Friedman to Palestinians: Suck on This
America’s leading foreign affairs columnist once again endorses collective punishment of Arabs. I wish he would stick to climate change:
Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future. [...] In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.
This in much the same way that Osama bin Laden sought to “educate” American civilians about the price to be paid for supporting corrupt oil monarchies by killing people who happened to be in a prominent skyscraper, and the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade tried to educate Israeli civilians about the cost of occupation with this suicide bombing in Beit Yisrael? Or, I suppose, the United States when firebombing Dresden. As with his repugnant remarks that the point of invading Iraq was to send a “suck on this” message to Arabs everywhere, Friedman is positing a much sicker rationale for military action than its actual initiators have been willing to articulate.
96 Responses to “Friedman to Palestinians: Suck on This”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
At least he’s being honest now. But is he really “America’s leading foreign affairs columnist”, instead of, say, Kristof?
January 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
As I recall back in May 2003 Friedman wrote an OpEd piece entitled “Because We Could.” He advanced 4 reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. Number 3, WMD, he called bogus (and in other places the stated reason). Number 4 he called moral: the establishment of democracy. Numbers 1 & 2 were that we’d been attacked by Arab Muslims and the Iraqis are Arab Muslims, so we should just show them a lesson. Friedman called these reasons real and right.
I wrote him a long letter pointing that people all over the world, including the Muslim world, can and do read the Times; he never answered. I wrote the Times several times; they never so much as acknowledged that anyone raised a problem with a piece they published.
Check the second and third clauses of the Genocide Conventions; this isn’t even a difficult case. He’s been doing this stuff for a long time.
For those who genuinely wonder why some of us cannot support Isreal, this is exactly the sort of stuff folks of my general position are talking about.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
But is he really “America’s leading foreign affairs columnist”
Sure as Rick Warren is “America’s Pastor.” Oh, and Friedman’s also ultra-Liberal. Obviously.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I’m sick to death of Friedman putting smiley faces on morally repellent ideas.
Oh wait, I stopped reading him five years ago.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I read the column recently too and thought this is nuts! Might write a letter (I know, so brave) Is what he said even true regarding Lebanon?
Regarding Iraq and Friedman’s reasons, Saddam could have let the inspectors in and avoided a war but he felt that Bush was bluffing. Big mistake. It’s good Saddam is gone, he did collective punishment all the time, against Kurds against the Shia of the south. But no, for some his Iraq was a land of rainbows and kids flying kites.
I think if Iraq turns out all right, Bush’s legacy won’t be so bad, which will gall some people. Also a lot of what Obama will be able to accomplish will depend on Iraq.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Oh Tom, you ignorant slut.
His entire thesis can be quickly and easily proven wrong, given that Hizbollah started shooting rockets into Israel after the bombing of Hamas started.
In the aftermath of the Lebanese war, Hizbollah emerged more popular and powerful than ever, given that it was the only entity within Lebanon that tried to repulse the Israeli invasion.
So, apparently the lesson learned is that Hizbollah is your average Lebanese citizen’s friend, regardless of religion. The other lesson that was learned is that Hizbollah will still shoot rockets into Israel without hesitation.
I think Tom Friedman really just hates A-Rabs.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Is there any kind of research that backs up the claim that if we totally shit on the friends of our enemies for things our enemies have done then they’ll naturally blame our enemies and become OUR friends instead. It seems totally backwards to me. Can anyone point to an instance of this ever happening? This is not snark. I’m genuinely curious.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Peter K, there were inspectors in Iraq. Hans Blix’s folks had to leave because of our impending invasion. Mohammed el Barridiei (sorry, spelling) said in public that Iraq did not have nukes; Dick Cheney thought otherwise. I do not weep for Saddam Hussein’s passing, just for the quality of argument that Friedman advanced and regular advances.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I think if Iraq turns out all right, Bush’s legacy won’t be so bad, which will gall some people.
Mm-hm. Well, good luck with that. Hopefully Iraq won’t turn to be a “disappointment.”
January 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Peter K., the sheer ignorant falsity of your second paragraph makes me sad. Not that you think it, but that this seemingly resolute ignorance is so common amongst reasonably intelligent people.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Tom Friedman can be so cheerful because he has never been on a battlefield and war has never arrived on his doorstep.
That could change one day.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Thomas Friedman has long been the Ugly American’s face to the rest of the world. I wish Paul Krugman took an interest in foreign affairs, maybe he could slap him around.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Not that I disagree at all, but I thought you didn’t believe in metaphors.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Saddam could have let the inspectors in and avoided a war. . .”
HAHAHAHAHA! Shut up.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Tom Friedman is awful, but it was the British who fire-bombed Dresden. (We fire bombed a lot of other places, mostly in Japan, but not that one.)
