"I could immediately see there was a situation of danger. I told my employee [Lilian Lepere] to hide. I knew two of us couldn't hide. At that point I thought that was the end. They came in, they weren't aggressive. They said 'don't worry, we just want to come in.'... I didn't know where Lilian was hidden. I knew he was hidden but I had no idea where. I didn't want them to go to the end of the building... When I thought one of them was tense I said 'I can look after you.'
I wasn't scared. I don't know how I managed to stay calm under those circumstances — it was a situation I have never been faced with before in my life. After all, right from the start, I imagined I wouldn't be alive any longer... I must admit that in fact they weren't aggressive as far as I was concerned. I didn't get the impression they would harm me, as unbelievable as it sounds. Perhaps they had an ounce of humanity because they let me out.... I’m not sorry that the terrorists died. But I felt a little bit of humanity for them. I don’t known whether I had Stockholm Syndrome. But they were always good with me and polite to me. I have children of my own. I’m sorry that two young people of 30 died."
January 10, 2015
"When they arrived I saw the machine guns so I knew I had to do whatever they said. But they were never aggressive with me. They were always polite. They called me Monsieur."
Said Michel Catalano, held hostage by the Koachi brothers. Catalano had seen the men approaching with a rocket launcher and a Kalashnikov.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
104 comments:
Typical cheese-eating surrender monkey.
Just because someone is polite doesn't mean they aren't going to kill you. He seems to have instinctively grasped that. It is amazing how unexpectedly calm people can be during dangerous situations. It isn't until it's over that the fear takes over sometimes.
Don't want to stress the livestock on the way to the abattoir. Epineprhine release makes the meat gamey.
ARM is like a child who's just discovered how to make a new noise.
Gratitude to be alive.
Not surprising that he is grateful to be alive.
AReasonableMan, I've been reading a book about the Berlin Wall. Before the wall went up, East Germany and Russia blocked American, British, and French access to their offices (I think-- can't find a good history via Google).
The French director to the mission, blocked by GDR soldiers, ran through a plate glass window to the building, shouting "This is the French entrance!" His fellow French followed, bearing food and champagne.
I'd like to verify that story, because it's an uplifting one.
"Next we take you into this large underground room for a shower."
Death Panels aneed to be Propaganda experts.
furious_a said...
ARM is like a child who's just discovered how to make a new noise.
Maybe, but you've got to admit it's a good one. The sound of hypocrisy never fails to entertain.
"When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
----W.S. Churchill
Maybe, but you've got to admit it's a good one.
Just have to admit that you're a tool who doesn't know that Groundskeepeer Willie said it in 1995.
Putz.
Bob Ellison said...
"This is the French entrance!" His fellow French followed, bearing food and champagne.
I'd like to verify that story, because it's an uplifting one.
My Italian wife, who shares her compatriots sibling rivalry with the French, would dismiss this anecdote by saying that everything people think of as French was actually invented in Italy and then later stolen by the French. I have learnt not to dispute these claims.
As for the "surrender monkey" thing, its a fair point re the French national reputation and even, perhaps, for the national and personal psychology of the French.
They have had a hard time living down the events of May 1940. Fact is, came the day, far too many Frenchmen unexpectedly panicked and ran, leaving all of Europe, counting on the French as the principal backstop of the international system, (Britain and the US were considered lesser military powers) in the lurch. Most of the tragedies of 1939-45 are the direct result of this national failure, including, on the other side of the world, the Japanese expansion of 1942.
It is difficult today to understand what a shock this was at the time, and what a critical turning point in history it represented. In a matter of hours the international balance was entirely overthrown.
In spite of numerous episodes of heroism since, and a few successes in colonial wars, the French reputation has never recovered.
Ever since no-one has counted on the French. Nice to have if they show up, at best. And more so, its been French policy to avoid being the keystone of anything, a lot of this I think is due to a somewhat subconscious lack of national confidence. The Germans broke them and they never recovered.
furious_a said...
Just have to admit that you're a tool who doesn't know that Groundskeepeer Willie said it in 1995.
So Jonah Goldberg plagiarizes the work of an actual creative person to attack the French during the lead up to the Iraq war and you conclude that this is a good thing?
There's a reason why all the goodwill towards the US dissipated so quickly after the 9/11 attacks - Bush, Cheney and their flaks acted like they knew more than everyone else.
You can say a lot about the French but they do have long experience dealing with Muslim nations. Deriding their caution as cowardice was genuinely stupid, as results later demonstrated. Panic is no substitute for experience.
The French also spent the Cold War on the sidelines, not being much use on the balance of power on the Central European front, increasing, for instance, the likelihood of requiring the use of tactical nukes, and encouraging Soviet offensive plans.
As for international relations, this is a huge crock.
