If O'Reilly ran Iraq, he would run it like Saddam

[solypsist]

On Monday's Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, he shared with us his strategy for keeping the peace in Iraq. As the title notes, it involves ruthless murder.

O’Reilly: Now to me, they’re not fighting it hard enough. See, if I’m president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That’s me… President O’Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, you’re dead.

right click save as audio mp3


I wanted to bend over backwards to be fair to Bill, but I want y’all to listen to the clip. Listen to the way he says, “I shoot you right between the eyes.”

[Devastatin Dave]

Did he happen to click his heels and shot his hand, saluting into the air after his little rant? What a drama queen. O'Reilly says he doesn't believe in the death penalty but he says, "Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes." What a fool...

Well Soly, how would you run Iraq?

[Xiahou]

O'Reilly, the left's useful idiot?

[solypsist]

No, Bush is; you voted for him, right?

Bush is the cause of all other, smaller, idiots, which of course are symptoms of his choices.

O'Reilly, the left's useful idiot?

[makkyo]

He was taking about an effective counter-terrorist strategy. If we continue to fight this war the same way we fought it in Vietnam, it would be impossibe to win. He's fed up with how the war's being fought, and wants ruthless measures against even more ruthless enemies. I understand where he's coming from.

[Avicenna]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

...and that practically is the death penalty, except no court case is required.

[makkyo]

What part of being at war don't you understand?

[Lemur]

Sounds like O'Reilly would like to be a Roman provincial governor, which is clearly impossible. He hasn't even been elected Aedile, much less Praetor. Let's see him work his way up the cursus honorum before we give him a province to govern. (Besides, I think O'Reilly has acquired the "Dangerously Mad" V&V.

[Avicenna]

I don't understand this war.

You got over the Iraq, on some kind of noble mission to install democracy and get rid of terrorism. In the end, chaos is created, terrorists can all concentrate in a certain area where it's easier to blow up Americans, and the civilians hate the majority of the militants in the area, which has few American sympathisers.

Then, to top this off, you propose to kill on sight, even if they're civilians.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What part of being at war don't you understand?

And what part of establishing democracy don't you understand? Isn't that what is being put forward as the reason for the invasion and occupation? You think murdering people willy-nilly is really going to improve the situation?

I thought your president said you'd won the war?

[makkyo]

And what part of establishing democracy don't you understand? Isn't that what is being put forward as the reason for the invasion and occupation? You think murdering people willy-nilly is really going to improve the situation?

It was shoot-on-sight only after curfew, after martial law would be declaired by the Iraqi gov't in certain problem areas. There's a difference between random killings of civilians and trying to secure a place that has claimed the lives of hundereds of people.

[Aenlic]

What part of being at war don't you understand?

What part of invading another nation on false pretenses and then staying there as an occupying force do you not understand?

And if you're talking about the "War on Terror" then how is it possible to have a war against a word, with no victory conditions and no way to measure success? It's like the "War on Drugs" and we're losing that one too.

I like the John Stuart Mill quote in your sig. I prefer his one about conservatives, however.

[Avicenna]

Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Break the curfew, you get shot.

I'm lovin' it.

[makkyo]

Break the curfew, you get shot.

Again, this is only is neighborhoods where people have been found dead in the street, killed execution-style. (and so on) Martial law where the gov't clearly does not have controll still seems reasonable to me.

And if you're talking about the "War on Terror" then how is it possible to have a war against a word, with no victory conditions and no way to measure success? It's like the "War on Drugs" and we're losing that one too.

Do you mean to say that none of these wars are worth fighting is they cannot be 100% acomplished? If that kind of attitude were to prevail, then where would that put our war on unemployment, our war on illiteracy, our war on aids?

What part of invading another nation on false pretenses and then staying there as an occupying force do you not understand?

You can check my posts on the "WMD's Found thread for that one.
But the US military has been staying to secure the formation of the Iraqi government. Occupying? Yes. But it's a far cry from the Soviet "occupation" of East Berlin.

[Lemur]

If that kind of attitude were to prevail, then where would that put our war on unemployment, our war on illiteracy, our war on aids?

Actually, I would like to propose a ban on each and every "War on X" when X does not equal a nation or specific organization. So we can have a War on Al-Qaeda, but no War on Terror. And we can have anti-poverty initiatives, but War on Poverty would get kicked to the curb.

And don't get me started on the War on Drugs. I'm pretty sure drugs won that one.

