Draginol Draginol

The vile left

The vile left

What does it say about your philosphy when it attracts these guys?

Luckily, most vile people on this earth don't pick up on an ideology. And of those that do, few of them are well spoken enough to gather any attention.  Unfortunately, that still leaves us with a number of vile human beings that manage to get their despicable world views broadcast to the world. And most of these vile creatures tend to be from the far left.

I don't pretend to know why most of them are left wingers. Maybe it's because there are simply fewer nasty creatures on the right that are capable of putting thoughts and ideas together in a coherent form to earn any attention. Or maybe it's because the media, already sympathetic to the left, tends to be more willing to distribute nastiness that comes from left wingers and sewage from the right.

The fact is that while there are a few right wing ideologues that manage to get out there a lot (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh to name two), there is no right wing equivalent to Michael Moore, Al Franken, or Ted Rall.  Feel free to disagree with me and name someone on the right that is remotely as nasty and hateful as any of three who get anywhere near the kind of coverage they do. The Christian Coalition can be pretty ideological but they get no where near the attention that kooky Hollywood celebrities get.  Jerry Falwell will occasionally say something nuts but over and over movie stars and singers such as Barbara Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc. manage to get air time with their half-baked ideas and hatemongering.

The vile left can be summed up best by one of its own members, Ted Rall whose belief is simply that he and his kind are more enlightened than the rest of us and therefore he has a duty to try to educate us knuckle-draggers. His mission, like those of his peers, is to let others know that they're not alone. For they are convinced that their number are legion and if they can get the word out, they can change the course of this nation to follow a more enlightened course.

They seem to believe:

  • They are intellectually superior to everyone else
  • They are personally enlightened
  • The average American is "sheep"
  • Their cause is righteous and therefore any distortions to the facts are acceptable because they serve a higher purpose
  • People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools.
  • You can't trust corporations but you can trust big government (as long as they're in charge anyway)
  • The will of the "masses" doesn't matter. They know better and so any means necessary should be used to pursue their agenda.
  • They see the courts and public media as more effective outlets to exercise their will than the ballot box.
  • Conservatives aren't just incorrect, they're evil.
  • Liberalism isn't just correct, it's more civilized, more humane.

They're more common than you may think. They're the smug guy in a political debate on-line who, instead of debating the issue will take time out to correct a misspelling or grammar error -- believing that in itself demonstrates their superiority. Or the guy who will selectively use "facts" in a debate to push their agenda believing a) it's okay to mislead because they're trying to lead us on the proper path and b) we're all too ignorant to realize that we're being fed BS.

But what bugs me isn't that they exist. Every news group or forum always has a few of these guys. What bugs me is that some of them manage to get so much attention. How does a guy like Michael Moore manage to get so much coverage when his material is so blatantly fabricated or misleading? No scandal over Bowling for Columbine where he misrepresented everything from the basic thesis (why gun violence in the US is so high) to little things like implying he got a gun at a bank. And yet people are ready to believe what's in Fahrenheit 9/11? No wonder he probably thinks people are sheep. Except maybe it's not all people who are sheep, maybe just his customers...

Al Franken is the same kind of thing. I saw him on Tim Russert spouting off left wing talking points as if he really believes that BS. Same sort of thing though, because he's better than us, smarter and us and dog gone it, people like him, he feels a license to crap on all those who don't share his ideology. I mean really, what kind of guy is so full of hate that he names his show to antagonize someone else (The O'Franken Factor, very classy)? As Palpatine put it, "Let the hate flow through you.."

Ted Rall of course is on record thinking that people like Pat Tillman are saps and idiots. He wrote this stuff after he was killed in combat btw. So I guess it's no surprise that he wrote this week his belief that if there is a hell, Reagan is there.

And again, I ask you, are there right wing versions of these guys who are remotely as well known?  Most people who are left of center are good decent people just like most people on the right are. A nut like Ann Coulter doesn't mean right wingers are a bunch of extremists. But on the other hand, Ann Coulter isn't wildly popular.  Meanwhile, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Ted Rall have large followings. It should make one wonder of the intellectual and moral character of your ideology when guys like these are increasingly being seen as the face of the left.