January 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@moreinsorrow
Blix and El-Baradei were trying to stop a war regardless, which I can respect, but still.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
“During 2002, Bush repeatedly backed demands for unfettered inspection and disarmament with threats of military force. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. The results of these inspections were mixed, with the inspectors discovering no WMD programs but concluding that Iraqi declarations failed to prove that all such weapons had been properly destroyed.”
Because they were bluffing. They wanted neighbors and Iraqi enemies to think they had them. And they felt that Bush was bluffing and wouldn’t attack.
“Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”[120] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq’s VX nerve agent program was missing, and that “no convincing evidence” was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[120] France even believed that Saddam had stockpiles of anthrax and botulism toxin, and the ability to produce VX.[121] ”
After 9-11, they felt it was better to be safe than sorry.
“The CIA had contacted Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was being paid by the French as an agent. Sabri informed them that Saddam had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.”
Maybe Saddam was pissed about getting kicked out of Kuwait? Most of the 9-11 terrorist came from neighbors of Iraq who are allies, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. A democratic Iraq would have a beneficial effect on these countries and Iran.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.
So.
How’zat working out?
*looks at today’s newspaper*
Yikes!
January 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Saddam could have let the inspectors in and avoided a war. . .”
HAHAHAHAHA! Shut up.
Or rather he could have cooperated. Instead he didn’t and he hung for it. Smart…
January 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Peter K,
Those talking points expired years ago.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Peter K:
“Saddam could have let the inspectors in and avoided a war”
“Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002.”
See any direct contradictions there?
Get a fucking clue – Bush wanted a war so he got a war, Saddam had no impact on his decision.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
You are all missing the meta point of this column, which is that the behavior of Arab enemies of enemies of Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas has shifted the debate in Israel, and among even many of its liberal American supporters. Remember: Friedman made his journalistic bones writing critical articles about Israel and its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Israel is full of liberal Jews like Friedman, many of whom — like Friedman — were critical of Israel and advocates of making concessions to the Arabs in return for peace. The nihilism of the Palestinians over the last decade has poisoned that, and now even most liberal Jews (especially liberal Israeli Jews) support Israel’s military response to Hamas.
Palestinian nihilists wanted war, and now they’re getting what they wanted good and hard.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Friedman is correct that Israel’s goal is teaching Palestinians supporting Hamas a lesson by using collective punishment. That’s what it is. Iraq war was also collective punishment of Arabs/Muslims in the eye of many Americans. Hamas and Hizbollah see it the same way when they attack civilians.
Support for collective punishments are so common which makes it necessary to discuss it openly without making it a PC issue. Part of the support is purely due to the sense of revenge. But there are cases that collective punishment has worked as a tool to make political gains.
two ways that it can work:
1- creating a direct fear in the target population.
For example, the collective punishment of the population in Nicaragua through the wars and terrorism by Contras combined with US sanctions resulted in convincing the population that they should not be voting for Sandanista back in 1990. The other example is many european countries didn’t commit troops to Afghanistan mainly due to the fear of terrorism.
2- creating counter-arguments for dissenters in the target population or organizations.
For example, when “the left” argues that invading Iraq creates more terrorism in a way shows that terrorism has worked in creating fear in the public. Most dissenters in the Middle East who argue for making peace with Israel even under unjust terms are making their case mostly based on reducing the damage done by Israel.
The collective punishments don’t work most of the time though. In many case, the target population doesn’t have any power to change the outcome. 10 years of severe sanction on Iraqi population didn’t change anything politically in Iraq.
These punishment usually create more hatred and end up providing more supporters for extremism.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Friedman is an ignorant jerk. Why anyone listens to this man is beyond me.
The only thing “flat” is his forehead.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Here is the “Because we could” column “more in sorrow” references above in comment #2. (though worth noting that I don’t think the headlines for columns are not provided by the columnists)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2D91030F937A35755C0A9659C8B63
More in Sorrow badly misunderstood (or just wrongly remembers) that column.
Here is what Friedman called the “right reason”:
The “right reason” for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam’s missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states — young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Peter K., the sheer ignorant falsity of your second paragraph makes me sad. Not that you think it, but that this seemingly resolute ignorance is so common amongst reasonably intelligent people.
Maybe it is the peaceniks who are ignorant? That’s my view. Or certain people just oppose whatever conservatives say automatically b/c it’s easy and doesn’t require critical thinking skills.
Saddam could have cooperated much more and done it much earlier. He wanted to bluff about it – fact – and he didn’t believe Bush would invaded – fact.
If Iraq turns out well and is good influence on the rest of the region, maybe it was worth it to prove once and for all Saddam doesn’t have WMDs. Now we know it. Before we didn’t.