[Spino]

No, Bush is; you voted for him, right?

Bush is the cause of all other, smaller, idiots, which of course are symptoms of his choices.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
O'Reilly, the left's useful idiot?

Bush is not an idiot, he's a clever and blindly idealistic goober with precious little education who suffers from a bad case of Cindy Brady syndrome (note his expression and responses whenever someone points a camera at him).

Take a good look at the documentary "Journeys with George" before you label GW an idiot. He's a completely different person without the bright lights and TV cameras pointed at him, so much so that one can see how foolish it is to underestimate the guy. Not that GW is living embodiment of 'brilliant', far from it. But he's definitely got a head on his shoulders and knows how to charm the pants off people to get what he wants. Before you decry this documentary as being right wing biased propaganga keep in mind that "Journeys with George" was produced & directed by Alexandra Pelosi, the openly left leaning daughter of Nancy Pelosi, yes 'Nancy left-leaning-mouthpiece-of-the-radical-left&Minority-Leader-of-the-House Pelosi'.

Besides, the Air National Guard isn't in the habit of letting idiots fly F-104 Starfighters.

[Aenlic]

Do you mean to say that none of these wars are worth fighting is they cannot be 100% acomplished? If that kind of attitude were to prevail, then where would that put our war on unemployment, our war on illiteracy, our war on aids?

None of which are wars. You can't fight a war against an idea. If you need a lesson in that, study the history of the Catholic Church fighting the Reformation.

You can check my posts on the "WMD's Found thread for that one.
But the US military has been staying to secure the formation of the Iraqi government. Occupying? Yes. But it's a far cry from the Soviet "occupation" of East Berlin.

Saw the post. Too funny. We knew Saddam had WMD's prior to 1991. We even let him use them on his own people and then sent Rummy to shake Saddam's hand and smile, because at the time he was also using them against our enemy, Iran.

We shut down the WMD program completely. Saddam didn't have the capability to use those WMD's after the mid-1990's. You're welcome to try and prove otherwise. Bush's claim was that Saddam had an active WMD program in 2003. That has been proven false. Again, you're welcome to try and prove otherwise. That post certainly doesn't do it. Keep trying. The Bush administration has been trying for 3 years and hasn't managed it. Maybe you'll have better luck.

As for the part about trying "to secure the formation of the Iraqi government" I'll ask you again. What happened to Bush's claim in 2000 that he wouldn't use our troops for foreign nation building? Doesn't that constitute one of those "flip flops" the Bushistas are so fond of accusing others of doing?

[Aenlic]

Bush is not an idiot, he's a clever and blindly idealistic goober with precious little education who suffers from a bad case of Cindy Brady syndrome (note his expression and responses whenever someone points a camera at him).

Take a good look at the documentary "Journeys with George" before you label GW an idiot. He's a completely different person without the bright lights and TV cameras pointed at him, so much so that one can see how foolish it is to underestimate the guy. Not that GW is living embodiment of 'brilliant', far from it. But he's definitely got a head on his shoulders and knows how to charm the pants off people to get what he wants. Before you decry this documentary as being right wing biased propaganga keep in mind that "Journeys with George" was produced & directed by Alexandra Pelosi, the openly left leaning daughter of Nancy Pelosi, yes 'Nancy left-leaning-mouthpiece-of-the-radical-left&Minority-Leader-of-the-House Pelosi'.

Besides, the Air National Guard isn't in the habit of letting idiots fly F-104 Starfighters.

Yes! Someone who also calls Bush a goober! I knew I wasn't alone. It's the first thought I have every time I see him on TV. What a goober! Bush is clever like a fox. Yes indeed. And foxes can't add 2+2 and get 4 either.

As for the Air National Guard, records optained through the FOIA show that Bush scored the lowest possible on the flight aptitude test (25 out of 100) and still be allowed into the ANG. And as for allowing him to fly. They didn't. Not after he failed to achieve a physical and lost his flight status. In several more years with the Guard, he never - let me repeat that - never regained his flight status. So for almost half his tour of duty he wasn't allowed to fly at all.

[PanzerJaeger]

The obsession with Bill Oreilly some liberals have is truly pathetic.

Hes a talking head. He talks 5 days a week on both the radio and television. Anyone who has to fill that much time with his own personal opinions and observations is bound to make some odd, angry, or downright mistaken statements.

