Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Something for Wakefield

After a bit of a hiatus, commenter "Wakefield Tolbert" is back, trashing me with a vengeance. Among his other incoherent ramblings, he takes time out to pat hisself on the back for the USA's destruction of the evil regime of Saddam Hussein thusly:
The only thing I can say to the whole Iraq "quagmire" (though I notice it's going better than the new liberal "good" war over in Afghanistan, where Bambi can't find out how to quell the bleeding), is that Hussein is NOT going to be put back into bloody-mattress rape-room Vegas-80s Glory.

Totally awesome Wakey. We'll ignore the USA's past support for Saddam Hussein (no we won't), but I do want to refer you to this example of the glorious benefits of bush II's invasion of Iraq.
There are more than a million Iraqi refugees in Syria, many are women whose husbands or fathers have been killed. Banned from working legally, they have few options outside the sex trade. No one knows how many end up as prostitutes, but Hana Ibrahim, founder of the Iraqi women's group Women's Will, puts the figure at 50,000.

Unhappy reading Wakefield.

(Oh, by the way, what's the USA doing about the massive Iraqi refugee problem that it created? Sweet fuck all.)


Todd said...

If getting rid of Hussein was Tolbert's reason for invading Iraq, we should borrow that logic and call for an invasion of the US:


thwap said...

I await Tolbert's response with bated breath.

Anonymous said...

El Braino suggests you try, Todd.

Query: You and what army?

El Braino

Todd said...

Oh, me and other people who care about the raw deal American workers have been getting for some time now.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Perhaps you Canucks have some kind of archaic formatting going on up there, and God knows what else you need not disclose, but the standard format is generally "pat himself on the back."

Seems the Queen's Chilly Dominion is not all she's cracked up to be these days, and we shan't Fait Du Canada.

Now for things non-grammarian.

I mentioned only that Hussein's re-ascension to power is highly problematic in all his rape room glory, you clown.

Not that wars have no aftermath or consequences, or that the fallout from such extended conflicts is not serious.

Yes, 50,000 is a sad number of any occasion, but then so were the millions liquidated under Hussein.
Yes, we gave Hussein technical support and Intel, yet, as the counterbalance to Iran at the time.

But we've been down the other more serious accusation road before.

And if you want a link war, we can play that game too:

Democrats under the watch of Clinton thought as much also, as pointed out and as they also verified the concerns over WMD:

Yes, Virginia, there really WAS a report that said Hussein might not have
had WMD at the time we invaded but he certainly had this in his plan,
and he had had them before and used them before:

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Having said that, Hussein was a brutal person in any case, giving evidence to that old saw that those who're not afraid to torment their own will also torment others:

What the Dems said before they said something different on these issues:

My, how political climates can change so fast....

Other Resources on this matter:

And in part....

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;


Here is the whole resolution:

There were at least 14 reasons to eliminate the regime listed by then Prez Clinton.

And then there is this from the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Bill Clinton:

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.

But that was before radical leftist groups like the Kossers and MoveOn.Org pulled the Democrats chain. The Democrats have now become a total embarrassment with some rather selective/faded memories."


Wakefield Tolbert said...

When Hussein became recalcitrant about certain issues, we got rid of him.
We could not let the situation stand, and it was clear that the only reason he even made overtured to the UN was the very threat of force.

Sorry, the world is not a cleaner place, but even the "good" guys of YOUR bunch (FDR and Co) had their own attack dog modes for fighting conflicts, and even found that alliances with sweet Uncle Joe (killer of 60 million of his own countrymen) were deemed necessary at the time.

Iraq can and will be a fundamentally better place for the efforts, even if they don't, right away, duplicate the ass-pump lifestyle of the Canadian rot you fluffers have in Fait Du Canada.


Now, as far as.... "If getting rid of Hussein was Tolbert's reason for invading Iraq, we should borrow that logic and call for an invasion of the US:"

Nicely done, Sir! ...except that it was not "my" reason; it was Bush'. Before him, it was a gaggle of liberal Democrats whining about Bush the Elder not getting the job done, even though THEY were the ones who told us we had to defer to the Europeans in the Coalition, and THEIR judgment, to even take action.