13,821 views 75 replies
Reply #51 Top
"As my mother would have said, we call these type of distortions, "lies". The UN doesn't "=" France, no matter how much it may serve some neo-conservative argument."

So admit then that 40 nations is not unilateral. Or is this just another obfuscation and twisting of the facts?

Given the choice of destiney in our hands and destiny in UN hands (who has Sudan on the Human rights commission), I chose our hands. I dont want to redefine Human rights to not include slavery (pervalent and documented in the Sudan). But I guess Our left thinks that is excusible since it is Black on Black.

Kind of like the crime problem they have not fixed yet, even thos being in control of the areas that suffer from it most.

Of course that is not their fault.
Reply #52 Top
re: #49

"The house of Saud wanted to rid themselves of the nasty Hussein."


Huh? Then would you mind explaining why they were the strongest voice against toppling hussein during the gulf war and why they were adamantly against us invading Iraq recently? Or are you saying that that was all a front?

They were very convincing...
Reply #53 Top
"The UN doesn't "=" France, no matter how much it may serve some neo-conservative argument."


Functionally, when France can veto US initiatives, no questions asked,, and delights in doing so as often as possible, the idea that the UN=France is functionally true. Their veto in the security council pretty much requires us to kiss their derriere every time we want UN support. France is a has-been nation with a flagging economy and double digit unemployment. They have barely the international significance of a single US state, but they have the power to veto the will of nations to exert economic influence.

Twisting human rights and security issues for covert economic interest... isn't that what Liberals hate the most these days?

They were happy to make billion dollar deals with a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and fought like mad when those deals were threatened by a movement to remove him from power. I can't think of anything that more epitomizes the word "vile".

Even if we pretend the Bush team made billions from removing Hussein, it is immensly more ethical than making billions supporting his activities.
Reply #54 Top
AWSpacer,

While 40 nations isn't unilateral in name, the action is probably close to unilateral in actuality. Why?

1. Many of the nations are pretty obscure (we'll label those as "sucking up to the USA for profit and pleasure");
2. For the ones that aren't, their support is pretty tepid, at best. Few troops committed, few dollars;
3. The only western nation that has really provided support showing they're truly behind this thing is Britain. And their government may well get trufed from office, so unpopular and divergent is the government position from that of the electorate.

So I'd say that it's pretty close to a unilateral action (although I never suggested it was in the first place).

I'd even go so far as to suggest that some of the western nations providing support were somewhat bullied into it ... "If you're not with us, then you're against us", was some of the rhetoric spewed forth at the time. Yes, you can bully your friends into doing things they don't think are wise, but there's always a cost associated with that.

BakerS,

Well, using your logic regarding the veto position of a security council member, then let's just "say" the UN = United States. The US can veto other countries initiatives, "no questions asked" too. Does that make my statement "functionally" true?

Odd, I remember that it was the US that armed Iraq to the teeth, when the US was against Iran. And I believe that occured primarily under Reagan ... so it wasn't really the liberals who supported Hussein - it was those crazy, crazy, crazy neo-conservatives. Aren't they more fun than a barrel of monkeys!



Reply #55 Top
by draginol:
------------
are you trying to argue that Ann Coulter is in the same league in terms of popular support as say Michael Moore or Ted Rall?
------------

no i am arguing that the following is wrong:

by draginol:
-------------------
Anyway, the left seems to be oblivious to how vile some of their biggest advocates are. Michael Moore gets a standing ovation.

A scumbag like that wouldn't receive that kind of reception on the right even if he did agree with us. We'd be ashamed.
-------------------

ann ""Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do" coulter did indeed get standing ovations. from the right. agree/disagree?


btw, i mentioned franken did three uso tours. do you still feel that he should get lumped in with: "They seem to believe:...People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools"?

Reply By: Awedin Space(Anonymous User)
---------------
Some people say Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. But they never spew hate, and not a single poster has been able to offer a single instance when there was hate!
---------------

i posted TWO for limbaugh in the -first- post of this thread.

-------------------
Let anyone on this thread show me a single instance (Except Ann Coulter, who I have not read, and know very little about) of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, Glen Beck saying anything like Ted Rall, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi (ashimed to even be remotley related to that person), Al Franken, or Randy Rhodes?
--------------------

again in the very same FIRST post i listed several links one of which detailed hannity's writings.
Reply #56 Top

And would you agree with a prevailing opinion (and not just from Democrats) that America's higher moral position has been eroded under the Bush presidency - circa WMD, acting without more European/World support, prisoner abuse scandal, etc. Seems like to me John Kerry would have to shave his head and proclaim himself surpreme leader of the white race to do more damage internationally than Bush has. Sorry for the mental picture of John Kerry that way. But I am curious to know specifically what policies of John Kerry you think are so "dangerous".

What does "more" world support mean? France and Germany? The US has the support of UK, Australia, Japan, MOST of the European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Czech, Bulgaria, Italy, etc.).  If you're getting your moral compass from Germany and France then you have my sympathies.  I don't define who I support based on what France wants but that's just me.

As for making things more dangerous, yes, John Kerry will make life more dangerous for Americans. I don't worry about snooty Frenchman attacking. I worry about Islamic fundamentalists attacking though. And Kerry just doesn't strike me as someone who wants to solve these problems. He'd rather go back to the Clinton-era policy of making nice with the Europeans and hope the problem goes away.  France is on record as believing Iraq is culturally incapable of handling a democracy. That's the kind of crap that I fear Kerry will buy into. 

I want a President who is going to make the tough decisions and take out these terrorists and make a serious effort to democratize the region. I think Bush is more likely to pursue that than Kerry because I think Kerry is mroe concerned about what his elitist liberal friends in Europe think than worrying about dealing with terrorism as a practical matter.

Reply #57 Top
Russel: Ann Coulter would not be able to draw anywhere near the kind of crowds that Michael Moore can. Most people have heard of Michael Moore. How many people even know who Ann Coulter is?
Reply #58 Top

Jay: How can you lable the 40 countries that support the US as obscure?

Let's get down to the brass tacks here:

A sample of countries that supported the United States action in Iraq:
Great Britain
Poland
Italy
Japan
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Hungary
Kuwait
Israel
Czech Republic
Pakistan

A sample of countries who were against it:
France
Germany
Russia
Belgium

A sample of countries that took no specific position:
Turkey
China
India

So on the "Against" side you have France and Germany and Russia basically. Those are the 3 "big powers" who were against it.  China didn't really care much either way. And on the for it you had the United States, UK, Italy and Japan.

It's so transparent that the left has cooked up this mythology that the "world" was against it.  France isn't "the world". France, who invaded the Ivory Coast at the same time the US was going into Iraq is not a viewpoint I consider particularly important.  And what exactly does Germany's support mean anyway? It's not like they can send forces outside their country in significant numbers so who cares. I'll gladly take Japan's support who not only put up billions of dollars to help but sent troops over to help afterwards.

France and Russia were so in Saddam's back pocket that their objection to a US invasion has to be seen for what it is. But that's really not the point, the whole thing demonstrates the egotism of some western Europeans who think they are the whole world.  Only Germany had a GDP greater than a single US state (California). I worry about France's opinon about as much as I worry about Ohio's viewpoint.

Reply #59 Top
"A nut like Ann Coulter.."
I haven't read much by Ann, but I read "TREASON" and found it facinating. What say you?
Reply #60 Top
"Odd, I remember that it was the US that armed Iraq to the teeth, when the US was against Iran."


Yet another liberal myth. France, Russia and China sold exponentially more armament to Iraq.

The Iraqi choice of fighters? - French Mirage, Russia Migs, Chinese Chengdu.
The Iraqi choice for missiles? - French Exocet, Chinese Silkworm, North Korean/Russian SCUDs,, Euromissles. Russian SA-3, SA-2, SA-6, etc.
The Iraqi choice for Helicopters? - Russian HINDs.
The Iraqi choice for tanks? - Russian T-72 and Chinese Type 59.

What armament can you point to, if you don't mind, did Iraq use that was American made? Can you name anything? The only interesting US equipment found in Iraq so far was fiber optic equipment sold to China by the Clinton administration, and was being (ab)used in anti-aircraft equipment.

During the 1980's up to 40% of French arms exports went directly to Iraq, far more than the US. A relationship fostered, I might add, by Chiraq himself as Prime Minister in 1975 when he visted Iraq. Russia and China sold far more to Iraq than even France did.

So, as we were trying to work against Saddam Hussein in the UN, he was supported by France, Russia, China.

When we invaded Iraq whose armament we were up aganst? Was it American? Nope, more hardware from France, Russia, China...

Get your facts straight Jay, it was Chiraq who armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth, along with the other UN 'peacemakers'.
Reply #61 Top
BakrS

Perhaps I misunderstand the Iran contra scandal then? Perhaps this is not the case as I understand it. If so, I apologize. However, my central point to you was that France does not "=" the UN, any more than the US "=" the UN. I think a lot of wise people have, however, seen the point in engaging others through multi-lateral vehicles like the UN, over time.

Perhaps the UN and EU have come to stabilize Europe over the past 50 years. Previously, it was a place racked with much tribalism and warfare. Pulling away from the UN because it's a bit cumbersome now, seems short-sighted in the extreme.


Dragger,

I didn't say ALL the countries were obscure - just "many" ... here are some on a list of some quoted by the White House ...

Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Geez, Micronesia, Palau - now there's a couple of allies you'd want on your side. (Isn't Micronesia underwater yet? - Ah, just wait - with global warming it won't be too long!)

I surely don't think you'll try to argue that these aren't at least somewhat obscure nations, either in population, size and economic prowess.

In any case, with the exception of Britain, the actual monetary, troops or logistical support was pretty small in comparison to the US resources committed. Or are you saying this central point I'm trying to make is incorrect?

And yes, just as the US doesn't really have to worry about France, the biggest kid on the block rarely has to worry about what others think of what he says or does - just don't be suprised that the "lone ranger" viewpoint might not work out that well.

As former defense sec'tary Robert McNamara said in "The Fog of War" (you gotta see this if you're a history buff [it's at your local DVD store]), if you are having trouble convincing your long-time major allies of the righteousness of your viewpoint, then you ought to seriously reconsider it. The fact that even the major allies committed so few resources is an implicit suggestion, in my opinion, that they didn't think this war was a particularly wise course of action.

Reply #62 Top
I respond with only one thing http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=miserable+failure&btnG=Google+Search
actually two here is the second, go to the top result and see the error read it fully http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=weapons+of+mass+destruction
Reply #63 Top

Jay:

Sure, there are obscure countries that support us. From the American point of view, pretty much all the opponents of the war are "obscure".

I'm pretty comfortable with the support the US got: USA, UK, Japan, Italy, Poland. vs. France, Germany, and Russia.  Which side would you want to be on?

Iran Contra, btw, was a small illegal deal in which arms were given to IRAN in exchange for Iran helping free hostages.

One of the great myths spread by liberals was somehow that the US armed Iraq. What's frustrating about that is how easy it would be for someone to know better.  The US fought two wars against Iraq, can anyone recall Iraq using any American made weapons? Luckily they used Russian and French and Chinese weapons which might help explain why they did so poorly.

Reply #64 Top
Those so called obscure countries seem only to be obscure when supporting the U.S. in eliminating dictatorships.
Reply #65 Top
OK so I'm wrong on who armed Iraq. I concede that.

Ithaycu:

Many of these countries are "obscure". They remain obscure, no matter what their viewpoints.

Eritrea, population 4.3 million
Estonia, populatin 1.4 million
Micronesia, population 108,000
Marshall Islands, population 56,427
Tongo, pop 108,000
Palau, pop 19,717
etc, etc.

Let's be realistic about whether this was effectively a unilateral action. If these things are measured by troops, logistical support, or cash, then yah, it's pretty close to a unilateral action. As Robert McNamara says in the "Fog of War", ya gotta ask yourselves why your traditional allies aren't more actively supporting your position.


Reply #66 Top
from a description of the bell 214ST helicopter (which was originally supposed to be manufactured in iran) found here http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=76

"Most 214ST sales were to military customers. Iraq was the 214ST's largest customer, taking delivery of 45 during 1987 and 1988, some most likely seeing service in the Gulf War.

it's very likely these helicopters were used by hussein to gas the kurds.

furthermore, howard teicher, who was on the nsc during the reagan years and who travelled with rumsfeld to iraq in 83 and 84, swore to the following in affadavits reqarding the reagan administration's contacts with hussein.the whitehouse "supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required."

teicher also stated that in 1986, "President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein."