Don’t get mad at me, “moreinsorrow” brought it up, I’m just correcting him.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Fred: “the behavior of Arab enemies of enemies of Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas has shifted the debate in Israel, and among even many of its liberal American supporters.”
Maybe Israel’s behavior, rhetoric, and propeganda has shifted the internal debate. Even Friedman understands that Israel’s actions aren’t targeting Hamas and Hezbollah, they’re targeting innocent civilians – he just thinks that’s peachy. It’s about as defenseable as holding down a six year old and yelling “why are you hitting yourself!” Plus, when has Friedman ever really counted as a liberal?
January 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Get a fucking clue – Bush wanted a war so he got a war, Saddam had no impact on his decision.
Saddam made it easy for Bush to get his war, which is why Saddam no longer rules Iraq.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Peter K, I need not rely on wiki to remember that there were inspectors on the ground immediately prior to the US invasion. I point you to the US Constitution (where treaties are described as the high law of the land) and the UN Charter (the later both for the terms under which nations may legally invade and for the requirement of members to cooperate with UN endeavors like, say, weapons inspection).
As it turns out there were no WMD in Iraq and Blix was being very careful. Iraq did not really pose a threat. Parts of our own intelligence system had dounts (see the folks from State [INR] and the Folks at the Department of Energy’s dissents from the perinent national intelligence estimate). Even the OpEd editors at the Washington Post said the claims were exaggerated.
As you apparently think that the prospect of establishing a democracy (though of what kind and in what time framework is unclear) trumps killing people en masse and cheering others on to do so, I suppose I should suggest you go read the Genocide Conventions…shouldn’t be to hard to find. Friedman has been making this sort of argument for years, that being the reason I brought up his OpEd piece written after the invasion.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I agree with the peaceniks about Friedman and collective punishment.
And yet they give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt JUST BECAUSE the US didn’t like him. The same Saddam Hussein who practiced collective punishment thoughout his reign as dictator of a police state.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Peter K. “Saddam could have cooperated much more and done it much earlier. He wanted to bluff about it – fact – and he didn’t believe Bush would invaded – fact.”
Were you alive at the time, dumbass? Bush’s intent was clear – put Iraq in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation and take advantage of it to start a war. If they cared about inspections they wouldn’t have been falsifying all the evidence they possibly could. It had nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with Bush/Cheney wanting a war.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Gordon (@24) I stand corrcted, I do apparently misremember, though I think this line from Friedman pertinent to the point.
But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world.
That world being the ArabMuslim world. Whatever Saddam Hussein deserved, it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. As to whether we will find Arab democracies well inclined towards us anytime soon, your guess is as good as mine.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
yeah, aside from being homicidal, genocidal and just generally maniacal, Friedman’s point here is very illuminating.
take rich, pampered, comfortable-all-his-merry-days Tom, and let him grow up in an environment like, say, Palestine.
TOM FRIEDMAN would be the FIRST motherfucker strapping on a pack of explosives and orating with great mellodrama about how Israel had left him “no choice but to do this! Allah Akbar!”
what a freakin bullshit muncher Tom Friedman is, and what a sick, sick “human being”. seriously, the Bin Ladens and the Friedmans of this world create and sustain one another, and we all suffer for it.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
After 9-11, they felt it was better to be safe than sorry.
Many people thought the we would be safer NOT risking an Iraqi civil war, letting millions of Iraqis die, and wasting a couple of trillion dollars that could have been spent on a thousand things that would have made us safer than war in Iraq.
In fact, just about anything would have been better, really, since the war’s most notable effects have served to make us markedly LESS safe. It has strengthened the resolve, appeal – and numbers! – of groups like Al Qaida. It has distracted and weakened us while Afghanistan decayed, Pakistan decayed, and North Korea tested nuclear weapons. It has strengthened Iran and weakened our diplomatic credibility worldwide – especially our ability to intervene effectively in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Those people are looking pretty prescient nowadays.
But you know, I guess someday Iraq might work out okay. Better safe than sorry. We couldn’t possibly have afforded to let the inspectors work a few more months. Wouldn’t want to be naive peaceniks.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
There’s no benefit of the doubt re: Saddam – the truth is that he had very little control over the situation. When the US wants to fuck you, you get find a big friend or you get fucked.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Peter K, I need not rely on wiki to remember that there were inspectors on the ground immediately prior to the US invasion. I point you to the US Constitution (where treaties are described as the high law of the land) and the UN Charter (the later both for the terms under which nations may legally invade and for the requirement of members to cooperate with UN endeavors like, say, weapons inspection).
Do you feel the same way about Kosovo and Clinton? Unfortunately China and Russia have made the UN almost meaningless. China is getting better, but still countries are going to be able to massacre their citizens with impunity now. See Darfur.
