July 06, 2006

War Junkies "Between cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war junkies." "Why is it that the United States, which has not suffered a major terrorist attack at home for more than four years, thinks it's at war, while the United Kingdom, which was hit by a major terrorist attack just a year ago, does not?"
  • Because America is full of very, very frightened & chronically insecure people.
  • And Christians who are actively seeking Armageddon, Chy. You forgot those. Wow, I just made myself even more paranoid ...
  • Those damn Iraqis are always going on about war all the time too. I really wish they'd just shut up about it and agree that everything is fine.
  • Not to mention the fact that we have the world's largest military industrial complex. It requires warfare to keep humming along.
  • Because we'd rather be having a cup of tea and a nice Hob Nob than fetishising the military and banging the war drum, despite what our political 'leaders' have actually 'led' us in too. But if they could see their way to sending a few more chaps over to Afghanistan to stop the chaps that are already there getting their backsides repeatedly kicked, that'd be lovely. Or bring them all back, whichever.
  • Oh, you North Koreans are always going on about your big missles. Go back to Pyonyang, Kim Il Berek.
  • Me thinks that Quid suffers from missile envy.
  • NOW YOU MADE ME FORGET
  • Have a Hob Nob.
  • Stop going on about your nob, Kit Il Fisto. Get back north of the 38th parallel where you belong.
  • being "at war on something" is quite common in u.s. politics: war on poverty (johnson) war on cancer (nixon) war on drugs (nixon, reagan) war on terror (bush) war on terra (ecologists) war on christmas (murdoch)
  • And War on Burger, 15th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
  • What could be better than the WAR ON TERROR? A war on a people or a country is too hard to manipulate and is simply no fun at all. But, a war on an abstraction will keep the war machine running for years and years. Who needs their civil rights? We're fighting a war here, folks, and the last time I checked, the threat level was ECRU, which is much more severe than EGGSHELL. Osama wants to eat your children!
  • Because we'd rather be having a cup of tea and a nice Hob Nob than fetishising the military and banging the war drum *marks kitfisto's name in the "gheye Euro" column*
  • *calls SAS to 'double tap' MCT and quidass*
  • *is glad knobfisto has that kind of access*
  • I too enjoy getting my stereotypes out once in a while, brushing them off and trotting them around the track a bit. They can always use the exercise, and I have to admit, the applause is nice.
  • We don't have football hooligans here, perhaps that's it. Then again, the first two comments were too honest and now that sounds flipper and more frivolous than I intended.
  • Our football hooligans aren't what they used to be. Bally poor show at the World Cup, that's for sure.
  • I'll lob HobNobs at the squabbling mob, and cobble the job. No prob, me hearty swabs! We'll clobber the slobs, Punjab! (Then, the cranky Yanks drank a tank of Sanka®.)
  • I haven't had a good HobNob since I left England. You can find them here, but they're not the same. Just like import strength British beer. *sigh* On topic, perhaps because of their linguistic acuity (having invented the language we both ostensibly use, of course), the British understand that it doesn't make much sense to declare war on a tactic. Or they read our constitution and know that without a congressional declaration, there's no "war"--and haven't done whatever the parliamentary equivalent is. I'll have the mixed grill, or a Yorkshire pudding if it's nice.
  • *reports TP to Homeland Security*
  • We think we are at war because we have an awful lot of troops (over 100,000, right?) who are killing people and being killed. That fits a lot of people's definition of war.
  • War is over. If they want it.
  • What wingnut said. Also, TenaciousP's throwaway line about the British inventing English is just poppycock. LANGUAGE invented PEOPLE - not the other way around. LANGUAGE speaks US - we don't speak langauge. VODKA drinks YOU - in Soviet Russia. No, I don't know I'm taking about. But the point is, saying that X group of people invented a language that X, Y and Z now speak is like praising fish for inventing backbones. BACKBONES invented FISH. NO - I'm not an IDIOT - IDIOT is YOU.
  • No, hang on, I am an idiot. OK - what Tenacious said.
  • You, Sir, are the Nobbiest of Hob Nobs.
  • What kitfisto said.
