[catsank]

Iraq children's voice
through pictures.





http://www.puffinroom.org/iraq/menu.html

[Spheric Harlot]

Predictions:

a) "not drawn by children"
b) "project curator is a damn traitor/unpatriotic/blahblah"
c) "Where's the problem? Any perfectly well-adjusted child will draw pictures like that."

Have at it.

-s*

[eklipse]

d) "Freedom is wonderful thing"
e) "Look how the evil Iraqis indoctrinate their children"

[chris v]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:



Have at it.

-s*

That artist is an *diot. Every one knows tracers follow a parabloic arc.







seriously disturbing.

CV

[spacefreak]

I'm glad the children have an opportunity to express themselves. It's great that the schools are open and that the children have the supplies to draw such diverse images of the war that took place in their land.

Some other neat drawings as well.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Some other neat drawings as well.

Yes - look, they even accurately portrayed the number of Iraqis cheering as the statue fell.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by chris v:
seriously disturbing.

Indeed.

Note the Israeli flag on one of the tanks, by the way. Interesting, since last I checked, Israel made no military contributions to the invasion.

It seems both sides have propaganda, after all.

[MacGorilla]

Have we imported Sesame Street there yet????

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes - look, they even accurately portrayed the number of Iraqis cheering as the statue fell.

Note the phantom at lower left - must be Osama!

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Have we imported Sesame Street there yet????

Give it a little.

They only just got done with the Afghani version - Poppy Seed Street.

-s*

[Joshua]

The Project Statement:

One week after returning from Iraq in June of 2003, after five months of shooting my movie, Raining Planes, I attended an exhibition of children's drawings in Harlem, where I currently live. The auditorium was filled with amazing imagery, some ominous in tone and color - Harlem can be, after all, a tough place to be a child. Not a single piece in the Harlem show contained a helicopter gunship, Sidewinder missile, armored personnel carrier, weeping adolescent survivor, or dead body. In that moment, I was catapulted into the depth of the actual crimes committed against the children of Iraq by the Bush administration's "war on terror." Their minds and hearts will forever be tattooed by the tactics and terrifying weaponry of American-style techno-war. These drawings are a testament to that traumatic imprinting.

The drawings were collected over a 2-month period in May and June 2003 at the request of Carl Rosenstein and the Puffin Foundation. The task proved a difficult one due to the chaos and instability created by the war's aftermath. Schools were looted. Teachers, parents, and children became casualties of war. "Real" security was nonexistent despite numerous checkpoints and the heavy-handed crackdown by American forces. My good friend Hayder Mousa, an Iraqi filmmaker with two children of his own, was instrumental in organizing the classroom settings in which these drawings were made.

Assail School is located in New Baghdad, a working-class sector in the south part of the capitol. It had been damaged during the fighting and looted by displaced and desperate locals after the massive bombing campaign devastated the city. When I arrived the school was filled with children trying to return a semblance of normalcy to their lives. Their instructors attempted to teach class despite a lack of books, desks, chairs, and ceiling fans in the hundred-plus degree heat. They taught amidst broken windows, raw sewage, and the specter of continued violence.

With Hayder Mousa's coaxing and reassurances, the work began. The teachers granted us complete access to their pupils, who happily took on the assignment over the course of a week. Each morning, prior to the intolerable heat of midday, we visited each of the six classrooms at the school to speak with the students and teachers. Emphasizing the value of bringing these images to America, Hayder, at my direction, discussed the importance of the project in Arabic with them.

Supplied with pens, crayons, pencils and paper from New York City, we watched amazed as these very young survivors brought their experience of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to life. When asked to provide written accounts of their beliefs, they refused - fearing the implications should Saddam Hussein return to power. The depth of these Iraqi children's reaction to America's war is measured by these powerful and compelling images.

If Bill O'Reilly decided to do the same thing in America (perhaps, in response to September 11th?) and was granted "complete access" to classrooms full of young children, what kind of images do you think they'd draw?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Joshua:
If Bill O'Reilly decided to do the same thing in America (perhaps, in response to September 11th?) and was granted "complete access" to classrooms full of young children, what kind of images do you think they'd draw?

He wouldn't let them draw. He'd yell "Shut up! Shut up!", take their crayons, and kick them out of the classroom.

Glick on O'Reilly

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
He wouldn't let them draw. He'd yell "Shut up! Shut up!", take their crayons, and kick them out of the classroom.

Doubtful. I don't think the children would have adopted the far-left conspiracy theories of Mr. Glick and asserted that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Doubtful. I don't think the children would have adopted the far-left conspiracy theories of Mr. Glick and asserted that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Jeez, you know, I've read the transcript twice and seen the interview and I still can't find where Glick says that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Can you please point it out to me?