As it turns out there were no WMD in Iraq and Blix was being very careful. Iraq did not really pose a threat. Parts of our own intelligence system had dounts (see the folks from State [INR] and the Folks at the Department of Energy’s dissents from the perinent national intelligence estimate). Even the OpEd editors at the Washington Post said the claims were exaggerated.
In fact what everyone had doubts about was whether a war was worth it, not about WMDs. Saddam had bluffed everyone.
As you apparently think that the prospect of establishing a democracy (though of what kind and in what time framework is unclear) trumps killing people en masse and cheering others on to do so, I suppose I should suggest you go read the Genocide Conventions…shouldn’t be to hard to find. Friedman has been making this sort of argument for years, that being the reason I brought up his OpEd piece written after the invasion.
Baloney, you were just trying to tar the Iraq war with Friedman. And you could say all that grandstanding drama queen stuff about Afghanistan also and perhaps you would.
Look, I can respect that people felt that war wasn’t worth it, but it did end the sanctions.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Peter K, you silly person, nobody “gives Saddam the benefit of the doubt” (except of course, Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney etc back in the 80s when we were SELLING HIM CHEMICAL WEAPONS ((you freakin idiot!!))), least of all “peaceniks”. which incidentally, is not a term thats in use in the modern lexicon anymore. nobody says “peaceniks”. jeez.
saying that its not worth it to kill/slaughter several hundred thousand innocent people (far more than Saddam killed – and this is an irrefutable fact that you can go and ask Tony Blair about and even he would concede its true, since he had to apologize to his entire country for lying about it) just to help Lil’ Oedipus Bush prove his manhood, is not “giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt”, its saying that human life means something, and its better to kill less people than more, even if some bad guys get away while you’re saving the greater number of people. oh never mind, obviously you can’t understand complicated stuff like this or you would have bothered already
January 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
But you know, I guess someday Iraq might work out okay. Better safe than sorry. We couldn’t possibly have afforded to let the inspectors work a few more months. Wouldn’t want to be naive peaceniks.
They have been trying to get an answer since the first Gulf War, over a decade in other words. I think that is long enough. Saddam clearly wasn’t cooperating and Blix and El-Baradei were just trying to tack on time to prevent a war.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
On the other hand, Bush sure was good on the natural disaster front: “In the three years and a half years since Hurricane Katrina not a single American city has been destroyed or partially destroyed. There are more than 10,000 cities in the United States and because of George Bush every single one of them, except for New Orleans, is still largely intact.”
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/01/president-bushs-legacy-one-of-our.html
January 14th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
And yet they give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt JUST BECAUSE the US didn’t like him. The same Saddam Hussein who practiced collective punishment thoughout his reign as dictator of a police state.
WTF? Who, in all of this, is giving Saddam Hussein “the benefit of the doubt”?
The problem is not Saddam wasn’t a bad guy. The problem is that the war was not legal, nor did it pass ANY kind of cost/benefit analysis.
To justify the Iraq war with the claim that “but Saddam was real bad” is like spending $30,000 for a stolen Hershey bar and justifying the purchase with “but chocolate tastes good”. Moronic.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Peter K tells us what was in Saddam’s mind and lables it “Fact.”
More chance of an actual conversation with a brick wall.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Peter K, you silly person, nobody “gives Saddam the benefit of the doubt” (except of course, Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney etc back in the 80s when we were SELLING HIM CHEMICAL WEAPONS ((you freakin idiot!!))), least of all “peaceniks”. which incidentally, is not a term thats in use in the modern lexicon anymore. nobody says “peaceniks”. jeez.
Also China and the Soviet Union and the French were selling him weapons b/c everyone was afraid of revolutionary Iran. I like saying peaceniks b/c I know it pisses people off.
What I would ask Tom Friedman is what exactly makes guys like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosevic, etc. so bad?
Is it just because Bush says their bad? No, it’s because they’d do collective punishment on a regular basis (among other things) and the rationalization these guys would give is EXACTLY THE SAME as what Friedman says about Hezbollah and Israel.
There’s an assassination attempt on Saddam at some unruly town. What does he do? Lines up and kills all the male residents.
During the Iran war, the Kurds are accused of disloyalty and of being a fifth column for Iran. What does Saddam do? Ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of whole villages of men, women and children.
People believe this is just conservative propaganda but it’s not.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Did he come to this enlightment while having a conversation with a cab driver in some Middle Eastern country while fiddling with his iPod to listen to Metalica’s Kill ‘em All?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Mehdi,
By 1990, the US and the Contras had ceased their campaign of terror against the Nicaraguan populace years before. And, as you say, they voted the Sandinistas out of power.
In 1984, on the other hand, in the midst of their/our efforts to teach the Nicaraguan public a lesson, they voted for the Sandinistas by a large margin.