In 1985, the us cdc sent samples of an israeli strain of West Nile virus to basra university rimes.

Reply #67 Top
Re; 214ST I'd note the last paragraph on the linked page:

"Civil applications for the 214ST are numerous, including oil rig support, where its twin engine configuration and 17 passenger main cabin are useful assets."


Was the sale of these civilian helicopters arranged by the US government, or the manufacturer? i dont' think Bell needed approval to sell helicopters to Iraq in 1998, did they? Would these helicopters be considered "arms" per se? On the level of MIG aircraft and Exocet missles?

I would be very interested in a reference for your statement:

"it's very likely these helicopters were used by hussein to gas the kurds. "


I was under the impression that the gas delivered to the Kurds was in the form of cluster bombs and artillery. The Bell 214 doesn't strike me as the type aircraft to be armed in such a way. These are personnel/cargo vehicles for the most part, aren't they?

Here's a few shots of them Helispot - Photos - Type Group - Bell 214.

You'll note that it is the same type aircraft used for civilian purposes all over the world. Not what I would imagine to be an aircraft used for chemical warfare.

Anyway, whether the US had dealings with Iraq hasn't been in question. It's known we supported Iraq against Iran, who wouldn't have at that time, given the climates of both nations? I think it became very apparant in the late 80's, though, that Hussein was not of sound mind. At that point the US stopped supporting him, but other nations continued in the name of economics.

"In 1985, the us cdc sent samples of an israeli strain of West Nile virus to basra university rimes."

West Nile is a viral weapon? I'm not sure what you are implying there. Could this possibly been for research... at a university...?

Reply #68 Top
First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.” --la times feb 13, 1991

in 1984, according to the la times, the state department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 bell 214st helicopters to iraq. the helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. the new york times later reported that saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”

saddam’s forces attacked kurdish civilians in 1988 with poisonous gas from iraqi helicopters and planes. u.s. intelligence sources told the la times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs
Reply #69 Top
why else would we send strains of the west nile virus to iraq? why at all?
Reply #70 Top
i have the text of the la times report by douglas frantz and murray waas dated feb 23, 1992. tell me where to send it

BUSH SECRET EFFORT HELPED IRAQ BUILD ITS WAR MACHINE;
PERSIAN GULF: DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT 9 MONTHS BEFORE HUSSEIN'S INVASION OF KUWAIT THE PRESIDENT
APPROVED $1 BILLION IN AID. OBJECTIONS FROM OTHERS WERE SUPPRESSED.
Reply #71 Top

Regarding unilateralism:

We have already established that only 3 major countries objected to US action in Iraq: France, Germany and Russia.

So let's say the US had their support. How woudl things have been different? Germany can't really send troops outside NATO areas. Russia isn't going to send troops no matter what.  And France's military is too small now that it wouldn't be worth the bother (even the British, who have a vastly more powerful military, couldn't muster more than 10k troops for the occupation -- it's expensive to support and supply a force far from home).

Bush almost certainly made this calculation. The support of France, Germany and Russia really wasn't meaningful outside the political sense.

Reply #72 Top
" why else would we send strains of the west nile virus to iraq? why at all?"


*sigh*. paranoia at its worst. If it had been sent to France you would have immediately seen it as a cooperative medical research effort or something. A republican sends it to an Iraqi university and it is a weapons program, regarless of the fact that it has never and will never be used as a weapon...

No offense Kingbee, but the stuff you put up is dubious and very "interpreted" information. Sometimes a helicopter is just a helicopter. You mish-mash sales from 1983 with alleged sales in the 90's and confuse eras when it was legal and just to support Iraq.

I think it is time to bring the topic back to "The Vile Left" don't you?

Reply #73 Top
Why is it that people against the war are purposely ignoring the fact that not all of the countries that supported the US were "obscure?" I guess, rather than acknowledge the countries such as France that were against the war, we should simply focus on the countries of little significance and pretend they're the only ones that opposed the war.
Reply #74 Top
Search google for Weapons of Mass Destruction you will see my political view, and maybe more