The Chixie Dicks On Patriotism
Saturday, June 17, 2006 at 09:27PM In March of 2003, just before the start of the Iraq war, Dixie Chick Natalie Maines said this to an audience in England:
“Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.”
How’s that working for you?
On their website they boast that the “Dixie Chicks return to the “scene of the crime” tonight Shepherd’s Bush in London….” and that they’re having their “first concert in 2 years.” Can’t imagine why.
The Dixie Chicks have been struggling with their new tour promoting their record ‘Taking the Long Way’. Several US stops have been cancelled or postponed due to low ticket sales, although their Canadian tour promises to be very successful. Imagine that! Defectors…Canada…
Now the Chicks have come out with some more brilliant career boosting comments in frustration that they cannot shake it in America. The UK Telegraph said this about the Chicks:
When Maines made her comment on March 10 2003, 10 days before Operation Iraqi Freedom unleashed “shock and awe” over Baghdad, the Dixie Chicks were probably the biggest act in country music. Yet within days, their music vanished from the charts and the airwaves, apoplectic rednecks crushed piles of their CDs with tractors, and the FBI was feverishly monitoring death threats against the trio. It was the most heinous pop-star outrage since Ozzy Osbourne urinated on the Alamo.
“The reaction was as if Natalie had said ‘Death to the President’ or something,” says violinist and vocalist Maguire.
“It was the bullying and the scare factor,” shudders banjo and guitar player Robison. “It was like the McCarthy days, and it was almost like the country was unrecognisable.”
The level of debate can be gauged from the way Maines was compared to “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, who was photographed manning a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun at the height of the Vietnam war.
The Chicks can’t hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. “A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do,” says Robison.
“A lot of pandering started going on, and you’d see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.”
“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”
What a great expose’ of the anti-war, anti-American peacenik movement today. They don’t understand. The American flag is not a prop or a sickening display of ultra-patriotism except by pacifists who stand for nothing but their own appetites. Maines comments show how spoiled rotten Americans who don’t sacrifice for anyone but themselves view the rest of the world. Gratitude, love and humility equal patriotism. Apparently the Chixie Dicks have none of those.
They are clearly frustrated that others don’t hold the same view, that they are in the minority and that the stupidity of their ideology has negative results. GO TO CANADA!
Michelle Malkin Expose the Left California Conservative A Lady’s Ruminations Flopping Aces
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/545343
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (114)
"Dixie Chicks better go away
We don't listen to what you play
We don't buy it or go to shows
Where you play since you love our foes
Dixie Chicks!
You posed naked for magazines
Guessed you thought it would make you queens
Pornographic the skin display
Not as bad as the
things you say when you
Diss our nation and
Diss our nation, yeah!"
Grins!
And you Amy, you are failure of God, but a success of the evil side of humans.
Paint it Black: So how did Amy just prove that this is a "fascist" country moron? By quoting the Dick-see Chicks' idiotic statements? What, you just looking for attention or something? Go leave your snail trails on someone else's blog. God doesn't fail. You're a perfect example. "Let there be stupidity." and then there was Paint it Black. The 8th day.
By the way, someoen wrote to me about the title of the entry, "Chixie Dicks". I thought of the hippie stupid sign "Buck Fush" and thought "Chixie Dicks" was inappropriately appropriate. Hope it doesn't offend anyone.
The funny thing about it, though, is how it's thought that they have a right to be rich, sell out stadiums, etc. When they stop enjoying that kind of success because their singer can't stop shooting her mouth off, suddenly America (and other musicians) become the problem.
It actually kind of saddens me because I used to dig the Dixie Chicks. I was never a huge fan, but I liked some of their songs. I, for one, find this interview a lot more apalling than their rather generic "we don't like President Bush" quote. Natalie grew up in suburban, smalltown Texas so it surprises me she doesn't hold America and American ideals in higher esteem.
One other thing. The Dixie Chicks audience was never just rednecks. You don't sell millions of tickets and CD's with rednecks as your exclusive audience. They had a lot of crossover appeal and it seems like they've been deserted by everyone.
No, wait, actually, these dim-wit-nits should actually visit a depressed country under disguise. They should have to travel _WITHOUT_ their stardom in front. No country will truly let them see what it is really like. Do we honestly think that Bill Gates is seeing the real thing?