The fact that so many liberals converge on their forums and in their chatrooms in smug celebration every time the man screws up shows the dismal state of their own lives, or lack there of. The man does not speak for conservatives. He has never been elected by conservatives to anything. I seriously doubt many conservatives would list him as a any sort of intellectual when it comes to right-wing ideology.

As for his ideas stated in this thread - I agree wholeheartedly. If martial law and curfews have been put in place, I find no problem with taking appropriate action against those who ignore the rules.

This war was fought over American security and American interests first and foremost. The wellbeing and democratization of the Iraqi people has always been a secondary propaganda tool and should only be pursued as long as the attainment of those goals falls in line with American interests.

[Aenlic]

You're right. This is about us! It's our security first and our interests first! We just need a little more living space! That's all. It's our right and in our interests to get a little more living space. Just a tad more. Nothing much. We have the power; so we'll take that lebensrau... er living space. The USA is the world's hyperpower! We rule. We decide. We make the decisions because we have the power to do so. USA, USA uber alles! Er, I mean we're bringing democracy to the people of the world, whether they like it or not! Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Spino]

You're right. This is about us! It's our security first and our interests first! We just need a little more living space! That's all. It's our right and in our interests to get a little more living space. Just a tad more. Nothing much. We have the power; so we'll take that lebensrau... er living space. The USA is the world's hyperpower! We rule. We decide. We make the decisions because we have the power to do so. USA, USA uber alles! Er, I mean we're bringing democracy to the people of the world, whether they like it or not! Yeah, that's the ticket.

You should seriously consider eliminating processed sugar from your diet.

[PanzerJaeger]

You're a clever fellow, Aenlic.

In your wonderfully insightful post you did make one somewhat cogent point, although I highly doubt you meant to make it.

We make the decisions because we have the power to do so.

That is in fact the way the world works, especially in regards to geopolitics. It is the way it worked before America's ascension and the way it will work after her fall. Humanity is the most advanced species on the planet, but cannot overcome the laws of nature just yet.

I made no moral judgement of that fact one way or the other.

By the way, your attempt to draw a comparison between my statements and the argument for living space in 1940s Germany is rather specious, as I dont know of many Americans who would be interested in moving to Iraq - regardless of the security situation.

[Aenlic]

Or we could just eliminate the jingoists. Reliable genetic testing will surely one day allow us to weed out those less fortunate members of the gene pool.

"I'm sorry, Ma'am. Our genetic tests have indicated a high likelihood that your fetus either suffers from anencephaly or will grow up to be a fan of Fox News or both. You'll have to abort the pregancy."

Wait a sec... I think I just discovered the real reason behind the more radical of the pro-Life movement. They're bombing abortion clinics and killing people to save people (there's a good one) for a secret reason! They want to ensure that the supply of stupid people doesn't stop.

[Aenlic]

You're a clever fellow, Aenlic.

In your wonderfully insightful post you did make one somewhat cogent point, although I highly doubt you meant to make it.



That is in fact the way the world works, especially in regards to geopolitics. It is the way it worked before America's ascension and the way it will work after her fall. Humanity is the most advanced species on the planet, but cannot overcome the laws of nature just yet.

I made no moral judgement of that fact one way or the other.

By the way, your attempt to draw a comparison between my statements and the argument for living space in 1940s Germany is rather specious, as I dont know of many Americans who would be interested in moving to Iraq - regardless of the security situation.

Specious? Too funny. You're using the phrase "geopolitics" and then denying any connection? Are you serious? Maybe some here don't know the origins of geopolitik; but I do. Maybe some here don't know what the idea of geopolitik started and where it started and who it influenced; but I do. Nice, PJ. That's just about the biggest I've seen you make yet.

[Joker85]

Specious? Too funny. You're using the phrase "geopolitics" and then denying any connection? Are you serious? Maybe some here don't know the origins of geopolitik; but I do. Maybe some here don't know what the idea of geopolitik started and where it started and who it influenced; but I do. Nice, PJ. That's just about the biggest I've seen you make yet.

Oddly enough, you and Oreilly are quite similar. Both angry, bitter people who have a habit of spouting random hostile gibberish.

[Aenlic]

Random? Not in the least. Hostile. Absolutely. Gibberish? That would depend on whether or not you know what geopolitik is. I can't help you with that. It's up to you to educate yourself, not me. I recommend opening a book or two.

A mind is like a parachute, Joker85. It has to be open to work. That's the ground approaching you, rather fast. Better do something quick.