  • War As to the quarstion posed by the FPP, please RTFM of the PNAC. *passes joint, bobs head, complains about being hassled by The Fes*
  • Oh yeah, quid? It's the QUEEN'S ENGLISH, man! It BELONGS TO HER! She get's 20p every time someone over here mutters "constabulary" or "poppycock." So pay up, you blighter! And have a little respect for Thin Tin Lizzie and Her Mystical Magical Tragical Tongue! God save the Queen. And pass the HobNobs. *puts the kettle on*
  • I'll have darjeeling, thanks.
  • The Grauniad has got the moral gradient the wrong way round. Mr Bush needs there to be a war on so that people will accept, because of the emergency, his doing unconstitutional and improper things. Over here we don't have a constitution, and nobody gives a monkey's about propriety (as Mr Blair is well aware).
  • The Digestives were quite nice too.
  • I wish I hadn't found this website. It's making me nostalgic, and causing involuntary salivation. Forget war, bring on the Biscuit of the Week...
  • My local gourmet shop has started carrying HobNobs, but they're 6 dollars (3.25 pounds) for a small package. As my nutritionist pals say, "It's a sometimes food."
  • I like cookies.
  • enough to fight a war over them? the cookie wars...
  • OK, done snarkulating (call me Ishmael Mr. Sensitive), wanted to mention a couple things: first, there is significant opposition to the war in the US, even amongst conservatives (in some cases especially - we believed in Bush, and in some serious ways he's irked us pretty badly; fiscal conservatives such as myself are especially aghast at some of the, shall we say, considerable expenditures by this administration, and individual rights conservatives, also such as myself, find the overt and rather sunny-day pandering to his social conservative base both offputting and more than a little disingenuous). Which is to say, Americans act no more in concert than any other large population, in fact arguably less so, since the US is so heterogenous, both racially and culturally. Second, there is the history, mentioned earlier, of using "war on [insert] as a rhetorical device - cheap, but aparently effective enough to keep in the toolbox. And third, there is I think the still very real sense of affront that Americans feel since 9/11, that I'd venture to say has been exacerbated by the rest of the world's increasing tendency to, if not in name, than in spirit take the side of the Iraqi insurgency against us (see Putin's remarks on the recent killing of the embassy staff for examples). Although Chy may be right about insecure, I'd say we're not so much frightened as we are of the mind that we're damned if we do or damned if we don't, so we might as well do what suits us. And for this administration and likely the next (regardless of who or what party occupies the white house and congress), staying in Iraq suits us.
  • f8x-like comments about democracy brought to Iraqis and Saddam-out-of-power notions aside, I don't see how it suits us though. It's a fustercluck, a money-pit, no-good-could-ever-come-out-of-this-misadventure-(and also baby slugs are getting blowed up) bad thing. I see it these days in a pretty narrow light of Cheneyburton wanting to force the neocon agenda for world-change-through-war and not much else. The WMD argument has to be given up even as a talking point - they were always going to go in there. The mishandling of almost every aspect (financial, military strategy, civil) and the long-term costs on all fronts make it the biggest debacle ever embarked upon. The neocons wrested control to go in there, and they screwed up royal. The "We're at war" meme is a wild-eyed fetal rocking back and forth by FoxNews & co. Cha-cha-cha.
  • (the f8x-like comments were just shorthand for the universal good reasons that came from the invasion, not a comment on Fes' comments, fwiw. Ymmv, afaik, IMMO, etc)
  • WAR! unh! Good God, ya'll What is is good for? Absolutely NUTHIN! BushCo can rot.
  • Well, admittedly, the points you attribute to f8x are one's that I've proferred in the past as well. I yet think that democracy for Iraq, the removal of a demonstrably maleficient tyrant, are in and of themselves laudable goals. And perhaps I'm a cockeyed optimist, but I think that good can still come of this. It is messier now than pre-war, granted, and there's a lot of blame that can be laid at the feet of the Bush, in exactly the areas you mention. I don't know that there is a point where we can say "we won," in this. But in service of defeating middle eastern terror over the long term, I still have hope. Perhaps a hornets' nest stirred can be more easily removed than one where the hornets may strike unseen. Hell, honestly, I just don't know what's good or bad over there anymore. I just hate to see America, a country and a nation I am proud, even now, to call my own, and one that I think still, in so many ways, represents the best that freedom and democracy has to offer the world, universally despised.
