Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 11, 2014

Glenn Greenwald: For those who ask "what should be done?," has the hideous aftermath of the NATO intervention in Libya -- hailed as a grand success for "humanitarian interventions" -- not taught the crucial lessons that (a) bombing for ostensibly "humanitarian" ends virtually never fulfills the claimed goals but rather almost always makes the situation worse; (b) the U.S. military is not designed, and is not deployed, for

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Shawn

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

One commenter at the link: "U.S. foreign policy can be understood under a simple model, as follows: There's a list of countries with a category next to each name, which can be (1) Regime change, (2) Regime continuity, or (3) Don't care. The US and some other imperialistic NATO countries are probably the only ones in the world that see non-neighboring countries in this manner."

Keep attempting to tell me that the two parties are soooooooooo different.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

They're 2 heads of the same snake. We're all being manipulated.

#1 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-11 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Keep attempting to tell me that the two parties are soooooooooo different.

The parties are different. You just don't care about the issues where they differ, but instead only look at foreign policy, privacy, surveillance and expanding presidential power.

No one with any brains would claim the parties are the same on issues like abortion, gay rights, contraception, health care, gun control and many others.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"but instead only look at foreign policy, privacy, surveillance and expanding presidential power"

Only? Imperialism is the number one issue in my book. The national security/surveillance state is second. Identity politics, gun control, abortion are way down the list.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-11 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Imperialism is the number one issue in my book. The national security/surveillance state is second. Identity politics, gun control, abortion are way down the list.

That's your prerogative, but don't act like the issues on which Democrats and Republicans are different don't matter. Tell a same-sex couple of 30 years who just got to legally marry that there's no difference. Tell the millions of us who obtained good insurance through the ACA there's no difference. Tell anyone who supports legal marijuana and decriminalization there's no difference.

Liberals who pretend there's no difference dig a rhetorical hole for themselves that makes them less credible to the rest of us on the left.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Liberals who pretend there's no difference dig a rhetorical hole for themselves that makes them less credible to the rest of us on the left.

Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 02:51 PM

Fortunately, I don't say that. The Demowussies are superior to the Rethugs on social issues--abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc. Other than that, they are imperialists and corporatists.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-11 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Shawn, I tried to teach you awhile back that continually calling the government fascist makes you look like an imbecile, but I suppose I should have added that finding one parallel in two large and diverse groups and using that similarity to call them "the same" makes you appear equally as stupid.

While I'm on the subject, there may be no such thing as "humanitarian bombing", but blowing the ---- out of a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on slaughtering an entire culture because they don't pray to Mecca 5 times a day comes pretty freaking close...close enough for me.

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-11 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one with any brains would claim the parties are the same on issues like abortion, gay rights, contraception, health care, gun control and many others.

---------

Because they are a set of distinctions without differences. Both parties work for the same don. The fact that one doesn't want to do certain jobs, so the other covers those is not relevant to the fact that there is no real difference. i.e. distinction without a difference. They just blow trumpets at different intervals.

Your straw man/ad hominum fails.

And no, the democrats are not superior on any of those things, they just play the other side of the field to keep the sheeple guessing(shell game).

Wake up.

#7 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-11 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Bombing is Never Humanitarian"

Someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-11 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

20,000 men, women, and children have already escaped that mountaintop genocide planned by the IS due to American air strikes which also enabled the Kurdish fighters.

www.theguardian.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-11 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have any problem helping these people stranded or the Kurds. They've always taken care of themselves and have had to over come a lot to build their society. I just hate that if we were going to do something we wait a year knowing what was coming out of Syria.

#10 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just saw a report that says we've only targeted them 15 times? That seems awful low to me.

#11 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals who pretend there's no difference dig a rhetorical hole for themselves that makes them less credible to the rest of us on the left.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are differences but in the ways that matter most the parties are the same. They're both beholden to the same masters.

People who refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans and Democrats are loyal to the same special interests and not the American people are not credible to the rest of us.

#12 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-11 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Funny that there's always money for war.

#13 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-11 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Funny that there's always money for war."

Even though I agree with protecting people from ISIS I also find it odd we have money for that when the GOP has claimed for almost a decade that America is flat broke.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-11 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too many Republicans and Democrats want to address the issues at the Federal level when they are State issues.

Those two parties are very much the same about what they believe is their job -when it comes to Congress.

I wish my State representatives would have some backbone and decline the Federal money and all the ties that come with it.

Considering since the first Presdient which parties have been in control, and out of control, there's two that come to mind immediately.