[PanzerJaeger]

Or we could just eliminate the jingoists. Reliable genetic testing will surely one day allow us to weed out those less fortunate members of the gene pool.

So you are in favor of eliminating all those who disagree with your world view?

Aenlic, buddy, you may turn out to be more fascist than I am!


Oh, and if you have trouble deciphering the difference between geopolitik and the modern use of the term, PM me, and I'll give you a history lesson.

[Aenlic]

PJ, shame on you. You're trying to confuse the unedumacated among us.

Let's look at the definitions, shall we?

ge·o·pol·i·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-pl-tks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

1. The study of the relationship among politics and geography, demography, and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policy of a nation.

2.
a. A governmental policy employing geopolitics.

b. A Nazi doctrine holding that the geographic, economic, and political needs of Germany justified its invasion and seizure of other lands.

3. A combination of geographic and political factors relating to or influencing a nation or region.

Now, let's examine your use of the word in the context of the discussion in this thread, shall we? You used the term in relation to the U.S. doing what is in its best interests because it has the power to do so. You even said it was a law of nature, too. (Need I remind you how that relates to geopolitik as envisioned by people like Haushofer?). You said that what matters in Iraq is ultimately our interests and our needs. That our needs justified the invasion of Iraq.

Now...

Which definition above does your stance most closely resemble? Invasion. Check. Justified by the political and economic needs of the invading nation. Check. Sound familiar at all?

[makkyo]

Or we could just eliminate the jingoists. Reliable genetic testing will surely one day allow us to weed out those less fortunate members of the gene pool.

I laughed out loud when I read that.

None of which are wars. You can't fight a war against an idea. If you need a lesson in that, study the history of the Catholic Church fighting the Reformation.

Even when the idea is the destruction of your country?

Saw the post. Too funny. We knew Saddam had WMD's prior to 1991. We even let him use them on his own people and then sent Rummy to shake Saddam's hand and smile, because at the time he was also using them against our enemy, Iran.

You seem to forget the whole hostage of American students thing... Iraq was indeed a lesser of two evils at the time.

What happened to Bush's claim in 2000 that he wouldn't use our troops for foreign nation building?

I think 9/11 drastically changed his foreign policy, and he would have been foolish to not do so. There's a difference between flip-flopping and adapting to new circumstances (the deaths of over a thousand civilians in down-town New York City certainly constitutes a change on one's world view).

[Aenlic]

I laughed out loud when I read that.

Good, it was intended as facetious and humorous. Not as a serious statement of reality. At least we can agree that far.

Even when the idea is the destruction of your country?

And the idea of the Reformation wasn't seen as the destruction of the power of the Catholic Church? They too, were fighting an idea which they thought was intended to destroy them. The Catholic Church didn't succeed and we won't succeed. Hearts and minds, remember? You don't win hearts and minds by doing exactly what the enemy accused you of doing before, even though we weren't actually doing it as such before. We made the propaganda real. We actually handed the weapon to the enemy and said "Here!" Al Qaeda accused us of wanting to destroy Islam and occupying Islamic countries and trying to force our way of life on them. So what do we do? We invade an Arab country and tell them we're not leaving until the become a functioning, western-style democracy. How insane is that?

You seem to forget the whole hostage of American students thing... Iraq was indeed a lesser of two evils at the time.

What? Are you talking about the hostages just prior to the first Gulf war? I'm talking way earlier. We knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds. We knew Saddam was gassing the Iranians after they recovered from his invasion and began to push back. And yet, there's Rummy, in the mid-80's, in Baghdad, smiling and shaking Saddam's hand as we sought to help him out.

I think 9/11 drastically changed his foreign policy, and he would have been foolish to not do so. There's a difference between flip-flopping and adapting to new circumstances (the deaths of over a thousand civilians in down-town New York City certainly constitutes a change on one's world view).

But the deaths of over 2500 US service personnel can't change one's world view? Think through to the end of your logical position, please. You're saying that the deaths of 3000 thousand US civilians was sufficient reason for Bush to change his very public stance on using US troops for nation building; but what was your position on John Kerry changing his stance on voting for the war? What was your position on Wesley Clark changing his mind? Did you agree with the characterization of it by the right as "flip-flopping" by those who initially supported the war and now don't? Do you see the problem here? You're effectively saying you only think changing one's mind is justified if the outcome is one with which you agree. That's quite a double standard, isn't it?