Bah, waist of air ... ;)
Dixie Chicks and Sheryl Crow can go ...
What's interesting to me is the "necessity for patriotism," as Maines says. Why would you need every entertainer to share your patriotism? Does this extend to your tailors and fishmongers?
I think there's some confusion about what patriotism is. As I see it, it is "love of country". That need not include love of government. A good patriotic Iraqi should not have supported the Baath Party. A good patriotic Iraqi need not even support the current government. The original "I'm ashamed of Bush" statement was not unpatriotic (far from it, it actually demonstrated a strong patriotism for Texas) it was simply critical of Bush.
As for their complaints at the aftermath of the controversy, I think it's directed towards the corporate reaction than individual fans who revoked their support. Lack of promotion, radio play, supermarkets refusing to carry their stock etc. are the kinds of things that fans can't control, but inevitably stunt sales.
Patriotism is an interesting thing for a young country. Wouldn't you agree?
Hmmm ... there are so many examples of patriotism in so many countries at key points in time. Pick one, and you can see that it is very important. And, I know you see that, I just figured I had to close your question with an answer.
The War of 1812 was a very defining moment in the history of the United States of America. Less than 200 years ago, the US redefined herself. From that point on, to include WWI and WWII, there is a very strong thread within those who do not "Chamberlainize" themselves.
Sorry, being a Patriot, ya get my hackles up when it is taken as inconsequential. I didn't take your comment as an afront, just as a "non-experiencer" ... ;)
What have you sacrificed? Just asking? I think Maine's comment is that people were using the Ubernationalism of the war to sell records. If it were truly an act of patriotism to write proud to be an american why weren't the proceeds from sales given to vets? Kind of like it being a completely hollow jesture to put a yellow ribbon on your SUV.
-I gave my husband for a year to Iraq; so did my kids
-I spend an hour a week counterprotesting hippies who want to pull the troops out of Iraq
-I've helped raise almost $20,000 for Christians in Iraq
-I made a pitch to the Ft. Bragg Parish Council board for ongoing support for Christians in Iraq
-I've talked with a priest from Baghdad during the formation of the Iraqi constitution trying to assist him in ensuring a religious freedom clause (my husband contacted the Vatican consulate if I'm not mistaken)
-we helped an Iraqi man whose brother was murdered by insurgents
-I write hours worth of support on this blog
-I pray daily for lasting peace and victory in Iraq
-etc., etc.
And that's not even what my husband's done! He rocks.
That aside, not everyone has the opportunity or connections to do those things, but everyone can at least support the war effort and get behind the Iraqis and the US effort. There is a great solidarity forming between the US troops and Iraqi troops and security. It's inspiriting to see the bond of brotherhood forming and to see Iraqis as patriotic about their country as we are about ours.
To tear down the war effort is to wish doom on Iraqis. How would you feel if you were them and heard the typical anti-war crap from Americans? It's very confusing and discouraging; and they DO hear it.
Perhaps Maine's point is that "ubernationalism to sell records is wrong", but why would she assume that displays of patriotism are sinister unless she herself disdains patriotism? I think she made that pretty clear in her comments. I guess every American entertainer should put their flags away. I'm military family and we love our country, but should I hide my flags, too? When I counter protest every week I always bring an American flag. I don't "use" it, I display it because I'm PROUD of it. That's what Maine and the Chixie Dicks don't get. People are PROUD of America. There is an anti-American movement among Americans and she obvious is a part of it.
And by the way, country music has the most of any music genre that actually goes into war zones to entertain the troops. They fly into both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as military posts stateside to show support for the war effort, the troops and their families. They don't do it for the money. And you might want to check your facts; many of these singers do support charitable military programs with proceeds. And the fact is that the TROOPS FEEL SUPPORTED. That's the litmus test.
And who are you to judge that a yellow ribbon is a hollow gesture, just because you don't have one? And what's with the class envy? A funny thing is that when we're counterprotesting the hippies we get most of our support from the "well endowed" vehicles. You know, the people who are successful in life, who are educated and can articulate a stance on the war. We can almost always tell the hippie supporters because they drive crappy cars!
Or is your point that you do less for the war on terror than sport a yellow ribbon? That's sad. Something is better than nothing.
I would be interested if you followed up on this line of reasoning. Facinating, really.
Question for you. If you were an individual who marched in protest to try to stop the war from happening because you feared that the U.S. would be stuck in a civil war and battling insurgents for years and that war was not necessary because containment defeated the Soviet Union and after all Saddam was disarmed, and you wrote letters to your congressman and senators stating the same. Let's say for instance you even drive a car that gets 30 mile to the gallon. Let's say it is an expensive car that gets 30 miles to the gallon. I know most cars like this are not "well endowed", but fantasize for me. Let's say you were even a firm believer that the invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror. Let's say you read a lot and you knew that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were by far greater purveyors of terror in terms of individuals, monetary aid, government support and training from the ISI. That would not necessarily mean that you though Saddam was a good guy, but you felt that if evil and terror was what you were interested in attacking then you might find better targets else where. And finally what if you believed that the war in iraq was simply a misguided and failed attempt by a simpleton president to gain the legacy as a "WAR PRESIDENT" by defeating a nation that was crippled by years of sanctions. If you believed all of these things would you think it was justified for someone to tell you that if you want to execise the rights provided to you by the sacrifice of the thousands who have died defending our constitution that you should go to Canada if you don't like it or that you should keep your opinions to yourself because some may think it unpatriotic? Just curious...
I hope you were just, exploring, what sacrifice means for a military family? I'm giving you the chance to just walk away. :)
Whew. I've had to change this note 4 times ... I'll stop now.
let me clarify. I don't want to give you the impression that I don't think it is completely Christian and Jesus like to judge a person by the vehicle they drive. I mean nothing symbolizes success more than what vehicle you drive right? After all what would having a beautiful house, a loving wife and wonderful healthy children be if you couldn't load those kids up in a big ass truck that gets 12 miles to the gallon?
Are you supposing I have an SUV? We're of modest means. Four children on one military salary doesn't afford an SUV. But I don't envy those prosperous enough to partake in the fruits of their labor. Should I? Doesn't that lead to communism?
As for your question, I would ask you to step back and reevaluate your premises. An investigation into the facts, not based on emotion, rhetoric or political/ideological leaning, would steer you away from the beliefs you mentioned. While I truly do respect the idea that the things you mentioned would make one oppose the war, they are not based in fact. Ask yourself if Bill Clinton, Al Gore or the Democrat of your choice were President if you would oppose such military action. I thought you guys were for world peace? Where would you suppose that should begin? And I don't recall any pacifistic clamor during Clinton's bombing of Kosovo or his intervention in Haiti. You might recall Aristide... he was a smaller version of Saddam... so... why the double standard? I think it comes down to whose side you're on.
I posted this entry showing that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a just war by every standard:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/4/21/the-anti-cindy-sheehan.html
The just war doctrine states:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Especially after the last week in Iraq, how do these criteria fail?
You'd have to do a deeper examination into the anti-war movement's doctrine to understand perhaps, if it is in anyway unclear, why deserters are unpatriotic. Perhaps burning the US flag or displaying it upside is not enough to connote a lack of patriotism, but I don't know, if your wife, who is a good decent woman, were called a bitch, whorish imperialistic murder when that is not the case, would you applaud the libelous attacks or perhaps point out how they are lies? To not defend wrongful attacks against those whom you love is not love at all, it is hate.
"An investigation into the facts,..., would steer you away from the beliefs you mentioned." With all respect due to a military family Amy, based upon your statements this appears not to be the case. As I have said, I read a lot. I don't mean books that are sold by Regenery either. I have mentioned several facts, all of which you completely ignore, which is fine. I understand the argument tactics used by the right. If you are loosing an argument change the subject to something you feel more comfortable discussing. Like the new and improved justification for killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. This week “A Just War”. Unfortunately most people are going to remember the stated goal of invading Iraq was that iraq had wmd's. As much as you would like this not to be the case, unfortunately it is. After it became apparent that the fixing of intelligence around this conclusion in the U.S. would not make wmds appear in iraq it became fighting terror abroad so we don't have to fight terror here. Problem with this argument is that iraq was the only Arab nation that was secular and everyone but the most hopeful of Bush supporters has acknowledged that there was no support for terrorism. I am sure it sounds good and your echo chamber pats you on the back for being so clever but the problem is, this argument doesn’t hold water either.
Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S.
Other means were effective. There were not WMD’s were there? As I said, containment defeated the Soviet Union, took 50 years but it avoided world war 3.
There are serious prospects for failure and there always were, which is why many opposed the invasion in the first place. If at last we are successful, and for the future of the free world I pray we are, it is not going to be because of imbeciles like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Richard Pearle, Donald Rumsfeld. It will be because of the shear ingenuity of the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.
Lastly, the evils done,... right now I would say it is probably a wash. But guess what, we are just beginning our stay, Hussien is done.
I don't have the time right now but will briefly say this: top scientists and military from Iraq who met regularly with Saddam differ from you. They say there were WMD and they were moved, largely, to Syria. Syria will not allow access to their sites for investigation. Also, the 10s of thousands of documents being translated into English show that there was a definite al-Qaeda Iraq connection, as well as a WMD program. I'll post links later if you're serious about the information.
No threat to the US? Explain this:
-12 years of Iraq firing at US Air Force planes in the No-Fly Zone (1991-2003).
-Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993. That would be considered an act of aggression.
or this:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/fullsizedmural.jpg
Do you remember the line Pres. Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union address about the axis of evil including countries that also aid and abett terrorists? Democrats stood and applauded for that,too:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
-Saddam paid $25000 to the families of terrorists who’d blow themselves up while killing as many Jews as possible. (Israel is an ally)
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
Saddam offers Osama asylum as he is on the run from the US.
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_globaldragnet/sought_alqaida.htm
-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sought medical attention in Baghdad in 2001 when he was injured in Afghanistan.
Containment took 50 years, and killed over 100,000,000 people. Less people die today in Iraq by far than under Saddam.
You read what you wanted to read regarding the SUV, i have explained myself fully.
Saying Syria will not allow the US to look for Saddam's weapons is absolutley meaningless. Show me a U.N. resolution stating Syria must do this other wise it is a pointless statement. Would we allow Syria to have a look around our country? Don't be absurd.
i have read plenty regarding the Pentagon papers and it is an amalgamation of worthless garbage. Things have been inserted that had nothing to do with Hussien's regime and even the defense department says it can not vouch for the translations that are available. This is a perfect example of where pretend media and real media differs. Pretend media, WND, CNS, Fox, will make an assumption and find people to back the assumption. The real media finds people who should be experts and reports on what they say, to various degrees of accuracy unfortunately, but that is why it pays to have a critical mind.
No threat, yes you read that correctly. 12 years and how many take downs, better yet , how many missles were actually fired?
Assasination attempt, sure that is an act of agression, but I don't recall that being thrown ouot there. Are you adding another to your just war list?
iraq did not aid terrorists and every single so called insatnce you can think of is not proven!!!
He gave money to murders families, we give money to Israel. Tit for tat as far as i am concerned. It was a meaningless act to gain sympathy from arab states.
Bin laden pledged to kill saddam, that was a manical plea.
Al Zarqawi was a leader of a terrorist group trying to create a greater Kurdistan. He was a creation fof the US hype machine. A meaningless bully failure until the US proped him up as bad guy number 2.
"Less people die today in Iraq by far than under Saddam." Unless you can site sources this is a worthless statement and i do not believe it to be correct. As I said Saddam was bad, but the situtation we have created is just as bad if not worse. The average person was safe in Iraq.
By your justifications for invading Iraq the US would seem to have it's hands busy. Venezuela has been a bit uppidy lately, so has North Korea, uzbekistan's dictator who boils people alive and was our ally kicked us out of the country, he said all kinds of bad things about Bush, provocative things. We should invade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"Perhaps your meager earnings cause you to view things from a "have or have not" premise. I will try to remember this when communicating with you."
Later, on June 19, Thomas also wrote:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"
Ketchup and mustard with your shoe, Sirrah?