We really need to have more parties. : )

#15 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-08-11 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

We are broke. Everyone knows we have to borrow.

#16 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-08-11 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Greenwald is not too bright.

Just about 70 years ago, the US dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on Japan, and in doing so saved the country. At the time the bombs were dropped, the Japanese government was preparing ro repel the invading western forces, with every man, woman and child being trained to fight off the invaders. Typically with sticks.

War Department estimates were that there would be a million allied casualties. Japanese society would no longer exist. But two nuclear bombs killed a fee hundred thousand Japanese, with impunity, convincing the Emperor that the war was effectively over. the only question was how many more Japanese had to die.

I would challenge anyone to demonstrate how this is not a perfect example of how bombing can be humanitarian.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-11 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because they are a set of distinctions without differences.

This is glib, soporific nonsense. Wake me up when you want to have a serious conversation about the political parties that run this country.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Then you understand my point but are simply choosing to ignore it in favor of your bread and circuses. i.e. politicians gaming the system against the rest of us.

Fine, but then understand that you are not interested in changing the status quo in any real way. You are PRETENDING to care, but in fact you have no real interest in challenging power in any way that might affect your social status. There is nothing nonsensical about seeing the world way it is, as opposed to the mirage presented. You don't want to.

#19 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-11 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are PRETENDING to care, but in fact you have no real interest in challenging power in any way that might affect your social status.

You throw a lot of words at people to buttress your sense of superiority. It is wasted on me. The next time I care about what you think of my political beliefs will be the first time.

I am perfectly happy to join you in a conversation about challenging Republicans and Democrats who are in lockstep on issues like expanding presidential power, spying on the U.S. populace, eroding civil liberties and continuing the perpetual state of war.

I just don't want to hear a bunch of malarkey about how there are no differences between the parties. You say that a lot, so you're wrong a lot.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Now you are just obfuscating. Calling it malarkey when you can't dispute the point on any measurable basis is a waste of my time.

#21 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-11 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

-People who refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans and Democrats are loyal to the same special interests and not the American people are not credible to the rest of us.

People who refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans and Democrats are loyal to the same special interests because the current system requires they spend more time raising money than legislating and refuse to see that many of them, particularly the Democrats, are not against the interests of the American people they represent... but are mostly just people like the rest of us and willing to change the system... are not credible to the rest of us.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-11 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Liberals who pretend there's no difference dig a rhetorical hole for themselves that makes them less credible to the rest of us on the left."

By liberal I assume you mean progressive. And as a progressive you're probably already solidly in the authoritarian camp. Does ACA provide lower cost insurance? Yes. for some. By making others pay for it. The current progressive position is really centered around disconnecting rights from responsibilities. You have the right to earn a good income, but no responsibility to engage in actions that result in a good income. You have no right to carry a gun. Some people misuse them, so you can't have them. And so on.

These are all sterotypes. but so are yours. You can't be a libertarian and believe that gays should be denied rights, or that marijuana should be legal. The difference between progressives and libertarians is that progressives are absolutely in favor of authoritarianism, understanding it is necessary in achieving their desired end-state. Libertarians don't favor any sort of authoritarianism.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-11 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would challenge anyone to demonstrate how this is not a perfect example of how bombing can be humanitarian.
#17 | Posted by madbomber

That nuking Japan probably killed less on both sides than a ground invasion would have doesn't make it humanitarian.

You make the case that nuking Japan was the more humanitarian choice. That doesn't make nuking Japan a humanitarian act.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-11 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

You make the case that nuking Japan was the more humanitarian choice. That doesn't make nuking Japan a humanitarian act.
#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Given the choices, and that the definition of humanitarian has to do with the concern with human welfare. It is a humanitarian act.

Its not about the individual, but the welfare of humans in general.

What you are driving at is that the murder of Hitler would not have been a humanitarian act, when in fact it most certainly would have been.

#25 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-11 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Given the choices

Indeed, by artificially constraining the choices to nuking japan or invading Japan, it's clear which the more humanitarian choice was.

One might likewise argue that execution of an innocent man by lethal injection is more humanitarian than execution of an innocent man by electric chair. This does not make execution of an innocent man a humanitarian act. Nor does it make Japan innocent.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-11 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Taking out Saddam was done in an environment where those deciding to do so could reasonably think that something better might follow, even if they turned out to be incorrect.

Those that supported the 'Arab Spring' regime changes have no such excuse.

#27 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-08-11 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You make the case that nuking Japan was the more humanitarian choice. That doesn't make nuking Japan a humanitarian act."