  • I dunno, I doubt we're universally despised. Bush, yeah, but overall I'd bet even those crumpet munching hooligans might give us a break as a hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold country. The Iraq thing, though, we're directly in the way of a FoxNews-led corporate media blowtorch of spin. On basic facts that the rest of the world gets to play with it doesn't hold up. I think that's why they're squinting pointing. $0.02
  • (amid these bombshells, a small personal note: my wife and I received word today that we have the green light to become permanently landed immigrants in Canada. It has been a five-year battle. We are overjoyed. I love my native country, but it has broken my heart.)
  • Congrats, Ralph. I hope you both enjoy your new life up there. You do know they're all murdering robots who will just wait for you to fall asleep before they drain you of your blood and semen, right? I mean, different strokes and all...
  • This looks like a good place to mention that I heard the Iraqi Vice-President, Dr Adil Adbul Mahdi, give a little chat last week at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and if anyone is interested in a summary transcript for their information, my PROFILE is in my EMAIL (or something).
  • I just hate to see America, a country and a nation I am proud, even now, to call my own, and one that I think still, in so many ways, represents the best that freedom and democracy has to offer the world, universally despised. Personally, I hate to see it shaming itself so badly. We've always been considered, at best, somewhat annoying, even by our allies. Our war in Afghanistan was justified, even if some of the actions we committed were not. But the war in Iraq, given the reasons it started (Bringing Democracy To The Heathens was an afterthought, btw) and what has happened since then are, quite frankly, despicable. I won't say we're losing, but damn, it sure don't look like we're winning much, either. In fact, it seems like we're losing a lot more over here in the way of civil rights, etc. than we're gaining by continuing to fight over there.
  • Slight derail... TP, try here for your British goodies fix. I've ordered from them and been very happy. Although the site could use a spiff-up...
  • Welcome to Canadia RalphTheBeaver! Glad to hear that you're here to stay. *hoists a pint o' maple syrup in toast*
  • We've lived with terrorism for years, and we know you can lick it, especially if we don't overreact and make unnecessary sacrifices of liberty in the name of security - for freedom is its own best defence. That's why. please note my lack of thread preview upon the reading of this comment
  • Did someone say military fetish! Do I really need to say it? Sigh, very well. NSFW
  • I just hate to see America, a country and a nation I am proud, even now, to call my own, and one that I think still, in so many ways, represents the best that freedom and democracy has to offer the world, universally despised. Maybe one of the things that irks non-Americans is when Americans tell them that America represents the best that freedom and democracy has to offer the world. Americans didn't invent democracy or freedom, nor did they perfect them. Being proud of your country is laudable. Claiming that it's better than mine is not.
  • Consider me chastened, then.
  • One agrees with Chyren. One must add that a vulgar exhibition of might and power coupled with an absolute determination to have one's voice heard above all others are the characteristics of the fearful and the insecure. This exhibits in microcosm (an individual) as in macrocosm (a nation). In effect, one might postulate that the 'psychological profile' for the U.S.A. could be that of a timid and paranoid elderly lady, with pretentions to an aristocratic lineage; clasping a howitser in trembling hands whilst gazing at an imagined hostile world through a miniature peehole in a steel door barred with locks, hasps and chains. One might also note that whatever definition of 'democracy' the USA defines 'itself' as determining, it is somewhat unrecognisable to the rest of us.
  • Direct democracy: This is where everyone is given the opportunity to participate in making all policy decisions. In countries and large organizations, direct democracy is rarely utilized. Representative democracy: This approach entails people voting to elect representatives in a free and fair electoral system to make policy for them under a wide range of checks and balances to help ensure leadership accountability. Monarchy: (from the Greek "monos arkhein" -- "one ruler") is an absolutist form of government, ruled by a monarch. A distinguishing characteristic of modern monarchies is that the position of monarch often involves inheritance in some form - although this is not always the case. Dictatorship. The office or tenure of a dictator. A state or government under dictatorial rule. Absolute or despotic control or power.