The Blitz didn’t work. Dresden didn’t work. 9/11 didn’t work. Instead of crushing the enemy’s will, all those collective punishment terror attacks did was rile the attackers’ enemies up.
If your theory was true, “Red Dawn” would have been a much more boring movie.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Peter K.,
I’m one of those “peaceniks,” and a lot of my friends and family are, too, and I’ve gotta tell you: I’ve never met a single person who denied that Saddam Hussein did any of the things you describe.
I don’t think you understand your opponents’ arguments at all.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Beyond the idiocy of collective punishment, why isn’t anyone bringing up the fact that the logic of “educating” or “raising the cost” in Gaza is exactly the logic of escalation in Vietnam?
LBJ’s policy from 63-68 was founded on the concept that you could run war as a kind of game theory, and it never worked – the Viet Minh and Viet Cong were simply willing to accept whatever casualties were necessary for victory. So why, given that Friedman and the rest of the collective punishment school believe that Hamas cares nothing for the lives of Palestinians, do they think that increasing Palestinian deaths will alter Hamas’ behavior?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Just tacking on time. This is Peter K’s dumbest argument yet, and that’s really saying something. They were trying to answers to a question through gathering evidence, not simply trying to stall. Anybody who doesn’t acknowledge this is a liar and deserves no place at the discussion table.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Peter K: I like saying peaceniks b/c I know it pisses people off.
Why are you guys arguing with a self-confessed troll?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
They were trying to answers to a question through gathering evidence, not simply trying to stall. Anybody who doesn’t acknowledge this is a liar and deserves no place at the discussion table.
Right. And of course after the first few reports from the inspectors failed to show the results he wanted, I recall Bush shifting to the line that even that wasn’t enough.
No, now even if he disarmed, Saddam was evil and not ‘trustworthy’ or some such, so we would go to war unless he (and presumably the rest of the Ba’ath regime) stepped down and went… somewhere else. Or died. Or something. (The impracticality of this option was obviously the whole point.)
January 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I’m not arguing with the troll, I’m mocking it.
This is the most awesome thing yet:
“What I would ask Tom Friedman is what exactly makes guys like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosevic, etc. so bad?
Is it just because Bush says their [sic] bad? No, it’s because they’d [sic] do [sic] collective punishment on a regular basis (among other things) and the rationalization these guys [sic] would give is EXACTLY THE SAME as what [sic] Friedman says about Hezbollah and Israel.”
So clearly, according to our lovely Iraq-war-justifying troll, the only possible approach to Israel is regime change – watch out Olmert, here comes the shock and awe!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
So you admit you have no intention in debating in good faith and post stuff because “it pisses people off.”
Thanks for being so open about being a piece of shit troll, as well as so succinctly capturing the righwing mindset (e.g. doing things not because they are good or correct, but because you get some sort of emotional kick out of it).
January 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
What can you say about a guy who had conniption fits when Geraldo Rivera sensed it was trendy to dump on Israel a little bit before 9/11. Friedman (in the apt phrase of Michael Neumann) is “the kind of Jew who corrupts and endangers other Jews” He’s really a morally contaminated version of Neil Simon: A stupid man who writes for stupid people.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
So you admit you have no intention in debating in good faith and post stuff because “it pisses people off.”
AHG “debating in good faith” says:
HAHAHAHAHA! Shut up.
Get a fucking clue – Bush wanted a war so he got a war, Saddam had no impact on his decision.
Were you alive at the time, dumbass? Bush’s intent was clear – put Iraq in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation and take advantage of it to start a war.
I’m not arguing with the troll, I’m mocking it.
So I’m not the only one engaged in ad hominem. But I’ll stop using “peacenik” if it bothers you guys so much.
You all are just like the conservative rightwing, if you disagree with them politically, you’re a troll and their response is the same as if you just gave the finger to their face.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
You all are just like the conservative rightwing, if you disagree with them politically, you’re a troll and their response is the same as if you just gave the finger to their face.
Except for, you know, the thread full of posts taking your silly arguments apart.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Jack lecou
The problem is not Saddam wasn’t a bad guy. The problem is that the war was not legal, nor did it pass ANY kind of cost/benefit analysis.
To justify the Iraq war with the claim that “but Saddam was real bad” is like spending $30,000 for a stolen Hershey bar and justifying the purchase with “but chocolate tastes good”. Moronic.
Dude, analogies are frowned upon these days. The Kosovo war wasn’t legal either and I understand the cost/benefit analysis argument. It’s just that I think it’s an open question and more persuasive in hindsight b/c things went so poorly.
Cheney thought at the end of the first Gulf War that regime change wasn’t worth the cost.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Except for, you know, the thread full of posts taking your silly arguments apart.
Oh like the fact no one has commented on the Kosovo war in your silly argument?