I would submit that the humanitarian act was dropping the nuke. Sort of like putting down a cancerous dog or cat is a humane act. It may be a distinction without a difference.

"One might likewise argue that execution of an innocent man by lethal injection is more humanitarian than execution of an innocent man by electric chair. This does not make execution of an innocent man a humanitarian act. Nor does it make Japan innocent."

Uh, that's a silly comparison. Nuking Japan is what saved that country. Choosing a different method of execution for a prisoner doesn't save him. If the US had intentionally chosen to nuke everyone in Japan, as opposed to feeding them to sharks or crucifying them, your analogy would work. In it's current form it doesn't.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-11 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Killing is humanitarian? Wow. Just wow.

#29 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-11 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Taking out Saddam was done in an environment where those deciding to do so could reasonably think that something better might follow, even if they turned out to be incorrect.

----------

Wroooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooong. EVERYONE knew full damn well that Iran would fill the power gap. That was why his daddy didn't do it.

You mean that the indigenous populaces might want to throw off their American viceroys?!? Say it aint so.

#30 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-12 01:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nuking Japan is what saved that country.

Japan's surrender is what saved the country.

The nuking convinced them to surrender.

You are arguing we forced the to surrender in a more humanitarian way than invading them.

Japan, and the people of japan, are not dangerous dogs or cancerous cats. That your argument relies on the dehumanization of the people of Japan to justify their euthanasia reveals you for the monster you are.

Have a nice day.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-12 03:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"
― George Orwell, 1984

#32 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-12 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki

Americans see their own lives as having more value than people from other countries. or with different skin color. eye shape. language. food smell.

#33 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

What you are driving at is that the murder of Hitler would not have been a humanitarian act, when in fact it most certainly would have been.

----------

"We must destroy the village in order to save it."

Again wrong. He would have been replaced, and the genocide would have continued. There were reasons for what was going on that you in your rush to justify tribal psychopathic atrocities are not interested in.

#34 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-12 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki

Americans see their own lives as having more value than people from other countries. or with different skin color. eye shape. language. food smell.

#33 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Versus 2-4 times that number in American casualties during any ground invasion and many more times that in Japanese casualties.

If you want an excuse to call Americans racists you'll probably need to find another one.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-12 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't forget Dresden. Those were White people we fire bombed into nothingness.

#36 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-12 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Versus 2-4 times that number in American casualties during any ground invasion

I forgot to factor in the value ratio of american lives vs. "those [...]"

2400 killed at Pearl x10 = 240,000 slanty-eyed ----. yep your math is spot on. So why would we have needed to invade Japan again? Oh yeah...revenge for Pearl. We needed to extract blood x10.

#37 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:"

No, that's pretty much the laziest, most thoughtless way to look at it. They were a horrible, racist regime who was allied with and just as bad as the friggin Nazis. They were convinced of their own superiority and the right to treat others as lesser beings. And they acted on those beliefs. They committed horrible atrocities across Asia and would have continued to do so if left to their own devices. If they weren't made to surrender, they would have rebuilt the war machine and we'd of likely had to do it all over again eventually. Only by then they might have had nukes too. And allowing that would not only have been incredibly stupid but it would have been a horrible betrayal of all the people who died trying to stop them.

Being a contrarian who screeches about racism is the most vapid way to look at this. There is zero intelligent thought behind your accusations. I don't know who has given you positive feedback on your BS but you couldn't forward a more knee-jerk, lazy opinion.

#38 | Posted by sully at 2014-08-12 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

What are you babbling about? Why should 500K-1 million Americans die because a defeated enemy refuses to give up? The American and Japanese casualties incurred in an invasion ...

I'm babbling about invasion. We had no need to invade Japan, therefore 500K-1M lives were NEVER at stake. The empire was China's problem not ours. They caught us sleeping at Pearl. instead of learning our lesson of lackadaisical defense we decided to seek revenge and exact vengeance. The US took a tragedy and whipped up the psy-ops war within the US to engage in a war we had no business in entering.

Being a contrarian who screeches about racism is the most vapid way to look at this.

But that's exactly what the US did by employing hollywood to churn out their anti-Japanese racist propaganda films where the evil ---- were outgunned by the boys-in-blue.

Obviously, most of america fell into this flag waiving frenzy.

#39 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We had no need to invade Japan, therefore 500K-1M lives were NEVER at stake."

Are you contending that the US didn't need to go to war at all? As if they would have left us alone if only we kept our eyes open? I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'm asking because that is just beyond ridiculous.