Definition: replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
I directly responded to her question and i was being quite sincere. The fact that i would say that putting a yellow ribbon on an SUV is shallow and her response being it is because I have class envy is quite strange to me. i will keep that in mind, seriously. i don't believe that acknowlegding one stated financial situation is a personal attack.
I found their comments to be done in very bad taste and saying it on foreign soil made it all the worse for it. They are clueless on what the term "patriotism" means and proceeded to spew forth their stupidity.
I was not impressed with them on Larry King Live they were still backing up what they said or rather what Natalie had said and seemed to quite proud of themselves. WHATEVER!
Prove it.
Saddam violated 14 Gulf War Ceasefire Treaties, as has been proven. Saddam had mass amounts of sarin gas, as has been proven. Real media, like Fox, listens to the military analysts that are actually on the ground in Iraq, as opposed to whatever CNN, CBS, or any other pretend media want to shove down people's throat. They also listen to the Iraqis who seem pretty happy that they're not getting gassed and tortured to death. This "civil war" myth that you leftist trolls keep hyperventilating about has been your topic for 3 years now, and so far it hasn't happened yet.
"Would we allow Syria to have a look around our country?"
Does Syria have pictures of our trucks hauling ass out of Iraq carrying God-knows-what? Don't be ubsurd.
"Kind of like it being a completely hollow jesture to put a yellow ribbon on your SUV."
Or the hollow jesture of dipping a middle finger in ink and pointing it at the White House. Though very effective at glossing over a milestone in world history.
"Al Zarqawi was a leader of a terrorist group trying to create a greater Kurdistan. He was a creation fof the US hype machine. A meaningless bully failure until the US proped him up as bad guy number 2."
That's funny, he was one of the people you Dem liberal buddies kept hoisting up as the bad guy we were SUPPOSE to be after along with Bin Laden, instead of Saddam. Now that we have caught Zarqawi you say he wasn't a threat either. Are you wearing your John Kerry flip flops?
"As I said Saddam was bad, but the situtation we have created is just as bad if not worse."
Yeah, all those terrorists were killing, terrible shame. And a valid response to Amy's links would be nice, while your demanding sources of your own. Its pretty obvious Saddam had WMD's to normal people. The current disgust with the war is not that we're there, but how we're fighting it. Like "Nam, we cuff the hands of our troops, and then bitch about how long its taking. I trust the U.N. with weapons inspections as much as I trust their peacekeepers WON'T commit gang rape in third world countries.
Life was better under Saddam? Sure if you were anywhere but in Iraq. Under his regime approx. 400,000 children died from preventable diseases because he was hoarding U.N. money meant for Iraqis. This according to Human Rights Watch. I came across the stats a while back while doing research on the subject. The White House has these stats on the Hussein regime:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html#
For over 20 years, the greatest threat to Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein's regime -- he has killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.
When Iraq is free, past crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against Iraqis, will be accounted for, in a post-conflict Iraqi-led process. The United States, members of the coalition and international community will work with the Iraqi people to build a strong and credible judicial process to address these abuses.
Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.
According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.
Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.
According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."
The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."
"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.
The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.
The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."
Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2006/country_music/index.html
Damn bastards! They should be unpatriotic and all about the bottom line like the Dixie Chicks.
So don't tell me it was safer.
They were whining awhile back that they might leave the country genre and go to pop, where their liberal, Bush-bashing, pro-abortion views are more well-received.
Thomas, Israel is a legitimate US ally and the legitimate, legal and sovereign government of their country.
Comparing them to terrorist groups/suicide bombers is just ignorant.
My family and I owe you and yours a debt Amy. Thanks for your sacrifice.
Comparing them to terrorist groups/suicide bombers is just ignorant.
It is not ignorant. It is ethnocentric to do anything but. You can't arbitraily use the term terrorist to mean any group of people you do not like. You should check out the Al Jezera web site some time, just to get an idea of how the arab world views the U.S. and Israel. How do you think current U.S. and Israeli policy towards hamas is going to play out? There is going to be a humanitarian crisis like Palestine has never seen. Food riots, murders, acts of terrorism agaist Israel.
Now read carefully so you can understand my position...
What ends are trying to be achieved? The removal of hamas from power.
What means are being employed? The starvation of Palestine.
Do the means justify the ends? No.