Let’s see your cost/benefit analysis in detail smart guy.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Dude, analogies are frowned upon these days. The Kosovo war wasn’t legal either and I understand the cost/benefit analysis argument. It’s just that I think it’s an open question and more persuasive in hindsight b/c things went so poorly.
You know, I was going to say that I was a lot younger at the time of the Kosovo war, and I’ll admit I really didn’t follow the war or the events leading up to it as well as I would now. Without hitting the history books first, I don’t really care to comment, except to say that at the moment I’m inclined to be pretty skeptical of your take.
But of course, since I’ve said nothing about the Kosovo war, it has nothing to do with this conversation.
As for hindsight, well, there are experts and there are “experts”. From where I sat, the expert consensus was that things would be a lot more expensive, and go a lot worse, than the “experts” were saying. It didn’t really even take an expert to see that it was a panicky overreaction that would cost a LOT of money, unleash a LOT of death and chaos, take a long time to die down, all while earning us little but resentment, and preventing us from seriously addressing any of the other more important dangers and challenges we faced.
And you can “wait and see” if you like, but I can save you some time. It’s almost certain that the conflict will die down–eventually. But that will simply not justify the already enormous cost. A cost which has to be weighed not against the false dichotomy of “Saddam vs. no Saddam”, but against the dizzying multitude of superior alternative choices and uses of those lives, resources and dollars. Six years. A million or more lives. Two or three trillion dollars.
Think about it.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
If Iraq turns out well and is good influence on the rest of the region, maybe it was worth it to prove once and for all Saddam doesn’t have WMDs. Now we know it. Before we didn’t.
I don’t know if you’re keeping kidnapped teenage slaves locked up in your basement. You tell me you’re not, but maybe you’re just bluffing. Just in case, I’m going to kick down your door, shot half your family, blow up your car, burn down your house and then camp out in the ashes of your living room for the next few years. Trust me, even if I turn out to be wrong and you didn’t have those slaves locked up it’ll be worth it to me to prove it once and for all.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The Kosovo war was illegal, too, just like Iraq and ninety percent of the wars the US has engaged in. And Kosovo resulted in a major advance for a bunch of Islamic Mafia types in the region.
Happy now, moron?
That changes what about the fact that you are utterly wrong about Iraq. Whatever Saddam did vis-a-vis “bluffing” – which has never been established as being relevant at all to the facts on the ground – is irrelevant. It has been clearly established that Bush’s motivations for war were oil, money for the military-industrial complex, and Israel. Nothing more.
Saddam was not “bluffing” in any case. He cooperated fully with UNSCOM, regardless of Blix’s remarks at the time. There was no way he could prove a negative. Whether there was an inability to account for various chemical weapons is irrelevant to the main case Bush and Cheney were making which was about NUCLEAR weapons – and UNSCOM had proven there weren’t any, meaning that there was ZERO “imminent threat” and therefore any sort of military action was unjustified.
Not to mention that the UN and every single group of international law experts concluded the war was illegal.
So do us all a favor and STFU with your ancient, discredited, right wing neotard bullshit.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
If Iraq turns out well and is good influence on the rest of the region, maybe it was worth it to prove once and for all Saddam doesn’t have WMDs. Now we know it. Before we didn’t.
What Stefan said. This is what’s known as “benefit analysis”. Cf., cost-benefit analysis.
One’s a reasonably good idea. One ain’t. See if you can figure out which is which.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Re Peter K’s comment at post 35: “In fact what everyone had doubts about was whether a war was worth it, not about WMDs. Saddam had bluffed everyone.”
————–
Oh, bullshit. German Foreign Minister JOSCHKA FISCHER received a storm of abuse from the Neocons after he said he was not convinced that Iraq had WMDs.
See the cited news articles given here:
http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=10
This line “every foreign intelligence service believed” is just another two-faced Republican lie.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
On behalf of Matthew Yglesias, I retract this post, and any other future suggestion on his part that Libreral Pundit Thomas Friedman is anything other than the Most Liberalest And Smartest Person Ever.
We look forward to partnering with Thomas Friedman and his wife’s billion dollar real estate empire much as we have enjoyed partnering with Third Way.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
4000 US soldiers are dead in an unnecessary war because the Republicans and the Neocons did not analyze the situation in a fair and objective manner in 2002. Instead, they shouted lies, propaganda and every piece of cherry-picked ,out-of-context information they could grab to justify a foregone decision.
That’s what dishonest whores for the rich do.
If someone has info contrary to your beliefs, you should examine that info and find out why there is a disconnect with your opinion before you send US soldiers off to die. Instead, proponents of the Iraq invasion used every dishonest slur they could use to attack any who questioned their evidence. Look, for example, at how German Minister Fischer –OUR ALLY –was treated when he tried to caution us:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly021203.asp
I personally am glad that Michael Kelly , the author of the above rant, was blown to hell in Iraq in 2005. In my opinion, he deserved the fate that his dishonest ax-grinding bought down upon the US Army.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Friedman is a joke. It was impressive to identify globalization… in 1999. How did you see that coming?
