foreign policy is rather favorable to Israel's interests. 

You missunderstand what I ment. If you read Israeli newspaper and pay attention to internal Israeli politics you will see that many of the extremely right-wing people in Israel hates Bush and America because they find him hostile to Israel. Obviously that has no basis in reality unless you look at the world from a really strange point of view.

Go figure.

[pianogeek_cz]

- On a completely side note, is it possible that pianostreet is now leading a political debate which hasn't yet turned into a flame war? Wow...

If you read Israeli newspaper and pay attention to internal Israeli politics you will see that many of the extremely right-wing people in Israel hates Bush and America because they find him hostile to Israel. Obviously that has no basis in reality unless you look at the world from a really strange point of view.

Yep, I have to confirm that. To elaborate a bit: a not-so-insignificant portion of the Israeli public and media thinks that the Bush administration is trying to push them into the wrong kind of concessions (as far as I know, that is, to quite some extent, true: the withdrawal from Gaza, with strong support from the world, for example, did backfire) that have caused more problems than good in the past. And as always, there are those who keep rational about it, and then there are those who twist the issue and argue that it means that America is hostile to Israel.

But that's just a remark on the side. Let the Iraq debate continue, it's mostly very, very good (better than those in the mainstream world media, at least).