  • My continuing to post to threads such as these is, I'm coming to learn, an exercise in futility worthy of any black-hooded, ball-gagged submissive.
  • What is it with you bitches and your tiresome Hob Nobs? Everyone knows that Jaffa Cakes are the far superior snack food. ;) (I like the smashing orangey bit!)
  • Jaffa Cakes are the dried cow-pats from the devil's own dairy herd. Bleaurgh! But £3.25 for a pack of Hob Nobs?? Blimey! I feel your pain.
  • Americans didn't invent democracy or freedom, nor did they perfect them. Being proud of your country is laudable. Claiming that it's better than mine is not. What? You don't say the Pledge of Allegence in other countries, too? You're just jealous of our freedom and of our ability to directly elect our president. Oh wait, we don't directly elect our president. Carry on, then.
  • Everyone knows that foreigners are fucking idiots. That's why I immigrated.
  • kit

    , you are treading on eggshells, under which is thin ice. You'll be telling me you prefer Milk Chocolate Digestives to Plain choc ones next.
  • No, plain choccy digestives are the best, but Jaffa Cakes are simply wrong, as are those marshmallow tea cake things.
  • It's always struck me as bizarre to try and impose democracy on a society from outside when the whole point of democracy is that it's supposed to reflect the will of the people ... and what's so bloody marvellous about democracy anyway? Works OK in the West where in most cases it's taken hundreds of years and a few painful revolutions to evolve, but who's to say that other societies don't have their valid ways of governing themselves??? And as biscuits go, we're overlooking The King of Biscuits
  • Sorry, my mistake, these are the King of Biscuits
  • They are nice biccies. 99p for 12 in Asda. I keep mine in the fridge.
  • Nil desperandum, Fes: I think you greatly enhance these exchanges. Democracy is the worst system of government, dickdotcom, apart from all the others. You can't really say in the case of Iraq, with its long history of malign Anglo intervention, that it had developed its own valid way of governing itself. In spite of all the inept and atrocious features of the latest intervention (and there are many), its undeniable commitment to independent democracy seems to me still a redeeming feature. What people tend to forget is that since the invasion of Kuwait, there have been no really good options so far as Iraq is concerned. Should that aggression have been allowed to stand? Should Saddam then, or later when sanctions failed, have been allowed a completely free hand to wipe out the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs? Does anyone think that Iraq would be a better place if the troops pulled out tomorrow - or would it suffer partition, civil war, millitary intervention from Turkey and Iran, total collapse of its infrastructure, famine, disease, and erasure as a nation? How long would it be before people started blaming America for all that? I never liked Jaffa cakes, but it was the sight of the Duke of Bedford advertising them that really put me off. Hobnobs are all very well for you young folk, but when yo get to my age, you'll appreciate the solid virtues of a simple Digestive.
  • I once spread peanut butter on a Hob Nob. It was lovely.
  • Woz it better than vegemite?
  • Ew.
  • I once spread peanut butter on a Hob Nob. It was lovely. What you do with homeless drifters is your business, and I'm certainly not one to judge, but you're a pervert who should be forced to register with the government hand have angry bees surgically implanted in his scrotum.
  • Pleggers old chap ... I completely agree with you about Iraq ... and it is a failure of Anglo/German/US foreign policy over many decades that led us to this impasse. I know I'm not offering any solutions, but I suspect that handling the whole thing very differently would have made a world of difference. Maybe we should have been honest and, rather than making up a whole load of obviously spurious stories about non-existent WMDs and frankly ridiculous assertions about terrorism we could have said. 'We don't like Saddam we're gonna get him' That would have had my support. Then we could have handled the post-invasion occupation very differently and allowed the Iraqis to find their own way. Robert Newman's A History of Oil is an hilarous and informative dissection of western intervention in Iraq available at a Google portal video near you.
  • That would have had my support Personally, I still would have been doubtful that letting "the fucking stupidest people on Earth" blow up a country in order to save it was the best possible foreign policy.