Because it had already been around for ten years?
Here’s a brain twisting revelation: “The economic world is flat!” My mind was blown to hear about that in 2005. I mean, I’d come to suspect it by the way the economic world had been flat for a couple of decades, but he really dropped a bombshell by confirming common knowledge like that.
Waaaaaaay overrated.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
This thread totally derailed into Iraq whereas we need our daily Israel Palestine brawl
January 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
As an environmental scholar, I hope Friedman doesn’t stick to climate change and talks about most anything else.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Using the word “educate” to describe the slaughter in Gaza is obscene.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Re Peter K
The Iraq adventure had nothing to do with WMDs or Israel or Saddams being a bad guy. It was about oil, nothing more, nothing less. Iraq has he 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world and the Bush administration was not about to let someone who was not 100% pro-American control it. Lest anyone forget, the US covertly supported Saddam in the 1980s war against Iran, even though he was the aggressor in that war.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Just a correction. It was the Brits who firebombed Dresden.
The Yanks firebombed numerous Japanese wooden cities.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Considering that being pied in the face has failed to educate Friedman about the consequences of writing horrible Op-Ed pieces, would you say that:
1) We need to do the same thing to him, only more so, until he gets educated. Failure of the pie to teach him a lesson is a result of an insufficient demonstration of force, not a fundamentally flawed strategy.
or
2) The whole pseudo-game-theory approach of extreme retaliation as a tool of persuasion doesn’t work very well.
I think that 2) is more likely correct, but I’d settle for 1) anyway.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Look folks, Tom Friedman is the second biggest moron amongst the NY Times columnists (second only to Maureen Dowd). The only thing he has ever written that was halfway intelligent is his description of Hafaz Assads’ action in the City of Hama as Hama Rules.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Maybe it is the peaceniks who are ignorant? That’s my view.
Wow, “I am rubberand you are glue.” Very clever, Pete.
Saddam could have cooperated much more and done it much earlier. He wanted to bluff about it – fact – and he didn’t believe Bush would invaded – fact.
If Clinton hadn’t used the weapons inspections as a way to get spies into Iraq to look for weak spots to hit in order to overthrow Saddam, maybe he would not have refused to let the weapons inspectors back in in 1998. It is grossly erroneous to say that the U.S. was acting in good faith during the sanctions/inspections era of 1991-1998.
If Iraq turns out well and is good influence on the rest of the region, maybe it was worth it to prove once and for all Saddam doesn’t have WMDs.
So if everything goes according to the rosiest predictions, then everything will be okay. Well, duh. But the question is whether the predictions are accurate. If banning birth control for anyone under 21 caused the rate of teenage sex to drop to near zero, maybe it would be a good idea. We could do a cost-benefit analysis of more people waiting until they are 21 to have sex vs. the few that do have sex being more likely to get (or get someone else) pregnant. However, unless banning birth contrrl for people under 21 had that effect (which I am pretty sure it wouldn’t) the analysis would be rather irrelevant for anything other than mental exercise.
Do you feel the same way about Kosovo and Clinton?
Hell, yeah. The leading antiwar site, Antiwar.com, got started because of the Balkan conflict. I was reading Antiwar.com and donating back before 9/11 was even an issue.
Oh, and at some point someone will say: “come on, even Bill Clinton believed that Saddam had WMDs:”
No, he thought that claiming that Saddam had WMDs would distract people from the blowjobs he was lying about.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
I don’t remember any one of the Al Qaeda terrorists dropping leaflets (or making a phone call) to warn the civilians in the World Trade Center (or Pentagon) to vacate the facilities. They will be destroyed.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I’m not saying they should…but if these terrorists are such badasses…how come they have never taken out people like Friedman, Kristol, Bennett, Hannity? I mean, these guys talk an endless big game of hitting them with big sticks. At some point you would think they would get whacked.
Maybe these terrorists aren’t as dangerous as we are led to believe.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Maybe somebody ought to “educate” Friedman about what pain & suffering actually feels like.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Julian Elson wins the thread.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Can’t see what’s so offensive about this column. I thought it was sort of a given that the whole purpose of this incursion was to terrorize Gazans into ceasing to support Hamas.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Britain AND the U.S. firebombed Dresden, btw.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Israel is doing the right thing. It is protecting its citizens. Since the end of the last Lebanon war there has been barely a peep from Hezbollah.
Hamas has intentionally set up camp from within densely populated civilian areas. They don’t wear uniforms so that when they are killed they are counted as being civilians.