It is my view that both organizations are terrorists. Only difference is Israel uses american tax payer supplied f-16's and abrahams tanks.
The number of REPORTED civilian casualties is 43,000, with the actual number estimated to be over 150,000. So 43,000 divided by three is 14,300. As I said, a wash.
meaning that your reliance upon the Just War doctrine is Hooey.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4883964.stm
if you just dismiss this because it is from the BBC then i will no not to bother with you again.
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html
Who do you think the ISG is?
3. Yes, I agree, very glossy. And one of those corners we have turned right?
4. I didn't say Zarqawi was not a threat. I said that before the invasion he had no interest in the US, his organization was strictly Kurd related. however Turkey is a US ally so he was an enemy of our ally. The US made him bad guy number one, it was a self fulfilling prophesy. It is also believed the the U.S. occupation would blame things on terrorists (al Queda) that were actually committed by a home grown insurgency or sectarian attacks.
5. Not sure how to respond to this one Tim. Um, the UN is a big organization and i do believe that gang rapes have occurred. Good thing you don't condem the entire army for sodomizing Iraqi prisoners with glow sticks, murdering civilians, etc... Or is that forgivable because those are our troops and not some third world African nation's UN contengency? You seem a little upset Tim.
More evidence of how great things are in Iraq now!!
I'm not shouting, but because Squarespace doesn't recognize HTML I cannot bold. Therefore, I will CAPITALIZE.
1) WMDs (None found)
NATALIE HOLLAWAY HASN'T BEEN FOUND IN ARUBA. I GUESS SHE NEVER EXISTED. HECK, WE HAVEN'T 'FOUND' OSAMA YET, SO MAYBE HE DOESN'T EXIST, EITHER.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/14/media-ignores-bush-exoneration.html
PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE IS NOT AS FAULTY AS YOU ASSERT. AND THE PRIMARY REASON FOR GOING TO IRAQ WAS THAT SADDAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH UN RESOLUTIONS AND DUALY POSED A THREAT TO US INTERESTS AND SECURITY.
GEORGE TENET, ARIEL SHARON, GEN SADA, IRAQI SCIENTIST KHIDIR HAMZA, ETC,. ALL SAY WMD WERE MOVED TO DAMASCUS, SYRIA IN 2002.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/1/27/wmd-story-ignored-by-media.html
The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.
"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."
Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.
When, during an interview with the Sun in April 2004, Vice President Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had seen such reports.
An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as "completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.
The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.
Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or use chemical weapons. Syria’s chemical warfare program, apart from any weapons that may have been received from Iraq, has long been the source of concern to America, Israel, and Lebanon. In March 2004, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying, "Damascus has an active CW development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW."
2) Iraq caused 9/11 (Nothing to do with it)
NO ONE CLAIMED IRAQ CAUSED 9/11 OR THAT THEY PLOTTED OR PLANNED ALONG WITH AL-QAEDA. THE ASSERTION IS THAT THERE ARE TIES BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA. THERE WERE.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html#3
Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), examined efforts by Saddam Hussein to build and hide weapons of mass destruction, and supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit documents and materials of Saddam's regime.
In this second of a three-part examination of a newly-released document captured in Iraq, Robison offers further evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban reciprocated with an invitation to Iraqi officials to visit Afghanistan.
The document appears to be a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent, and apparently captured in 2003. The translation is provided by Robison's associate, known here as “Sammi.” The notebook deals extensively with the meetings between a prominent Taliban supporter and former Saddam regime officials...
BOOGEY, IT'S NOT THAT SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA WERE TIGHT, BUT US INTELLIGENCE FOUND A LINK OF THEIR MUTUAL INTERESTS AND THE INTELLIGENCE IS NOW BEING BACKED UP BY THE THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND IN IRAQ WHICH ARE BEING TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
YOU CAN SAY SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 IF YOU WANT, BUT SUPPORTING 9/11 INCLUDES IRAQ IN THE AXIS OF EVIL, WHICH BOTH DEMS AND REPUBLICANS STOOD AND APPLAUDED AT THE STATE OF THE UNION 2002 ADDRESS. THIS COUNTS AS 'SUPPORTING THE EVENTS OF 9/11' :
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/fullsizedmural.jpg
3) Terrorists in Iraq prior to invasion. (Saddam had a grip on everyone's butt.