Thanks!

P.S. Isn't this Mr. Glick the same one whose father died on 9/11? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Uday's Carcass]

I love it how you liberal tools take some pictures and twist it to your own pathetic, tired agenda, then a bloke like spacefreak posts some positive ones and shoots you down in flames.

good riddance to your foul, ideological rubbish.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I love it how you liberal tools take some pictures and twist it to your own pathetic, tired agenda, then a bloke like spacefreak posts some positive ones and shoots you down in flames.

good riddance to your foul, ideological rubbish.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Turn a Blind Eye to Enlightenment and Wisdom if you wish, infidel. But when Allah smites you down for Intellectual Apostasy, you will have no one to blame but your cursed soul.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I love it how you liberal tools take some pictures and twist it to your own pathetic, tired agenda, then a bloke like spacefreak posts some positive ones and shoots you down in flames.

good riddance to your foul, ideological rubbish.

Uhh, there really isn't one Liberal Agenda. I think what scares conservatives so much about liberals is that a good deal of them actually think on their own and somehow arrive in the same ideological place on a lot of issues. Could that mean that *gasp* most of the common ideals accepted by almost all liberals might just have merit? Just like the prime minister of Malaysia said: "We're fighting [the Jews,] an enemy with a brain." That must be frightening to fight a menace with knowledge when your greatest asset is propaganda and ignorance.

[Spliffdaddy]

"liberals think on their own"?

Looks more like they simply oppose whatever the conservatives think of.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"liberals think on their own"?

Looks more like they simply oppose whatever the conservatives think of.

Not really. I believe that guns should not be controlled. I'm against most animal rights. I'm against supporting Israel (is that liberal or conservative, I forget). I enjoy tax cuts and reduction of government regulation, basic Republican ideals that have been stood on their heads by the Bush administration but for some reason, conservatives aren't complaining. Remember, it was conservatives that were in favor of isolationism. FDR had to practically force the US into WWII. Who is forcing who in to wars now?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Jeez, you know, I've read the transcript twice and seen the interview and I still can't find where Glick says that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Can you please point it out to me?

P.S. Isn't this Mr. Glick the same one whose father died on 9/11? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Sure I can point it out to you...

Glick: Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Turn a Blind Eye to Enlightenment and Wisdom if you wish, infidel. But when Allah smites you down for Intellectual Apostasy, you will have no one to blame but your cursed soul.

and this is not a personal attack because....?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and this is not a personal attack because....?

...because I wasn't calling you names (unless you take offense at 'infidel'), but giving advice.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"liberals think on their own"?

Looks more like they simply oppose whatever the conservatives think of.

There's actually an instruction manual they have for it. One peeps on another forum has read it so well that you can accurately predict, 100% of the time, what she's going to say about any given subject before she's uttered a word.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yes, because obviously children’s’ drawing of the Saddam regime era were all of sweetness and light- and glowing pictures of Saddam the great leader himself taking care of everyone, and they all lived haaaaaapily ever after.

Of course it probably helped a lot to maintain that joyous illusion so long as the ammo and mass grave supply held up, and of course it’s always a good thing when you’re either a Ba’ath party member by age six… or a prisoner!

Gee whiz. If only the whiny little leftists could JUUUUST have those good old days back again! Then they wouldn’t EVER have to admit that things in Iraq have gotten any better, and beyond that (the unthinkable!) that *gasp* they just might be on the wrong side of history opposing the ousting of a brutal dictator. ("Oh please, please, keep up the negatives... NEVER! NEVER let us have to admit THAT!!"- the liberal daily prayer.)

As usual, watch the leftists zero in on *anything* negative- which wouldn’t be so bad, if they didn’t also SYSTEMATICALLY go out of their way to ignore and deny the existence of anything positive. (As spacefreak aptly demonstrated here.) Just goes to illustrate perfectly the obvious agenda behind some folks' absolute glee at anything negative, so long as they can US/Bush-bash over it.

30-40+ years from now, regardless of whatever progress has been made in Iraq, some liberals who thrive on the permanent downtrodden status of certain groups they’ve forever typecast as oppressed (add Iraqis to that growing list) will STILL be whining about Iraq and blaming any and all ills that exist at such time on Bush/the US. I’d bet good money on it!

How many years will they keep wishing for the worst? How many years of pretending that the US is responsible for all the ills that remain in Iraq, or for that matter the strife/war/insane religious zealotry of the Middle East in general?

Guess what people, the kids in Iraq have been through a loooot of crap, and many of them are probably disturbed over *many* different things, not the least of which was the lifelong system of murder, rape, imprisonment, and routine torture they and their parents and society lived and died under. (And still do with pro-Saddam nitwits still running around using them and their schools, homes, hospitals, fields, etc. as human shields.) Does a lib give a good crap about any of that? Of course not. Why of course, everyone knows, anything bad in Iraq and it’s instantly Bush and the US’s fault.