They have committed numerous war crimes and more heinous acts than can be recounted. Or should we show the videos of their using children as human shields and setting up schools and mosques as weapons depot.
Anyone with common sense would recognize that no country will allow rockets to be fired every day without a response.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:28 am
You’re a moron, “Jack”.
Your interpretation of Hizballah’s behavior in the last two years is stupid. Hizballah has grown in political power AND military power since Israel’s brain dead assault on Lebanon. The end result of the current assault on Hamas will be the same – they will get MORE credibility which in turn will translate into MORE support and MORE weapons. This is how 4th Gen War works, moron.
And your bullshit about “hiding behind civilians” is just that. Hamas happens to be an organization which RUNS Gaza, including police stations, schools, etc. Trying to attack Hamas BY DEFINITION means attacking civlians.
Your propaganda bullshit about children as human shields and storing weapons in schools fits right in with the Israeli propaganda piece I just read saying the same thing, about Israeli “combat cameramen” taking videos of weapons stored in mosques. Like we’re supposed to believe a bunch of professional liars.
I just read an article where it is revealed that the whole story about Arafat in 2000 refusing to negotiate was entirely made up by Israeli intelligence. Israelis are the biggest fucking liars on the planet.
Does Israeli Intelligence Lie?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/chernus.php?articleid=14070
Zionists are liars, intellectually dishonest, and intellectual cowards. Period.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Do you feel the same way about Kosovo and Clinton?
Hell, yeah. The leading antiwar site, Antiwar.com, got started because of the Balkan conflict. I was reading Antiwar.com and donating back before 9/11 was even an issue.
Antiwar.com is actually Prowar, except they were prowar for Milosevic and prowar for Saddam. Prowar for the Taliban, prowar for the leadership in Sudan. Reading Ray Romondo and them makes me sympathize with Israel more than I normally would.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Shorter Peter K. – Waaaaaah a liberal was mean to me cause I was wrong.
Note that this jackass hasn’t addressed a single one of the incredible logical fallicies I’ve noted in his “arguments.” When you’re in the dumbest 27% of the population (the part that doesn’t understood what a miserable failure the last 8 years have been) mockery is all you get and all you deserve.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Antiwar.com is actually Prowar, except they were prowar for Milosevic and prowar for Saddam. Prowar for the Taliban, prowar for the leadership in Sudan. Reading Ray Romondo and them makes me sympathize with Israel more than I normally would.
Yeah, just like Bush is pro-diseases for children, right?
And I bet you’re one of those spineless sissies who are pro-letting the moon fall on us and kill us all, right?
January 15th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
AHG:
“Note that this jackass hasn’t addressed a single one of the incredible logical fallicies I’ve noted in his “arguments.” When you’re in the dumbest 27% of the population (the part that doesn’t understood what a miserable failure the last 8 years have been) mockery is all you get and all you deserve.”
Some of the other people are actually making decent arguments, but yours are the worst. It’s like your’e not even trying. I mean they’re impressively bad, even for the Internets.
Yeah, just like Bush is pro-diseases for children, right?
Bush was prowar on Darfur. Didn’t do anything while the Sudanese government committed genocide. That’s the Realist policies we know and love!!! Well done. But if he had done something, Peaceniks would complain he was doing it for oil. Or Israel. Or something.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Bush was prowar on Darfur. Didn’t do anything while the Sudanese government committed genocide. That’s the Realist policies we know and love!!! Well done. But if he had done something, Peaceniks would complain he was doing it for oil. Or Israel. Or something.
I knew it! You ARE pro-letting-the-moon-fall-and-squashing-us-all-flat. Your refusal to intervene is costing lives, man! Why, even if the moons turns out NOT to be causing cancer and werewolfism, wouldn’t we better off safe than sorry?
People like you disgust me. Why, just reading what you write is making me feel more sympathy for serial killers and child molesters than I otherwise would…
January 15th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Incidentally, would you mind making a list of all the countries you believe we should have been at war with over the last decade or two? So far I think we have:
Yugoslavia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
May I also suggest: Rwanda, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, China, Israel, Iran, Russia, Zaire, Burundi, Guatemala, Uganda, Namibia, Congo, Armenia, Indonesia…
February 10th, 2009 at 5:17 am
RvVyAt hi! hooli?
March 1st, 2009 at 5:11 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 4th, 2009 at 7:24 am
*Inserts
March 4th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Botulism knows where you live! o_o
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 3:40 am
I feel so horny.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Excuse me. I like coincidences. They make me wonder about destiny, and whether free will is an illusion or just a matter of perspective. They let me speculate on the idea of some master plan that, from time to time, we’re allowed to see out of the corner of our eye.
I am from United and too bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Book now for discount on travel reservations, cheap airline tickets, cheap car rental, luxury cruise holidays from bsuretravel.”
Regards
Kermit.