HOW EXACTLY DO YOU KNOW THIS? SADDAM WAS THE BIGGEST TERRORIST BUT BY ALL ACCOUNTS HE HARBORED AL-ZARQAWI AND OFFERED OSAMA BIN LADEN ASYLUM WHEN HE WAS ON THE RUN FROM THE US (CHECK MY PREVIOUS LINKS ABOVE)
4) We would be welcome with flowers. (We were welcomed with IEDs)
WHO SAID WE'D BE WELCOMED WITH FLOWERS? WHEN MY HUSBAND ARRIVED IN BAGHDAD, HE WAS INDEED GREETED AS A LIBERATOR (ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT). IRAQIS WERE SCARED BECAUSE DURING THE 1ST GULF WAR THE US CAME AND WENT, AND SADDAM MET IRAQI SYMPATHY TO US TROOPS WITH MASS MURDER. BUT WE WERE, NONETHELESS, WELCOMED AND IRAQIS NOW SAY THEY DO NOT WANT US TO LEAVE UNTIL THEY ARE MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT. I CAN PRODUCE PROOF OF THIS IF YOU'D LIKE.
5) Mission Accomplished.(A flop photo-op with a big lie of a message from an
AWOL guy. I dare you to put that picture up)
NO NEED TO DARE, BOOGEY. ON THE 3RD ANNIVERSARY OF THE "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" EVENT I POSTED AN ARTICLE ON IT HERE:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/5/3/mission-accomplished-is-right.html
The truth is that Pres. Bush was 100% accurate in his statement. The "Mission Accomplished" banner seen aboard the USS Lincoln was used by the Navy at the completion of the ship’s mission in Operation Iraqi Freedom as it arrived at port. It was not a part of the President’s speech, although it was true that they do describe the successful conclusion of Major Combat Operations in Iraq as well.
US Army Field Manual 3-0, paragraph 2-12,Operations states:
A campaign is a related series of military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space. A major operation is a series of tactical actions (battles, engagements, strikes) conducted by various combat forces of a single or several services, coordinated in time and place, to accomplish operational, and sometimes strategic objectives in an operational area. These actions are conducted simultaneously or sequentially under a common plan and are controlled by a single commander.
In other words, Major Combat Operations (MCO) require U.S. military operations to deter and defeat large-scale aggression by a state or coalition that threatens a U.S. ally or the stability of a region. It involves joint and potentially combined military operations that project, apply, and sustain substantial US combat and combat support forces for high-intensity/high-end conflict.
What followed was an insurgency, which does NOT meet the standard for MCO. President Bush’s annotation, “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country,” clarified this.
THAT'S GOTTA BE IT FOR NOW, BOOGEY. YOU MIGHT WANT TO PROVE YOUR ACCUSATIONS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE LIBERAL TALKING POINTS WITH NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP.
No offense, I don't take liberal sites seriously. Not that liberals have been caught lying or anything, but still.....
If you don't think there are difficulties in war you are incredibly niave. The fact that you would gloat over the hardships of Iraqis shows where you have your investment in this engagement. Exactly how long do you give Iraq to modify its Islamic roots? What is going on in Iraq is unprecidented and the Iraqi people are making it work. Don't look for sunshine and rainbows in a war, my friend. Look for casualties, sweat and tears. The rainbow comes afterwards.
RE the SUVs and partaking in the fruits of your labour: gluttony is still a Deadly Sin; I think given the scarcity of petrol, a responsible person would be careful about how he uses it, regardless of how successful or hardworking he is.
So you are saying the US embassy document is a forgery and it is not a big deal even if it were true because Clinton was accused of sexual harrassment? Interesting defense, hope it works for your readers because it seems really childish to me.
Regarding everything else it appears you are concedeing that i win the arguement, which is of course true, because to make an omlet you have to bust eggs!! Is that it?
Wow! Getting a bit risque there, ehh? "Chixie Dicks"? Naked women in your blog photo? What next? (Oh yeah, great article by the way! Good comments too.)
Regards (:D)
Despite minimal airplay, Taking the Long Way debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, selling 526,000 copies in the first week (the year's second-best such total for any country act) and making it a gold record within its first week. The Chicks became the first female group in chart history to have three albums debut at #1
Do you think there are no enemies of the President's policy in Iraq in England? Or Canada? Do you really think that the English public is "friendly" about the war in Iraq? Isn't that why the Chicks initially commented on it, because they knew their audience?
Hawkeye, sorry about that. I couldn't resist the "Saddam's Angels" tatoo across the leg! That pretty much sums it up.
SC4peace, the Dixie Chicks are incredibly talented and I enjoyed them up until 2003. They should have just "Shut up and Sung". The fact remains that they cannot sell out concerts in the US and have to take it to Canada to join the rest of the deserting pacificists.
Perhaps not. I can, however, use the term to describe suicide bombers who wander into cafes specifically to kill civilians, women and small children. If another term besides "terrorist" applies, I'd love to know what it might be.
"You should check out the Al Jezera web site some time, just to get an idea of how the arab world views the U.S. and Israel."
I know how they view the US and Israel.
"How do you think current U.S. and Israeli policy towards hamas is going to play out?"
Hamas is a terrorist organization who refuses to even discuss any peace plan that deals with Israel as a sovereign nation with a right to exist. They have been classified by the US government (among others) as a terrorist organization. It is understandable then that the US and Israel do not approve of the Hamas-led PA. Moreover, the Hamas-led PA has in recent months sanctioned terror attacks against Israel, which could be the first time that leaders of an Arab nation have gone on the record as calling for terrorist attacks against any country to the international media.
What exactly would you prefer the Israeli leadership do about this?
"There is going to be a humanitarian crisis like Palestine has never seen. Food riots, murders, acts of terrorism agaist Israel."
Those things go hand-in-hand wherever Muslims seem to be. Before the Gaza withdrawal, the area was clean, well-kempt and generally not a bad place to live. After the withdrawal, it's pretty much a dumping ground for terrorist's trash while they plan and execute terror attacks (which were supposed to have been prevented by the withdrawal in the first place!).
It's nice to see you're trying to keep this evenly balanced.
"What ends are trying to be achieved? The removal of hamas from power."
Really? I've not seen anything about that one way or the other. I'm not arguing your point, just saying it's news to me.
"What means are being employed? The starvation of Palestine."
There is no sovereign nation known as Palestine. There never has been. There's no unique Palestinian culture. There's no language known as "Palestinian". "Palestinians" themselves are Arabs, indistinguishable from the citizens of a litany of other Middle Eastern countries.
Jews, on the other hand, have held a majority in that area for decades upon decades and the rebirth of Israel was an internationally recognized and legal move. Moreover, the original declaration called for the creation of a state called Palestine and the nascent-Israelis agreed to that but the would be-Palestinians did not. Israel's existence is *not* an "occupation". It's their land. Might I also say that Islamic Israeli citizens have a *much* better life in Israel than Jews do, well, pretty much anywhere in the entire Middle East.
On top of all that, Muslims didn't care one bit about Jerusalem until Israel became a nation again. Then, all of a sudden, it becomes the third most holy site in all of Islam!
"It is my view that both organizations are terrorists. Only difference is Israel uses american tax payer supplied f-16's and abrahams tanks."
Israel is a natural ally of the US. America was founded upon Christian principles while Israel is obviously the Jewish state. Right from the get-go the two nations have much in common. I suppose it doesn't hurt that Israel is (arguably now) the only functional democracy that exists in the entire Middle East.
While I don't doubt there Israelis who would love to wipe out every nation who opposes them, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of Israelis are willing to sacrifice just about anything in exchange for peace. It's terrorists who keep launching Kossam rockets.
If you honestly see no legal, moral or methodical difference between the state of Israel and terrorist organizations who attack her, there's really no point in carrying on with this conversation.
By the way, I don't think the US has been a good ally to Israel of late. But that's just me.
Basic points-
There is no state of Palestine. Never has been.
The Muslims have no claim (theological or otherwise) to Jerusalem.
The actions of the IDF have been defensive, reactive or in some other way provoked by terrorist organizations.
The state of Israel exists legally.