Allowing them to rebuild under the same leadership would have been monumentally stupid. Pretty obvious why. Making them surrender had nothing to do with revenge or racism. Its what needed to done.

"But that's exactly what the US did by employing hollywood to churn out their anti-Japanese racist propaganda films where the evil ---- were outgunned by the boys-in-blue."

Alot of the propoganda was racist but that doesn't make the motivation behind the US involvement in the Pacific war racism. And the Japanese at the time were evil, by just about any standard, and were outgunned by the Americans. You're even complaining about parts of the propoganda that were not racist but rather objectively true. I suppose you also think that saying they used antiquated tactics such as charging dug in troops with samauri swords is racist too....

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-12 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, we did not need to go to war.

We needed then(as we need now) to create a flotilla defense of our borders to protect our soil and citizens from hostile forces. period. The only reason Japan attacked us to begin with was our meddling in the pacific far away from our borders. We were bombed to deter involvement.

If the world wants to fight, let them at it. Either protect your borders or fall to your hostile neighbor. The alternative? Fall into agreement with like-minded neighbors and combine forces/borders...then PROTECT YOUR BORDERS!

That has nothing to do with marching across the world to wage war. Instead? We have become INVADERS. It's simple. We need to stay out of it.

The problem? We can't because of the problem we've created for ourselves involving oil and propping up the US dollar.

We're killing people to stay financially solvent.

#41 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"No, we did not need to go to war."

Well that's a very unusual opinion. Common sense tells you that if you allow another country to bomb you into changing your policies, you can expect to be bombed by whomever has a problem with your policies. The idea that we permanently deploy a "flotillas" capable of fending off carrier assaults AND covering every avenue of attack on both coasts, Alaska and Hawaii is completely absurd as well.

I'm 100% against getting involved in foreign wars or sticking our noses where it doesn't belong. But if someone attacks us, that's an entirely different story. You can disagree but claiming that the only reason someone would disagree with you in the context of our reaction to Pearl Harbor is ridiculous and you've said nothing to substantiate such a far out claim.

#42 | Posted by sully at 2014-08-12 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I get it Sully...I imagine few to none would agree with me. An entire generation cheered WW2 and it is still immortalized today. I've just always seen 'the bomb' as a horrific event ever since I first learned of it as a kid.

Anyways. my opinions concerning antiwar/pro-aid will never garner far-reaching support in what's become of this world. Helping people is seen as weak whereas attacking armies is seen as strength.

Funny thing tho. nobody seems to hate New Zealand so much that they want to attack them.

#43 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#43 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-12 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

We probably agree on more than I originally thought.

I hate our current foreign policy, believe it is mostly counter productive from a national standpoint and that other interests are usually being served.

I also think that WWII is way too often dragged out in order to justify military misadventures under completely different circumstances.

Also, I don't think you can call a bombing "humanitarian" - ever. Even in a situation where I think it was justified or the lesser of two evils I won't lie to myself about what is being done.

#44 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-12 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again we use code wars for bombing and war----the dems love the "humanitarian" war. It's of course bogus since that's not why we're bombing. Once again, it's all about the oil. That's why we've been messing with Iraq since 2003. Isis captures some key oil fields on August 3 and we begin the bombing a few days later. The bombings were to blunt ISIS' move toward Erbil. Months of murder, mayhem and brutality by ISIS on Christians and other minorities didn't cause the U.S. or France to intervene militarily for "humanitarian" reasons. Erbil is a major oil center and is probably the 9th largest oil producer in the world. Also, the area of the Kurds holds about 90% of all the natural gas reserves in Iraq that is known currently. Remember, Matsop has attempted to education the unlearned that all our wars are about hydrocarbons and natural resources. Ukraine is no exception but in that instance, it's also about extending NATO's territory and encircling and destabilizing Russia just as Ukraine was destabilized.

#45 | Posted by matsop at 2014-08-12 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also, I don't think you can call a bombing "humanitarian" - ever.

I have to agree. The bombing is not humanitarian but unfortunately necessary as that is the only language these people speak.

The time to talk or send food, medical and educational aid was before ISIS gained control. Now I fear it is too late. There is an evil loose on the land and food and aid won't stop them now.

I say we send Glenn Greenwald over to negotiate with ISIS.

He can take as many men as he thinks he needs.

No bombs, no weapons tho.

It would be interesting to see how many make it back out alive.

They say "We will make a barbecue party on you" (amongst other things)

www.dailymail.co.uk

I say lets fire up the grill.

I am glad we did something and not just stand idly by and let them all die without trying to help.

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-12 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort