freecounterpoint: La Victoire Pinkiste

Friday, June 20, 2008

La Victoire Pinkiste

10 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: 40 years of US sanctions have done so much towards the reinstatement of democracy, I can't imagine why we'd pass a chance at another 40.; 6/20/2008 9:24 AM
Mr roT said...: funny. You're righ, though. Should bomb the fuck out of them. Fucking Buena Vista me limpio el culo con esos viejos putos de mierda.; 6/20/2008 10:27 AM
Tecumseh said...: Pepe: alas, it's closer to 50 years than 40 years since Cuba has been taken over by your buddies. You got a problem with that? Go back to cutting sugar cane.; 6/20/2008 11:01 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: Got a problem with that ?

Not really - w/o citizenship I can go there as often as I want (although my siblings have to go through the Mexico hassle).

More to the point, did it ever strike you that many of these uber-villains came about as an alternative to tyrants who were only marginally better? Cuba, Iran, USSR, ... qui seme le vent recolte la tempete!; 6/20/2008 2:37 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Batista and his immediate predecessors were thugs with a total of about 120,000 fewer murders [and counting] better. The relative proportions have a killing rate under Castro of an order of 10 greater than under Batista.
Admittedly, to a vacationing Vichyist, the death count behind all that convenient servility is all so much "qui donne un rien ?". Still, if that appears as a "marginal" difference to our resident Sun King then his eyeballs have fused into Kayla's scrotum.
Also, as preciously comical is declaring a "marginal' difference between the Shah and the Islamic government that followed [note, for example, that Khomeini had more people killed in his first year in power than the Shah had in a quarter of a century], no where does poor ol' "marginal difference" get so tortured as with Tsar Nicolas followed by Lenin. [or did Pepe meant Kerensky followed by Lenin?]. Gee, about 6,000 total under Nicolas, including the events of 1905, with about 5 million under Lenin [in just a handful of year].
And you want to compare the previous 50 years of Tsars, say 1865 to 1915, with the Soviet Communists from 1920 to 1970?
Imagine how understanding Pepe would be of Kim Il Jong if only he too could enoy the remarkable servility available to the North Korea junketeer.
Sans honte est Versailles, dont Le Seigneur mesure le monde par la convenance de ses convoitises et de ses conforts; 6/20/2008 4:13 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Don't be so daft, aa. it's generation upon generation of abusive regimes that have allowed for the new crop to flourish, not just the latest pahlavi serving.

The funny thing is the united states mostly objects once the colors of the new tyrant don't sit well with the apple pie decorum (pino a notable exception). You have generations of human rights abuse, not a peep is heard, but one uber-wacko burns an american flag in public, and the us starts worrying about his record on human rights.

What better example of this than the hapless saddam, darling of the US, whose only true crime in the eyes of the bush house was to have become a bit too greedy. He gassed his own people! we now hear. Let alone the fact that in one such instance the gassing was the predictable outcome of the us reneging on their promise, saddam had been abusing his people for decades before anyone objected to it here. In other words, the US's principled stand is in reality entirely self-serving.

So Castro is an appalling tyrant ? Yeah, and y'all only give a shit to the extent that he's a red.; 6/21/2008 10:26 AM
Mr roT said...: What about that little Kuwait invasion, Pepe?; 6/21/2008 12:13 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: That's the bit about saddam getting greedy by attempting to control the mouth of the gulf.; 6/21/2008 12:23 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/21/2008 7:48 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Pepe spewed "Don't be so daft, aa. it's generation upon generation of abusive regimes that have allowed for the new crop to flourish, not just the latest pahlavi serving."

?? So, the previous generations of Islamic regimes and caliphates were the abusive ones that allowed the current generation of Islamic regime in search of its caliphate to flourish?
Look, Pepe. secular minded, never mind Western oriented regimes, such as that of Pahlavi, were a very brief interrugnum in a 1400 year span of Islamic rule over Persia. The preceeding Mossadeqh regime was even briefer. The Brit influenced regimes just before were a few decades longer lived, but still ephemera before the long duration of Islam. Either you are claiming the secularists were the ones only marginally better than the Islamic Republic [which don't fit the bloody facts at all] or you are claming the Islamists were the ones only marginally better than the Islamists (in which case, congratulations, you have found a new non-reflexive property).

Pepe enters calls his inner Sean Penn: "The funny thing is the united states mostly objects once the colors of the new tyrant don't sit well with the apple pie decorum (pino a notable exception). You have generations of human rights abuse, not a peep is heard, but one uber-wacko burns an american flag in public, and the us starts worrying about his record on human rights."

So that is why the US worries about human rights in Berkeley?
If any nation on earth has been critical of allies, even strong allies, because of human rights, in this last century, it has been the USA. Pinochet was no exception to this trend. If you actually studied history a little, instead of relying on the cocktail crowd to tell where to put your head, you would know for example that the decision to deny further aid to the Kuomintang in China, or the Pretoria regime in SA, or the Shah of Iran, had everything to do with human rights. As it turned out, Pinochet staying in power led to a better government, the Shah being removed to a far worse one, the Pretorian removed to a better one [fingers crossed], the removal of the Kuomintang to a far worse one. Setting aside, then, whether the decisions in each case proved wise or not, what you have there are four major examples, in a roughly 40 year span, where the critical decision lay on whether or not to turn against an ally because of human rights abuses.
Can you tell me one time France did? England? Germany? Canada? Never mind your favorite Planet Pepe builders of the Radiant Future.

Pepe then went over the cliff, a series of screams dopplering his fall: "What better example of this than the hapless saddam, darling of the US, whose only true crime in the eyes of the bush house was to have become a bit too greedy".
Saddam was hapless? A man who had armies of millions, and number his victims by the millions, was hapless? Is that why the French government sought to curry such favor with him, because they needed the favors of the hapless?

" He gassed his own people! we now hear."
You may now have heard it, for the ears of Versaille always preferred perfumed lies to the stinking truth. But this was heard openly in the mid to late 80's.

"Let alone the fact that in one such instance the gassing was the predictable outcome of the us reneging on their promise"

So let's see which event you just "now" heard you might be referring to. The use of gas in the trench warfare the Iranian front degenerated into? The use of gas Chemical Ali went on trial for, which was against Kurdish villages [no, not after the Gulf War] during the ongoing Iraq-Iran war? The use of gas to execute some political prisoners? C'mon, Pepe, speak Truth to Power.

"saddam had been abusing his people for decades before anyone objected to it here."

Nope. But then Ignorant is one way, after all, to go through life. Look, Saddam took over power from Al-Bakr in 1979, having played an important, if deputy, role in consolidating the secret police and carrying out variouis nationalization programs and other economic "reforms". This power he soon consolidated with his first large scale murdering, starting with the famous imitation of Stalin's purges at the meeting of the Baath Party that year. He launched his opportunistic war against what he perceived to be a weakened Iran just a year later, in 1980. By the mid 80s he was already widely condemned for large scale human rights abuses against his own people, never mind for his conduct of the war. However, he was a staunch ally of "progressive" nations, in particular the Soviet Union, and attempts to condemn him were consistently defeated. It took less than half a decade from his assumption of power to the first open criticisms of Saddam among political leaders in this country.
The French however are another story. They stood by Saddam into 2003. What are a few Iraqi or Iranian "kulaks" to the coffers of Versailles?
The Soviets/Russians, naturally, never were so childish as to think mere human rights was something that entered into one's calculations of self-nterest.

"In other words, the US's principled stand is in reality entirely self-serving."
Uh, no. Has the US stand been self-serving? At times, yes. Hence the arguments to "lean to Iraq" in the its conflict with Iran in order to contain the expansion of Islam Militant. But even in our most cynical moments we were influenced/ or hampered/ by the insistence on considering human rights. Well before Saddam's push into Kuwait, we had ceased any material support to his regime [unlike, say, France, yet again, as well as Germany and the Soviets], precisely for the already widely known murders, gassings, etc.... and even during the conflict the support we gave him was far less than, France, again, yup, France, and Germany, and the Soviets.
Did it ever occur to you, Le Spew, to wonder why when we moved against Iraq in Kuwait almost all their armaments were Soviet or European? Why they had thousands of Soviet "advisors" embedded in all levels of their more technological branches of the military? Because of the USA??
Would we have sought to overthrow Saddam if he had not moved again beyond his nations boundary, and into Kuwait? No.
As it was we had leadership too Pepean to move against Saddam even after he was defeated in the first Gulf War. And PP cheered on Saddam as a mighty warrior for progress, against the evil Ricains, a true non-hapless ally of France. As for PP, where through all those lucrative 90's the UN and the Euros made sweet if oily profit from winking at Saddam's tweaking of the Yankee nose, it has much to ANSWER for.. But it won't.
PP had no quarrel with Saddam, not with his butcheries and certainly not with his version of a Radiant Future. And PP has no quarrel with sinister Greed, no matter how outlandish. After all, rationality and harmony in the proportion are the shibboleths of nonVersaillian minds.; 6/21/2008 8:02 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)