  • rather than making up a whole load of obviously spurious stories about non-existent WMDs This is an interesting point, and one I'm not inclined to believe. How do you explain the fact that France, Germany, and Russia, while opposed to military action, all agreed that Iraq had WMDs and called for them to give them up? I think it more likely that the WMDs at one time existed, but were sold or otherwise transferred out of Iraq. I have no doubt that the US administration is capable of completely making shit up, but someone sold those weapons to Iraq, and they're currently unaccounted for.
  • MonkeyFilter: an exercise in futility worthy of any black-hooded, ball-gagged submissive Cheer up ol' Fes, I like your wrongisms as much as the next filthy monkey. Besides, even though I would never admit it, I even agree once in a blue horse. Um, except for there. Otherwise, I wouldn't admit it. Now, on topic: Iraq was a cobbly conflagrated association of mixed grill juxtapositional states with a flag and the lousy Brits did it! J'accuse! *chuckles, sneaks into pantry to hoark choccy bits*
  • Monkeyfilter: a cobbly conflagrated association of mixed grill juxtapositional states.
  • *ears prick up Only once??
  • plegmund wrote: (iraq's) undeniable commitment to independent democracy seems to me still a redeeming feature.
    i'd be interested to know where you see an undeniable commitment to independent democracy. is this based on polling figures? note that i'm not snarking, it's just that i don't see this commitment.
    rocket88 wrote: How do you explain the fact that France, Germany, and Russia, while opposed to military action, all agreed that Iraq had WMDs and called for them to give them up?
    i don't think they agreed at any point that iraq had wmds. i think they all agreed that iraq should allow inspections, but that's different. if they agreed at some point on the existence of wmds, that's interesting.
  • plegmund also wrote:What people tend to forget is that since the invasion of Kuwait, there have been no really good options so far as Iraq is concerned.
    i'm struck by your choice of the invasion of kuwait, rather than the 1988 attacks on his own (kurdish) people or the 1980 attack on iran. it seems to me that since at latest 1980, the options re iraq nosedived.
  • i'd be interested to know where you see an undeniable commitment to independent democracy The Iraqi Vice-President, Dr Adil Adbul Mahdi, had a particular line on this, but I guess no-one is interested.
  • i am. tell me, oh wise one.
  • I didn't actually mean Iraq's commitment to independent democracy, roryk - I'm not sure about that, either. I meant 'the intervention' was at least aimed at establishing an independent democracy, one redeeming feature about it. No doubt my rhetorical prose is to blame for the confusion. You're right about Iraq's options having been pretty poor for a long time. I mention the invasion of Kuwait because that, I think was when the West, or the USA, ceased to have any good options as far as Iraq was concerned.
  • > No doubt my rhetorical prose is to blame for the confusion. it was my fault, probably reading to quickly. looking again at what you wrote, i get the meaning.
  • I not quite sure why everyone says that Iraq's options were poor for a long time. Before we invaded that country had a fairly prosperous middle class that was educated and included lots of independent women. Yes the repression was terrible but there was a slowly building organic movement within the coutnry that would have eventully led to the downfall of Saddam and the establishment of true western oriented democracy. Thanks to the U.S.'s invasion any chance of that happening has completelly disappeared. Women especially are much worse off then they were under Saddam. The truth is, and everybody in Washington knows this, that as soon as we pull out, tomorrow or five years from now, the country will immediately erupt into a bloody three way civil war that will pull in Turkey, Syria, and Iran with a guest spot reserved for Isreal. At this point Bush is just trying to stick it out until his term is up so that when things go South he can blame it on his predecesser.
  • I'm interested. Post it in the thread.
  • > I not quite sure why everyone says that Iraq's options were poor for a long time. i'd rephrase it to say once saddam showed himself capable of using chemical weapons, options regarding iraq nosedived. my personal view is that saddam should've been removed in the early 80s, as soon as it became clear how dangerous he was to his own people and neighbours. amnesty international was campaigning against saddam as early as 1985-86, though its pleas fell on deaf ears to western governments of the time.
