This entry was posted by enkidu on Monday, February 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm and is filed under lies.com.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Let me be very, very clear, this is a good thing, a responsible thing, it is… the same thing Bush was going to do.
Obama plans to announce his withdrawal strategy as early as Friday. He is expected to choose a compromise 19-month withdrawal plan that leaves behind as many as 50,000 troops for cleanup and protection operations.
So 16 is now 19 and “complete” withdrawal leaves a few support people behind 50,000 their missions will include
limited counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead.
Which is what they are doing now. If we could just get these socialistic tendencies of his in control this guy might end up being almost as good a president as Bush.
Okay, sure. I had this strange suspicion that the violence in Iraq may have parallels with the atrocious actions in El Salvador two and three decades ago while CIA and US military were “advising” in that country too. So I asked if anyone else here saw similarities. Then you asked me to explain, and well it’d take a lot of time to explain such a vague suspicion or hunch without digging in and doing a lot of investigation, which I do not have the inclination or time for – especially on shcb’s behalf.
So by simply typing “El Salvador vs Iraq” into Google we see that (besides El Salvador’s troops being recently withdrawn from Iraq) there were people writing about what they saw as similarities in 2005 between the American tactics in Iraq and the experience in El Salvador and even more so in Columbia; and that there were others who were drawing similar comparisons more recently with talk of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinately. For examples, see links below.
So some old article is probably where the meme about there being similarities entered my mind originally. One big difference I see is that keeping the lid on Iraq may be far more important to the US than El Salvador ever was, due to the enormous monetary and strategic value of Iraqi oil.
During the October 5 vice presidential debate, in lauding the Afghan election, Vice President Dick Cheney stated, “Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had hal guerrilla insurgency [that] controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress. The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. The terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied the right to vote.”
Cheney failed to mention that the postwar UN-sponsored Salvadoran Truth Commission found that over 90 percent of those 75,000 dead were civilians killed by the U.S.-sponsored army and paramilitaries, as was Archbishop Oscar Romero and the six U.S. religious women in 1980, and the six distinguished Jesuit intellectuals (and their housekeeper and her daughter) in 1989. The people apparently voted eagerly for the leaders of these murderers and thugs.
Cheney also neglects mentioning that the “determination of these people to vote” was helped along by voting being legally required, with the public repeatedly warned of this requirement, and the fulfillment of this legal requirement recorded on ID cards that could be demanded by the police. There were also transparent plastic voting boxes used in the Salvadoran elections through which a ballot’s content could be observed. Given the security forces’ willingness to kill and their regular placement of mutilated bodies for public educational display, the public’s eagerness to vote was quite believable. Cheney also failed to note that when asked why they voted, people …
the claim that “terrorists” strove to “shoot up polling places.” This is straightforward disinformation, as there was no shooting up of polling places in either El Salvador or Vietnam during these elections.
In speaking of the “free elections” held in El Salvador, Cheney does not mention that the left did not offer candidates and couldn’t do so because all their leaders who had not been murdered were on a 138 person army death list. He also failed to mention that the two dissident newspapers in El Salvador had been eliminated by threats, physical destruction of facilities, and outright murder; that intermediate organizations like unions and independent political groupings had been dismantled; that there was no freedom of assembly or speech; and that state terror was rampant and had traumatized the population. In short, not one of the conditions of a free election was met in El Salvador’s “free elections”…
my post had nothing to do with the subject of the thread, but the thread was dead, I just had to put my comment somewhere (that is a freebe, have fun with it) I’ll comment more when I have more time. I wasn’t being coy, I just wanted to know direction you were going.
Even if all the things in your links are true and I take anything Noam Chansky is involved in with a grain of salt, but let’s say it’s true, so what? You can find this kind of stuff in any war. I hate to break it to you but the job of the special forces is to train people we like a little better to kill people we like a little worse. Then they take our knowledge and our toys and sometimes do it their way. It doesn’t make it right but the only other alternative is to kill them ourselves. As Rush said in his 35 undeniable truths “there are no atrocities in war, war is an atrocity”
So what so they want to do? “come clean about dirty coal?” what does that mean? Do they have an alternative? Is that alternative viable? Did they run out of ideas for strange movies and PETA was all filled up with celebrities? Enquiring minds want to know.
shcb your idiocy is astounding. It means stop lying about their product. Stop trying to disinform people into making bad decisions based on misperceptions like “burning coal is clean” (sic). Period.
There is an enormous amount of money and effort spent by the coal industry on Washington and state lobbyists and in trying to push environmentally destructive coal projects through regulatory processes. That’s a waste. Plain and simple: it is a waste of money if they fail to gain approval for their coal projects, and if successful the profits benefit the companies and partially assist the tax base but impose an enormous societal cost through environmental degredation and the health effects both from the mining and the burning of the coal.
It’s not going to happen because of corporate dinosaur thinking, but we would all be better off if coal industry faced the music and instead invested their growth capital into green energy pilot projects and in proven, existing green energy technologies.
So would they rather we mine uranium? The site just doesn’t give an alternative.
So what do you want the coal industry to say? “Enviro wackos are right our product sucks, it is killing the planet and offers no benefits to the human race” I would like the Global warming people to come out and say “we have been full of shit for decades” but that isn’t going to happen either. There is plenty of information out there about the environmental impact caused by burning coal, I don’t think the industry is hiding anything, they are doing the best they can to reach a compromise between clean low cost, plentiful and reliable energy.
Your link is the really untruthful party in this debate, they vilify “clean” coal, anyone with ounce of common sense knows that means “cleaner” coal not that coal is clean. They are talking about the stuff Clinton took off the market in the Escalante River area so Muktar and Jimmy could corner the world market, you remember that don’t you?
So what is their VIABLE alternative? (2nd request)
That astounding and annoying. The site was created to show with an ounce of common sense it can be shown that the coal industry lobby is telling lies. Period. The site is not promoting any energy source, and there is no obligation to provide an alternative. Their goal was to get the plain fact that coal is NOT in any way shape or fashion “clean” as was being claimed. Period.
As for alternatives, that is to be determined based on facts, not misleading or disinformation from the coal or any other industry. Viable and environmentally friendly alternatives at this time are, I believe, multi-faceted and dependent on what is available locally.
So asking for a single viable alternative, as you have twice, is a FOOL’s question.
Hey, I hear the 4th quarter GDP figures were finalized today, something like a 6 percent contraction. that’s how the economy performs after eight years of Rethuglican tax breaks for the rich and bullshit for everyone else. What a mess. And now Obama is giving money away to the banks etc., how exactly is throwing good borrowed money after bad supposed to fix that Rethuglican economic mess??? These are dark days and I do not see the end yet.
He is an idea, why don’t the Brothers and a bunch of their Hollywood buddies get a few billion together, if they each gave up the profit on their next couple pictures it should be enough; then they can form an energy company to compete with the coal industry, they could call it Hollyron. If these alternative forms of energy are so cost effective there should be a good market for it. Destroy the coal industry the old fashioned way, compete with it. Wayne Rogers and Jimmy Buffett’s uncle are professional investors, they can use the few billion as seed money, Ted Danson and Selma Hayek can be directors of science Babs can do the PSA’s, and AlGore can lend his credibility to the enterprise.
Six years. The last two were owned by Democrats, can you offer a bill passed by Democrats and vetoed by President Bush that would have mitigated this collapse in any way?
That list of 35 pieces of bullshit was hilarious. Schools need more of the 4 Rs: readin, riting rithmatic and Rush? wow, there is just so much wrong with that… I don’t know where to start.
As to energy policy (and for the life of me I don’t know why I bother to put this in front of wwnj, but perhaps knarls will take heart that there are Americans who aren’t complete dittohead tools). So if we had continued with the Carter era alternative energy efforts, paid down the debt and grown the economy (you know like during the Clinton years), perhaps fossil fuels wouldn’t be the focus of our energy inputs? Coal is dirty. That it is slightly cleaner than it was decades ago isn’t enough. I have my money on Nanosolar (their motto is: cheaper than coal! I wonder if that calculates in the enviro costs of coal? probably, as it helps them tell their story ;-)
I had dinner with a math professor friend and his family a few weeks ago. He reportedly had dinner with some friends prior to our evening where the couple were moving (and he said this with great emphasis, relish and maybe a dash of irony) moving to Europe to work on the new fusion reactor. Dramatic pause. A Tokamac that should produce energy if everything works as they expect it to (I expect some problems and setbacks, but…)
But the economics and the technology are somewhat separate issues, we’ll ignore Enky’s revisionist and simple minded history of those economic times for now. It wouldn’t matter a wit if we had a zero deficit and the most robust economy throughout all those years you still need a technological breakthrough to become energy independent (or drill and mine a bunch more). Now I liked the tax credits for home solar back then, I think that may be what the Enkster is talking about. But the fact still remains that Nanosolar or wind or anything can only produce 10% to 20% of electricity, until we find a way to store electricity; and that doesn’t do anything for cars unless more technology gives them better range or near instantaneous recharging.
What I was getting at with the Brothers site is that you really do need to have an alternative to coal before you start spouting off if you want to be taken seriously. We have it, nuclear. But that has its problems as well. One of my biggest gripes I have with single-issue people is that they don’t look at things from a balanced viewpoint. There are tradeoffs in life; there are problems that can only be mitigated. The Google guys are doing what I said the Hollywood left should do, they have put their millions behind Enky’s pet company, I hope they succeed, I hope they make even more billions, and I hope Nanosolar gets its process perfected. But it won’t make any more than 20% of our electricity, period. And it won’t produce a single gallon of gasoline.
I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to me as a fool on every post, it really doesn’t bother me that much but it gets in the way. I’m trying to have a rational discussion here.
I think the point Enk was making is that the money you Rethuglican clowns have wasted fighting for your dirty energy sources since the Carter era could have instead been invested to buy enough wind, solar, geothermal, wave/tidal, and other green energy supplies – and reduce energy consumption of our machines – to reasonably match supply and demand.
And no (!) you certainly are not trying to have a rational discussion here. If you were, you wouldn’t be blathering, selectively mis-interpreting and failing to recognize previous statements (e.g. would you get it through your head that in the short and medium term there is not going to be a single viable alternative but rather the “viable alternative” will involve implementing a myriad of green technologies, several of which may be suitable for a particular location, but not all.) Rather amusing really, but it’s a little like talking to a circus freak – it gets tiresome awfully fast, or maybe its like passing a car accident – I don’t want to look but it’s often such a colossal mess that it is hard to look away simply because of a morbid curiousity.
Well, in the first place I think we spent all that money because folks were killing us, you can make the case that oil played a part but we’re talking about coal here remember? American coal.
We have spent tons of money on alternative energy, wind gets something like 10 times the government funding as coal, the reason Nanosolar is building a plant in Germany is because of the level of subsidy Germany is paying, not because it is viable. They are claiming it is the first time solar is cheaper than coal, but not yet. Even when they get there it still can only produce that magical 10%
Conservatives have long been in favor of clean, green power… nuclear. The left has been opposed to this green power source.
If a straightforward mortgage rate reduction that puts $340 billion in homeowners’ pockets every year and could slow or stop further housing declines sounds like a simpler and better alternative than the $787 billion of phony tax rebates and pork barrel spending that was just passed by the Democratic Congress, then you’re probably starting to understand why this Republican alternative wasn’t widely debated.
President Barack Obama continued to make the false claim (that is called a lie) that Republicans wanted to do nothing in the face of the crisis. This proposal for lowering home mortgage rates was just one of many alternatives that was introduced by the Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham’s package of personal and corporate tax cuts.
The mortgage rate reduction proposal was killed, not because Democrats didn’t agree with it, but precisely because it was a reasonable alternative that could have sparked intelligent discussion on the best way to improve the economy. When you’re trying to push an $800 billion spending spree through Congress in the dead of night, the last thing you want is an intelligent discussion.