(Now that's an hombre with a plan! So let's get back to it, shall we?)

We'll cut deal on that one and even split the difference, Mr. Chief of Operations.

Help get rid of the Bambi administration, and then we'll talk.

After this, fair warning is given that Mr. Tolbert is no longer interested in discussing Ttwit's defense of the Palestinian Gut Splat Brigades, or for that manner any more talk about his rather obtuse support for the Dysfunctional Death Cults that now seem geared to have an amen chorus from Twit for nukes, and other less-than-good tidings.

And stop piddling with AlterNet, Commondreams, and the other coffeehouse grimer hippies. I'm not impressed with their nauseating hate, and poseur positions devoid of any historical context.

Certainly don't link three in a row. That would sully and muddy even your own nasty little Schoolyard.

I think we're done here.

thwap said...


"Yes, we did support Saddam Hussein. And yes, things have gone terrible for millions of Iraqis [with no end in sight], but Saddam was worse. Oh, and yes, we supported him. To counter-balance Iran [who you sold arms to]."

You know what Wakey? You're a joke. A really sick, unfunny joke.

By the way, I shant be reading whatever piece-of-shit links YOU provided. I'll keep reading sane sources. The ones that said correctly that there were no WMDs while you were crying and moaning and rocking back and forth in terror.

You say you're going? Thank God. You've provided me with plenty of fodder, but you're also really tiresome, viciously racist, and incredibly stupid.

FDR is not on my team, but I'll hep you to something butch: FDR didn't ask to sign-up with Stalin against Hitler. Churchill was at war with Hitler. Hitler attacked Stalin's country and the UK and the USSR decided to fight together. Then Japan attacked the USA and Hitler went in with them. That's how the USA ended up on the same team as the USSR.

And to equate cynically supporting Saddam Hussein to "counter-balance" an Iran that had absolutely no territorial or geo-political ambitions with the US-Soviet alliance against Hitler is the height of idiocy.

Again, good riddance.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

I would not have returned were it not for that snideness about the links, and that someone told me you dissed fackcheck and fumento.
Who in turn annihilated your take on Iraqgate. is a mainline website that analyses, as does scopes, the real Monty.

If you don't like that, then you really are in fantasy land. And if you're really to the Left of FDR, then you're about to be off the edge of the earth despite it's roundness.

As to Stalin, there was NOT a "need" to have an alliance except on paper and happenstance.

It's one thing to have two war fronts open up. It's quite another for FDR to piss on his slippers and give away half of Europe (speaking of the "human" side of things and aftermaths). Even Stalin said the "silly old dotard of a man can't look at me in the eyes."

What happened in post-war Europe, and the surrender of MILLIONS of human beings over to sweet Joe Stalin will stand as a testament to the most horrid moments in politically convenient compromise.

That sorry legacy stands with us even today, and the aftershocks are felt in the sour demographics and health issues Russians suffer as well as Eastern Europeans, from a generation of living under socialist tutelage and bondage and oppression.

FDR helped forge those chains, monkey.

As to racism, you can try that dark force power on master Yoda.

blah blah..etc.

It has no effect on me. That's a quip pus-packet people like you always use when you've run out of ammo, can't defend the Pally Death Cults and Headnippers, and merely notice (so YOU THINK) that their complexion might be darker than mine.

And yet, they are Caucasian as I am, and my skin is darker than theirs, as is my hair.

This is a CULTURAL issue, not one of race, you mollusk. And that fact that Europe is disintegrating and in need of the power of men like Charles Martel more than pussification lords like Gordon Brown is not made any less real by your charges. In fact, that's a tiresome charge.

Though leftists cannot comprehend that, as it is a distinction that moves beyond their comfy boundaries of labeling things for convenience and that even saying Good Morning can have dire ideological consequences.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

make that:



thwap said...

pompous ass.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
thwap said...

El Braino,

I know you're most comfortable with snide drive-bys (given your rather shallow, superficial understanding of the world), but I'm under no obligation to accommodate you.