  • there was a slowly building organic movement within the coutnry that would have eventully led to the downfall of Saddam and the establishment of true western oriented democracy. No there wasn't. Iraq's options were poor under Saddam because he was a vicious dictator who imprisoned, tortured and shot anyone he didn't like, but who inexcusably enjoyed the full support of the US and UK, even, tacitly, when launching an unprovoked war of aggression against Iran. The options got worse when he went on to invade Kuwait, one of Iraq's best friends and most generous helpers. Finally forced into doing something, the West decided, out of misguided restraint, not to press on to Baghdad, which unfortunately meant standing by while an anti-Saddam rising failed and the most active supporters of democracy in Iraq were systematically wiped out. The Americans and their allies did go so far as to establish 'no-fly' zones in the north and south in order to prevent the Kurds and Marsh Arabs from also suffering genocidal elimination. But then they were in an impasse, committed to policing these zones indefinitely. Reluctant to embark on further military commitments, they imposed sanctions designed to impoverish and destabilise the country until (presumably) the starving people somehow overwhelmed Saddam with their bare hands. Options worse again. It gradually became clear that sanctions were not damaging Saddam, but were estimated to have led to the deaths of Iraqi children in huge numbers. By the time Clinton's term of office came to an end, it was clear that the sanctions had become so morally repugnant and practically ineffective that the international community just would not tolerate their continuation. Hence the invasion, if you ask me (others will say it was to do with implausible stories about WMD - I don't think George Bush ever said it was solely about them), and another downturn in Iraq's fortunes, when it turned out that some of the supposed liberators were sub-human perverts eager to keep Saddam's dungeons in business. To round things off, we now have religious polarisation and violent aggression between Sunnis and Shias. Not many good opportunities over that period, then: but if you think things would have been better without the invasion, i still think you're a starry-eyed optimist.
  • i am. tell me, oh wise one. Oh, that hurt like a headbutt to the chest. I'm interested. Post it in the thread I'd rather not do that.
  • you can e-mail me.
  • I think that I SHALL. Apologies if my self-advertisement came on like the call of a cockwit, roryk, it wasn't my intention mate.
  • and i'm sorry for my flippancy above. i'm genuinely interested.
  • The prob is not that we didn't capture Baghdad the first time around, the prob is that we never should have been there in the first place. Our first war with Iraq was just as immoral as the current one is. What we should have done is let the Arabs fight it out amongst themselves. The single most immoral part of this was the no fly zone. As part of it we were engaged in almost constant bombing of Iraq. Everytime we dropped those bombs innocent people died. All it did was make Saddam stronger and the people weaker. Totalitarian governments, if left to there own devices, tend to eventually fall and fall hard. Look what happened to Cousecu(spelling?). Before we invaded Iraq was a stable government, admittedly a totalitarian one, but stable. It had a well educated middle class and lots of opportunities for women. It was not a hotbed of terrorism or storehouse of WMD. Now Iraq's middle class is being decimated, the country is a center of world terrorism, women are losing all rights, and the whole Middle East is being destabilized. UM, how is this better?
  • and i'm sorry for my flippancy above You're apologising to ME for being flippant??? ;)
  • no, that was a joke :-)
  • It gradually became clear that sanctions were not damaging Saddam Was that with or without the hair-frazzling fraud of the oil-for-food program? *puts spare change in quidnunc's guitar case, tsks pitifully*
  • The sanctions auctully helped Saddam. By helping to impoverish those, the middle class, who posed the greatest threat to him. It also, along with the ten year bombing campaign, introduced a bunker mentality to the Iraqi populace that auctully increased support for Saddam. Every step the U.S. has taken in relation to Iraq over the past fifteen years has been the wrong one and only served to destabilize the Middle East more and increase support for terrorism against the West. The shame of it is, we auctully had a chance to correct these mistakes. Unethical and immoral though the invasion of Iraq was if the aftermath of it had not been bungled things could have worked out. Basically we should have handled it like we did Germany and Japan after WWII. Kept the Iraqi military intact, imposed a democratic constitution on them, and rebuilt the country. Instead our actions have made the situation in the Middle East worse then its ever been before. And its going to get worse. Afghanistan is lost. Iraq is lost. The waves started are going to swamp Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There is a very strong possibility that 100 years from now this will be seen as the start of WWIII.
  • Found from another link I have been watching The Power of Nightmare on Google Video. It shows how we've come to this terrible state.
  • Link please.