Thus, the availability of lower mortgage rates is a benefit that encourages and rewards financial responsibility and helps wealthier borrowers the most. What’s wrong with that? If you’re a liberal, everything. Free markets are unfair, we’re all victims of evil corporations, America’s racist, etc.
it is Sam the Tax Cheat, not Joe (not his real name) the (unlicensed) Plumber
who gives a bleep what that guy has to say?
when your left-most news source is FOXnews or pantload media, be advised that normal people will laugh at you (or worse). cheers
It is comical how you twist my words to suit your agenda. I never claimed Nanosolar will “produce a single gallon of gasoline.” We need to stop burning so much fossil fuel. Electric vehicles (cars, trains, buses, maglevs, go carts, scooters and motorcycles), powered by ever cheaper panels do indeed replace the use of petrol for transportation. I am not against nukes, but they aren’t safe enough for their cost. I haven’t done a detailed analysis of pebble bed reactors or breeder reactor tech, but I am sure some expert will help us out here.
What I like about Pajamas Media is that it was started by a Hollywood liberal who flipped after 911. They have some really good writers as well, Victor Davis Hanson has always been one of my favorites.
I will grant you this, solar panels charging cars won’t be counted in the 10% maximum generation calculation since they have storage capacity, unless you charge them at night.
Is the Simon guy who you are talking about?
there are plenty of conservatives or Rs in Hollywood.
Does the name Reagan ring a bell? Big B-movie actor? hello?
The other founder is the guy who runs Little Green Footballs – btw, the Rs around here criticize me endlessly for my lack of deference and civility (blah blah blah), but if you want just the tiniest peak at what sort of psycho vitriol animates the right wing, peruse the comment section on LGF for more than 10 minutes. Really ugly scary sh!t. Or you could go mainstream and visit Hannity.com. Don’t forget to vote in their ‘poll’ “what kind of revolution are you hoping for?” armed? zombie? singularity? or plain old apocalypse?
I recall visiting LGF once and I tend to agree with you, it wasn’t quite as crazy as some of Knarly’s conspiracy pages but it was close. I also haven’t been too impressed with Hanity lately. I haven’t made it more than 10 minutes since Colmes left. I enjoyed the show when Colmes was there to temper Hanity and lend some balance but he reminds me of you now. He is just petty and vindictive. He seems to think that if he just makes his opponents look silly by catching them in “gotcha” moments he can discredit them completely. He also tries to do this with cute little sound effects. Now all this is ok in moderation, but he goes way overboard and just comes off as a prick. It’s kind of like watching Stewart except Stewart is intrinsically funny. Hanity, for all his good points, just isn’t funny.
shcb, when is peak energy use?
during day time
when do most trains, cars, buses and so forth operate?
during the day time
when does industry use the most energy?
during the day time
when does the sun shine?
(note – I have no idea when the sun shines out of rush’s @$$ over in the Wingnutoverse, but you Rs just keep basking in its awesome effluence, I think it is really working for you!)
I haven’t touched on wind energy…
does the wind only blow in the day time?
what about stratospheric wind harvesting?
what about conservation and efficiency improvements?
do those only work at night or during the day time?
if we raise the CAFE standards for autos, does that only work part time?
geothermal, hydro, or passive systems… do these work only part time?
There are plenty of smart people working on storing energy in various ways, some mix of these solutions will power us into the future.
But you Rs just keep doubling down on rush, big oil and tax cuts for the wealthy.
thank you shcb for finally coming around to admitting your mistakes and owning up to the consequences.
I have to say after years of reading right wing rants and many of your own, it is refreshing to hear you eat a plateful of crow for statements like solar power won’t “produce a single gallon of gasoline” or “the magic ten percent” (I mean really, you would have to be completely daft to think I was proposing we power our civilization on magic! what a muggle!)
To hear you admit that people use the most energy when they are awake, when the sun shines, but that other forms of energy generation and conservation do indeed work all or most of the time. It is great to hear that we agree the government isn’t the source of innovation, but that it is the entity (for better or worse) that sets the rules of the game. Time for change, before it is too late.
And finally when you agreed that clean coal is something of an oxymoron I nearly fell off my chair. Sure we can clean more of the pollutants out of the waste product, but to hear you say that fossil fuels aren’t the future made my day.
Thank you sir for finally growing a pair and admitting US energy policy has been a complete travesty for decades and you are rededicating yourself to informing and correcting the right wing of our great nation. Together, we as Americans can put men on the moon, together we faced down the threat of fascism, communism and religious hatred (still working on that one), together we can save our planet from environmental disaster (we’ll sell the Indians and Chinese green tech at a profit by golly!)