30+ years of absolute horror before that? Why, liberals were too busy sipping their lattes and zoning out to notice or give a good crap about any of that. There argument of course is, “Well no one else cared either!” Wonderful. So everyone else may have been equally ignorant/uncaring in the past- but have since had their eyes opened. A liberal in order to maintain an imagined ‘high-horse’ political position, just REMAINS blindly uncaring of past atrocities and employs selective outrage only at current wrongdoings, so long as there's an anti-US angle in it. BRILLIANT! People should really give themselves a round of applause and back pats for that ‘utterly brilliant’ "humanitarian" position!

"Gasp! Why look at the crayon drawings! Shocking! I'm OUTRAGED! Oh my!"

"Yeah, well gee that's really terrible and all that the kids are expressing themselves, and have schools to do so in... but what about the mass graves? Children’s prisons? Previous system of murder and absolute oppression on a daily basis?"

"The what? Sorry, could you run that by me again? I'm not familiar...



I’m constantly amazed at the new lows of absolute obscene pessimism and downright being gleeful at any sign of something bad that some liberals can sink to, so long as it supports anything even remotely anti-Bush or anti-US.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure I can point it out to you...

Glick: Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.

So he's saying the CIA trained many of these terrorists, which is true. The U.S. sent aid, training and weapons to fight the Soviets, which is what he is referring to. I don't think anyone can deny this.

Again, can you show where Mr. Glick said the Bush Jr. is responsible for 9/11?

[finboy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

I’m constantly amazed at the new lows of absolute obscene pessimism and downright being gleeful at any sign of something bad that some liberals can sink to, so long as it supports anything even remotely anti-Bush or anti-US.

Open your mind -- seek new horizons. You shouldn't be shocked. If you think it's bad now, consider that the election is still over a year away. As things get more and more desperate (and with the pool of Dems they have now, how can it not?) all the stops will be pulled out to FUD the US voter to death. It always happens, but I have a feeling that this time will be "special."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
blah blah blah..

30+ years of absolute horror before that? Why, liberals were too busy sipping their lattes and zoning out to notice or give a good crap about any of that. There argument of course is, “Well no one else cared either!” Wonderful. So everyone else may have been equally ignorant/uncaring in the past- but have since had their eyes opened. A liberal in order to maintain an imagined ‘high-horse’ political position, just REMAINS blindly uncaring of past atrocities and employs selective outrage only at current wrongdoings, so long as there's an anti-US angle in it. BRILLIANT! People should really give themselves a round of applause and back pats for that ‘utterly brilliant’ "humanitarian" position!

blah blha blah

I’m constantly amazed at the new lows of absolute obscene pessimism and downright being gleeful at any sign of something bad that some liberals can sink to, so long as it supports anything even remotely anti-Bush or anti-US.

What the **** planet have you been living on?

How many more times are Conservatives going to trot out the atrocities that occured with the complicity of Reagan, Rummy and Bush The Elder as some kind of warped "evidence" that "liberals" are hypocrits. Excuse me???

Most of the real liberals I know were protesting Saddam in the 80's while your Conservative Heroes were busy taking them off the Terrorist State list, making a buck selling them weapons, blocking congressional attempts at imposing penalites for genocide and blaming Saddam's crimes in Iran.

Save your vitriol for the people who actually deserve it. In fact, go start a picket line in front of Reagan Presidential Library or start a petition to get that Saddam-loving vegetable off the federal dole. Or file a lawsuit to find out why Dubya stashed boatloads of federal documents detailing US involvement in Iraq in his father's presidential library to avoid FOI requests.

I'd expect this kind of selective memory and partisan ball-sucking from some others around here, CRASH, but coming from an otherwise reasonable guy I have to say I'm pretty disappointed.

Save your moral crusades for the bastards who actually deserve it and stop pretending that the list of American politicians who have any moral authority to lecture anyone on "humanitarianism" in Iraq is anything but horrifically short.

Seems the tactics never change. When I was protesting Saddam in the 80's, we got called "ayatollah supporters" by the Saddam-apologists who are now accusing me of being a Saddam-apologist.

Curioser and curioser.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

LOL protesting Saddam in the 80's!

That cracks me up every time you pull that line thunderous!

It's been pointed out time, and time again that virtually everyone was in bed with Saddam back in the 80's. Most of all the French, the UN and others that people like you are constantly protecting- the same people who STILL want to be in bed with Saddam as if the 1990's and beyond never happened. The same people that leftists love to pretend are saints were deeply in bed with Saddam, not just in the 1980’s- but all the way up TO THIS YEAR! Where’s your outrage over them? Oh that’s right- there’s no anti-US or anti-Bush angle in that.

I have to laugh when you tell that old tall tale about protesting Saddam back in the day. I call TOTAL BULLCRAP on that one thunderous. Don't buy it for a second. Do you think no one has a memory that works? I know that leftists often can't remember anything that happened before the year 1999, but that doesn't mean everyone is that way. If you were ever protesting against Saddam, you were a one-person protest 'group.'

The truth of the matter is, I remember CLEARLY the liberal side, protesting AGAINST the US action in the Gulf War- yet not a PEEP of protest over Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait- let alone his treatment of his own people. Even to this day, I witness liberals who can't seem to get the timeline of that conflict straight- who purposefully or just plain ignorantly forget that it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait, and the UN that gave him a timeline to get out, or 'face the consequences'.

So liberals were out protesting Saddam firing off missles at Israel, a country not even involved in the war? MY ASS! Leftists were too busy with the “stop the racist war” signs to give a good crap about that or any other action commited by Saddam.


The same leftist protest monkeys who've wish for another Vietnam war to protest over since the original ended, were out in the streets during the gulf war, mischaracterizing the war as "For Oil" and a "racist war" and making all the same dumb anti-US/look the other way for Saddam charges then as they did for this war. EXACT same ****, different war. What, you thought everyone forgot?

Yeah, I seem to recall all the protest monkeys out in the streets protesting Saddam’s atrocities all during the Clinton Administration that you conveniently left out of your rant. Oh wait. Actually there were no protests. There was no anti-Bush angle in it.

Hey, how about those massive protests against Operation Desert Fox? Oh wait a sec… WHAT PROTESTS?!! There was no anti-Bush angle in that I suppose. Wait, were any of the bleeding hearts at least crying their little eyes out over crayon drawings after that? Or were they all too busy sipping their lattes?

Sorry thunderous, your re-write and typical selective recasting of Iraq war history doesn't fly. People WERE NOT out protesting against Saddam… not during the 80’s… not during the 90’s… and not currently. I don't really buy that you were/are either.

Why do I point out the left's hypocrisy on this issue? Here it is, in this very thread- whining over CRAYON DRAWINGS- the same people who couldn't have cared less how many children were dying in Iraq on a daily basis- no, not just back in the 1980's or even 1990's- but right up to the year 2003 and the eve of the war! Show me the crayon drawings anyone was whining about then! Oh wait, I'm sorry, were kids in Iraq even allowed to have crayons before now? Do you know? Did you even give a good crap? My guess is no.

Talk about save the moral crusades. Save it yourself. Forgive me for not getting 'outraged' over drawings- when most of you leftists who now pretend to care so much about such things (no matter HOW you want to pretend anyone EVER was out protesting Saddam en masse) didn't give a FLYING F**K about anything going on during Saddam regime right up to THIS YEAR, 2003- and continue not to give a FLYING F**K about many of those conditions having been eliminated by the war that you’re dead set on vilifying.

You didn't and still don't give a rat's ass about your beloved UN playing both sides of the field, (again, right up to this year!) enabling Saddam and running multi-billion dollar 'oil for palaces' schemes with him that undermined the very sanctions and resolutions which might have helped defeat him a lot sooner had they been allowed to work. (Against HIM, not just keeping the money out of the hands of his people.) Oh sure- you were protesting that. Riiiiiight. No, you were still blaming it all on the US president of 20+ years ago, rather than realize we're talking about THIS VERY YEAR, 2003.


Yeah. Keep whining about crayon drawings and thinking that puts you on some high moral horse on this issue.

Sorry, but it doesn't fly- every time it's pointed out the hypocrisy of the left, you just go "Nuh uh! I DID protest Saddam!" Everyone's just supposed to forget the left's ACTUAL actions (then and now) and just go- ohhhhh that's right! The left has always been in favor of ousting Saddam and ending his regime, has never mischaracterized doing so as ‘racist’ and ‘for oil’ and has never protested AGAINST the very people who’ve sought to reign Saddam in and defeat him- simply because thunderous said so on a message board! Riiiiiiiight!

Next thing you know, you people will be taking credit for anything good that happens in Iraq hereafter, and trying to argue some fake 'high-horse' position over that!

Once leftists finally give up the hopeless tact of being against the Iraq war- when things start overwhelmingly going the way you PRAY they don’t- which is better- (and not to worry, it’s inevitable, despite your fervent wish to the contrary) you’ll eventually be forced to do a complete 180, and we’ll get treated to the idea that all the good that happens is magically due credit to the left! It’s almost guaranteed, because the left NEVER admits to being on the wrong side of history with anything. Just as it you now sit here and pretend you were out protesting Saddam during any of the previous conflicts, or even that you gave a good rats ass about anything he was up to- not in invading other nations, and sure as hell not what he did ‘within his own borders’ which liberals continue to use as an excuse for virtually ANYTHING.

[petehammer]

So, moral crusader, is Iraq the only bad nation around? If not, why are we not doing things in other troubled nations?

You seem to have all the answers so hopefully you can answer these questions.

Thanks!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Are you crying yourself silly over the crayon drawings of the children of any of those 'troubled' nations?

Where are the threads on any of them?


Oh wait, I know. You must be too busy out PROTESTING AGAINST those 'troubled' nations' dictators and repressive regimes, right? We all know thunderous certainly is.

What dictator/tyrant/terrorist/repressive regime is the left rallying against this week?

Since you all corner the market on caring so much, it probably gets hard to keep up the busy protest scheduel, and collecting all those kids' crayon drawings eh?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Are you crying yourself silly over the crayon drawings of the children of any of those 'troubled' nations?

Where are the threads on any of them?


Oh wait, I know. You must be too busy out PROTESTING AGAINST those 'troubled' nations' dictators and repressive regimes, right? We all know thunderous certainly is.

What dictator/tyrant/terrorist/repressive regime is the left rallying against this week?

Since you all corner the market on caring so much, it probably gets hard to keep up the busy protest scheduel, and collecting all those kids' crayon drawings eh?

I see my question wasn't understood. Perhaps my English isn't clear, which is strange because I've spoken it my whole life.

Is Iraq the only bad nation around? If not, why are we not doing things in other troubled nations?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by finboy:
As things get more and more desperate (and with the pool of Dems they have now, how can it not?) all the stops will be pulled out to FUD the US voter to death. It always happens, but I have a feeling that this time will be "special."

True. We got just a glimpse preview during the California recall election.

I can only imagine the desperate tactics the left will drag out in the presidential election. It's already been a bitter, personal vendetta for them. I have a feeling that the Dems will pull out all the stops. And as usual- the very people whining about crayon drawings and pretending to lose all their freedoms every other second, will turn a total blind-eye to their own side of the fence pissing all over the election process in any and every way possible that benefits them.

One thing is for certain, it'll certainly be entertaining!

[eklipse]

Well done CRASH. Why do people use 10 words when 1115 will do?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Next time I'll draw you a picture!

[thunderous_funker]

Gee, you could have saved all the precious hot air and simply called me a liar, which is basically the jist of your entire pseudo-argument.

Your other problem is that you continue to think there is some kind of monothilic political entity known as "the left" or "liberals". A group that operates and coordinates all of its activities and positons together.

Just because democrats weren't protesting doesn't mean that others weren't. Not to mention the fact that lots of democrats did protest. On both sides of the issues.

I'm also not talking about thousands of street protestors--not everyone thinks that is an effective political tool--even though there were street protest even if you never saw one or heard about it on corporate news.

Dissident Iraqi groups have been formally active since the Ba'athist came to power. They organized and operated in Europe thruought the 80's. I attended plenty of rallies organized by them in Berlin and Munich. In fact, there were protestors holding signs about "stop supporting Saddam" when Reagan made his famous "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin in 1987. I know, my friends were there. I was living in Munich at the time and we had our own rally.

Was it a popular position? Not really. But the large Arab population in Europe made it a topic that wouldn't go away. I wasn't living in the US at the time so I can't speak for what was going on here--but I met a lot of people in college that shared my viewpoints and told me how they had been trying to draw attention to what was happening in Iraq in the US. We met when the debate over the Gulf War begain. The campus was teeming with protests, for and against the War. Me and my anti-Saddam friends were split on the issue. I argued on behalf of the war, in case you're curious. We didn't believe that Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia (which was the popular rationalization at the time), but some of us saw it as a way of finally breaking our ties to Saddam and effecting positive change. All that shattered, of course, when Bush betrayed the rebels.

And where were you on the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988? For or against? Do you remember which way the president voted? Oh, that's right. According to you, no one in this country was even aware of the plight of Kurds in Iraq. We had never heard of them, right? We were too busy smoking herb and playing hackey-sack to notice that the US Congress was trying to pass a bill expressing outrage over something that, according to you, no one in this country ever heard of.

So contrary to your limited viewpoint, lots of liberals have very nuanced views of US-Iraq history. And lots of us were quite active and aware of what you so plainly couldn't care less about.

This isn't about which political party gets to claim the HIgh Ground. From where I sit, neither party gets it. At least the elected officials didn't seem to do much of anything to prevent any of it.

That doesn't mean, however, that peope of conscience from all walks of life didn't know about it, didn't care about it, and didn't do anything about it. Is it really so hard for you to believe that people would? Guess, what. Some of them were "conservatives". Heavn forbid!!

So if you can get it through your head that not all liberals think alike or believe the same things or use the same politics tactics (just like conservatives), maybe you figure out why it pisses some of us off to be accused of being Saddam apologists because we didn't agree with Dubya's plan. Just like we weren't ayatollah supporters for protesting Saddam gassing people with US helicopters and French & German technology.

Lots of people from all parties have nuanced opinions on the correct course of action. They are perfectly capable of opposing Saddam but thinking there were better ways of dealing with him.

But by all means, feel free to call us liars and pretend you know what everyone else believes in just because its easier that way to villify and pigeonhole anyone who thinks differently than you. Go right ahead.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The truth of the matter is, I remember CLEARLY the liberal side, protesting AGAINST the US action in the Gulf War- yet not a PEEP of protest over Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait- let alone his treatment of his own people. Even to this day, I witness liberals who can't seem to get the timeline of that conflict straight- who purposefully or just plain ignorantly forget that it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait, and the UN that gave him a timeline to get out, or 'face the consequences'.

you live in your own world. Its about the size of your skull, and has no relation to the world beyond it.

sad, really.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]Gee, you could have saved all the precious hot air and simply called me a liar, which is basically the jist of your entire pseudo-argument.

Your other problem is that you continue to think there is some kind of monothilic political entity known as "the left" or "liberals". A group that operates and coordinates all of its activities and positons together.

You do have a tendency to selectively 'cast' thunderous, as well as take offence to things that you later claim don’t describe you.

Great that you were protesting Saddam in the 1980's. Twenty years have passed in case you didn’t notice. So where were your protests against Saddam in the 1990’s? Currently? You act like I’m asking this as if it’s a requirement- no- merely that I don’t buy the selective outrage of the left in general- and notice that they tend to be very selective in what they’ll actually get ‘outraged’ enough to protest- ALMOST ALWAYS the actions of the west, ALMOST NEVER the actions of brutal dictators, terrorists and thugs.


Frankly, I'm surprised that it's usually yourself that seems to feel my posts are aimed directly at you -as in your first response. If you resent my use of the term 'left' and 'liberals', why then do you constantly step in and wear the shoe? Does it fit?

It's like someone saying something about "Saddam supporters..." then someone else jumping on and griping "Hey! I resent that! Why are you calling me a Saddam Supporter?!" The real question is, why does one take offence at a term that wasn’t directed toward them originally, and 'wear the shoe'?

If all on the left that are currently mischaracterizing the Iraq war at every turn had the same record of opposing Saddam as you, I'd have less problem with them. (And if both you and they were CONSISTANT. If you were so against Saddam in the 80’s, why grouse about his well-deserved ousting now? Oh that’s right- because you don’t like the way Bush did it- so it all must be forever recast in the negative.)

As you say yourself, your situation isn't typical. People acting now like crayon drawings and banners on ships are something to whine over, while they never raised a peep about real atrocities that this US action has put an end to- are quite simply being hypocrites on the subject. No matter how you want to 'recast' that.

And Lerkfish, as usual you’re a crack up! When I have time, I’ll find a post I remember made by yourself during the ‘wait’ before the current Iraq action, that completely miscast the timeline of the original Gulf War, and I myself having to correct you on actual timeline, minus your made up ‘facts’. (Sorry, no time to dig for it at the moment –but unlike you, my memory works so I didn’t forget about it.)

Ironic that you’re here now, acting like anyone on the left never mischaracterized the Gulf War, when you yourself did not even that long ago! Typical. But them, I don’t expect anything of much greater substance from you anyway.

[Lerkfish]

Crash, you should let go some of that pent up hostility. It isn't good to hold it in...say what you feel, get it out.

[thunderous_funker]

Why do I stick my nose in? Well, because I can't stand watching an otherwise smart person make an ass of themselves by castigating an entire segment of the population with ridiculous stereotypes and unfair generatlizations.

I am a liberal. Damn straigh. I'm a registered Green Party member and proud of it. That doesn't suddenly cause groupthink, however. Not all Greens agree. In fact, they'd be a lot more effective if they could muster a bit more unity. Getting Greens to agree is a lot like herding cats on some issues.

I find it almost impossible to believe you haven't met a liberal who supported the war. Or met a liberal who didn't support the war but didn't march in any rallies.

I also find in completely inconceivable that you can equate opposition to the war as a means of ending Saddam's reign with opposition to ending it at all.

Newsflash: Practically everyone wanted Saddam gone, we just didn't all agree on the best way to accomplish it.

And before we rehash the "no other option would have worked" debate, just save it. We've said it all before and it doesn't matter any more. What is done is done. I think it's intellectually dishonest to say it was impossible without war, just as its intellectually dishonest to not admit that no matter what we might have tried, it still might have come to this anyway.

Lots of us wanted to prevent the Dubya plan and put something else in motion but we failed to effect that change. A lot of people are bitter and blame that defeat on the fact that saying so got us called "saddam apologists" and other braindead vitriol. To me, that charge is particularly offensive considering the amount of time I've been deeply concerned over the issues surrounding Iraq.

The choices before us are almost infinite and yet people still want to narrow the discourse to 2 mutally exclusive postions and constantly cram the opposition to fit into one or the other.

Back OT:

The pictures are sad. I'm sorry any kid had to go through this war. Even if you believe it was necessary, doesn't spare kids the trauma.

And yes, Iraq doesn't have a shortage of traumatic events in the past 20 years. I'm sure a similiar project conducted during the Iran war would have revealed images just as saddening if not more so. Probably more so. That war wiped out almost an entire generation. Kurdish kids have no shortage of pre 1991 traumas. Same for marsh arabs after 1991.

I can honestly say these pictures don't change my mind about the war--necessary or not. They just remind what is. War is hell, even when necessary. I don't feel angrier about it because I didn't believe it was necessary. As I said, Iraqi kids got plenty to be disturbed about.

I also don't understand why it made people who believed the war was necessary so defensive.

[mr. natural]

Not originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

Great that you were protesting welfare cheats in the 1980's. Twenty years have passed in case you didn’t notice. So where were your protests against corporate welfare cheats in the 1990’s? Currently? You act like I’m asking this as if it’s a requirement - no - merely that I don’t buy the selective outrage of the right in general - and notice that they tend to be very selective in what they’ll actually get ‘outraged’ enough to protest- ALMOST ALWAYS the actions of the least powerful, ALMOST NEVER the actions of brutal corporations, lobbyists and their well-paid-for thugs.

Hehe. I just thought it would be interesting to tweak this post by Mr. Righteous Outrage CRASH HARDDRIVE, and compare such ravings in this thread to the absolute SILENCE of response in this thread.

Where's your well honed right-wing outrage now, CRASH?

::crickets chirp::

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Newsflash: Practically everyone wanted Saddam gone, we just didn't all agree on the best way to accomplish it.

Sorry, I still don't buy that. It's been proven the UN didn't want him gone, nor the French or Germans who were benefiting by running oil profit scams with him and were more interested in protecting their political interests with Saddam than ousting him. CURRENT EVENTS. No need to dig all the way back twenty years for them.

If everyone wanted him gone- how is it that everyone isn't HAPPY that he's gone? Why the glee with finding any negative in the current US action- and ignoring any and all positive aspects of Saddam and his regime being gone?

I also don't understand why it made people who believed the war was necessary so defensive.

Just as I don't understand why pointing out leftist hypocrisy makes many people who opposed Saddam's ousting so defensive.

Case in point: mr. natural demonstrating his incredible shallowness by trying to compare US corporations and tax policies, as having anything to do with, or anywhere near the same level of life and death significance compared to life for people under brutal dictatorships and terror regimes. Typical of the spoiled nature of some folks, that they think they suffer at the hands of some company making a buck, the same as someone who may have been shoveled into a mass grave by a dictator. But then why should I expect any sort of logical depth from certain people who rarely if ever demonstrate a very developed grasp of issues?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Sorry, I still don't buy that. It's been proven the UN didn't want him gone, nor the French or Germans who were benefiting by running oil profit scams with him and were more interested in protecting their political interests with Saddam than ousting him. CURRENT EVENTS. No need to dig all the way back twenty years for them.

If everyone wanted him gone- how is it that everyone isn't HAPPY that he's gone? Why the glee with finding any negative in the current US action- and ignoring any and all positive aspects of Saddam and his regime being gone?



Just as I don't understand why pointing out leftist hypocrisy makes many people who opposed Saddam's ousting so defensive.

Case in point: mr. natural demonstrating his incredible shallowness by trying to compare US corporations and tax policies, as having anything to do with, or anywhere near the same level of life and death significance compared to life for people under brutal dictatorships and terror regimes. Typical of the spoiled nature of some folks, that they think they suffer at the hands of some company making a buck, the same as someone who may have been shoveled into a mass grave by a dictator. But then why should I expect any sort of logical depth from certain people who rarely if ever demonstrate a very developed grasp of issues?

for the umpteenth and last time...
Stop with the baseless accusations that to disagree with Bush administration policy is equivalent to supporting Saddam or being a traitor or unpatriotic. Its not true, there has never been anyone on these boards that supported Saddam to my knowledge, and its transparently a hate-filled attack on people who disagree with you by accusing them of things they tell you and others repeatedly aren't true....YET YOU CONTINUE TO SLATHER THE ACCUSATIONS ad nauseum.

It is not only possible to disagree with Bush policy AND agree that Saddam is a very bad guy, its consistent to do so. It is not only possible to be against war AND be supportive and prayerful for the safety of the troops, its consistent to do so.

how is this so? Simple. If you don't like oppressive regimes that attempt to silence opposition, you won't like Saddam and you won't like Bush, for the same reason.
If you are against violence and don't want people to be killed for any reason..GUESS WHAT? you'll be BOTH against the needless invasion of Iraq and the needless loss of the lives of american soldiers and iraqi civilians.
These concepts are NOT mutually exclusive as you keep trying to say....they are in fact complementary concepts.

Now kindly STFU concerning your misconceptions about what liberals think...
stop the conservative whine and moan that goes like this:

Liberals criticize the government, you attack the liberals and make vile accusations against THEIR character.


Guess what? attacking us does not defend Bush. Making outrageous slanderous remarks do not win you the debate.
If you disagree with what liberals think, argue against their points, point out where you think they are wrong, but this constant harrangue and need to demonize people who disagree with you, especially when we keep telling you OVER AND OVER again you're wrong about how WE feel...this is an incredible bore and waste of bandwidth. IF that's the only level of debate of which you're capable, that does not represent your party very well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wow, and speaking of defensive and illustrating PERFECTLY the aforementioned 'wearing of the shoe'!

Not taking your meds again Lerkfish?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Wow, and speaking of defensive and illustrating PERFECTLY the aforementioned 'wearing of the shoe'!

Not taking your meds again Lerkfish?

QED.

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

mr. natural demonstrating his incredible shallowness by trying to compare US corporations and tax policies, as having anything to do with, or anywhere near the same level of life and death significance compared to life for people under brutal dictatorships and terror regimes.

Sorry to burst your little bubble of a retort, but as was made explicitly clear in my *original* post here, I was only pointing out how readily and yet inanely you LOVE to paint the *Left* with a with the *Conservative* mop of slop (Conservative meaning "fiscally responsible" and all that crap -- hence the connection to a thread about totally irresponsible fiscal actions by the alleged *Conservative* party).

thunderous_funker replied with some well stated, reasoned, and nuanced observations about his personal "liberal" POV, and his clear objection to your sloppy "Liberal" smear of everyone who dares raise reasonable questions about this Iraq war and its outcome. (Admittedly, some folks like to rub it in with bad news, but there are some of us who are hopeful about the outcome even if we wonder if this was the best way.)

But none of that matters to you. It's all just "Liberal" BS from those who just *HATE* Bush; and from your POV the best response to it all is to just flush the toilet and don't look folks - it's all "leftist liberal" BS.

Meanwhile, when it comes to pointing out "Conservative" BS, it's like the Wizard of Oz: "Pay No Attention To The Naked Man Behind The Curtain!" Or rather: LOOKIE EVERYONE, OVER THERE, HE'S A LIBERAL! YOU CAN"T BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS! HE CAN"T EVEN GET HIS FACTS STRAIGHT! I'M CRASH HARDDRIVE AND I CAN SPEW VENOM WITH THE BEST AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS JUST A LOONY LEFTY!

Now, CRASH, your welcome to make an ass of yourself as you please. But if you want to argue about corporate tax cheats and corporate welfare, I invite you to come on down and spew in the thread I linked to above. But of course, you dare not because it is so much easier to just scream "LIBERAL LEFTY" at every opportunity in easy to scape-goat threads than actually debate the facts in threads which might leave you torn and tattered like the hollow GIGO* tool you appear to be.

(*Garbage In, Garbage Out)

[Spliffdaddy]

I love you CRASH.

That was the mother of all *SMACKDOWN*s.

It doesn't get any better than that, folks...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Sorry, I still don't buy that. It's been proven the UN didn't want him gone, nor the French or Germans who were benefiting by running oil profit scams with him and were more interested in protecting their political interests with Saddam than ousting him.

I'd like to see the "proof" of that.

Mind you, two businessmen now in jail for circumventing the embargo do not German foreign policy make.

So?

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I love you CRASH.

That was the mother of all *SMACKDOWN*s.

It doesn't get any better than that, folks...

No; it was just a personal attack in lieu of any substance.

That's not a smackdown; that's just proving Lerkfish's point.

-s*

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
...because I wasn't calling you names (unless you take offense at 'infidel'), but giving advice.

Me! I want an advice here too!!! Oh, can I have one? Pretty please??? Give me one with 'communist' in it!

PB.