The French never had significant influence with the Arabs, besides happy talk.
@buwaya puti/
Perhaps the Napoleonic Wars and the catastrophic depletion of the French gene-pool had something to do with that. Prior to Napoleon the French were the tallest people in Europe, averaging well over six feet with Napoleons "Old Guard" all over 6'5" (iirc). After the Napoleonic wars the avg height of the French drifted down to well below six feet..
ARM said...
"There's a reason why all the goodwill towards the US dissipated so quickly after the 9/11 attacks - Bush, Cheney and their flaks acted like they knew more than everyone else.
You can say a lot about the French but they do have long experience dealing with Muslim nations."
During the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), the French military used torture against the National Liberation Front and the civilian population. The French interrogators were notorious for the use of man-powered electrical generators on suspects: this form of torture was called (la) gégène.
That France has provided a pivotal role in the evolution of western torture practices is the central thesis of the French film Death Squadrons: The French School by Monique Robin. The French had themselves developed practices in defence of its declining empire through the 20th century, setting up torture "universities" at Paolo Condor – an island off Vietnam (then French Indo-China, subsequently taken over by the United States) and at Phillippeville in Algeria.[citation needed]
Police abuse remains a reality in France today, while France has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the conditions of detention in prisons, including the use of torture on detainees. Although the law and the Constitution prohibits any kind of torture, such practices happen.
"You can say a lot about the French but they do have long experience dealing with Muslim nations."
After all, the French hands-off policy towards their Muslim enclaves has been a smashing success.
It was WWI I think.
That was the big hit to the gene pool.
Napoleons Old Guard weren't big men, they weren't chosen for height like Fredericks Prussian Guard. Napoleon wasnt a dummy. He recruited them from distinguished veterans of his line regiments regardless of height.
I conclude you don't know what the Phuck you're talking about.
You can say a lot about the French but they do have long experience dealing with Muslim nations.
You mean, they had a lot of weapons contracts with Iraq and Syria? You've changed your story about them reaping the whirlwind of their colonial oppressor-ness.
All that "experience with Muslim nations" (playing both sides) has gotten them...Irregular warfare in the streets of Paris? French soldiers on leave being gunned down in Toulouse? An unassimilable, unemployable, growing and increasingly hostile Muslim minority packed into no-go slums on the peripheries of major French cities? Jewish citizens locked down on their homes for safety?
Oh, yes, tell us more about what the superior French approach to the Muslim World can teach us. I'm ALL EARS!
Catalano said "After all, right from the start, I imagined I wouldn't be alive any longer"
I imagine the two terrorists felt the same way at that point, like they weren't going to live through this. Interesting that they were all being calm and polite to one another as violence and death approach.
Not like it would be portrayed in a Hollywood movie where people are always shouting and cursing at each other over the smallest differences just to create a sense of drama.
There's a reason why all the goodwill towards the US dissipated so quickly after the 9/11 attacks
There, fixed it for you.
Oh, you meant "popularity contest"? As if that means sh*t.
The orderly imposition of lawful execution rulings is always done in a polite way. Le Charle was being executed according to Islamic Law...just as any magazine writers would be executed in any Islamic country. Ergo: France is now an Islamic country.
Speaking of surrender, I've been curious as to why the 18 year old ‘accomplice’ walked voluntarily into the police station and who he was.
He is/was a brother-in-law and in school at the time of the shootings.
Assume that he will spend a life-time on a French watch-list.
Hamyd Mourad released without charge after being named as suspect in Charlie Hebdo attack
Perhaps they had an ounce of humanity because they let me out.... I’m not sorry that the terrorists died. But I felt a little bit of humanity for them.
This is the part of his story that struck me. It reminds me, for as monstrous and awful as their actions were, there was still a very small part of them (a sliver or a whisper, perhaps) that understood kindness. I'm also not sorry that they died, but I can take a small lesson in compassion from this man's observations.
furious_a said...
Oh, yes, tell us more about what the superior French approach to the Muslim World can teach us. I'm ALL EARS!
We could have avoided a quagmire in Iraq for one.
I am not a big fan of the French, myself,l but I am in solidarity with any opponents of the Iraq war who were called cowards in the lead up to the war, having been called one myself, repeatedly. We were right. You were wrong. Nothing is going to change that now.
It reminds me, for as monstrous and awful as their actions were, there was still a very small part of them (a sliver or a whisper, perhaps) that understood kindness.
Uh, oh, here we go.
We were right. You were wrong.
Re-litigating 12 years ago does nothing the change the fact that you're full of sh*t now, which is why you're (understandably) backing and filling and blowing smoke.
ARM to French Jews:
There's no war. Don't panic. It's all in your heads.
furious_a said...
Re-litigating 12 years ago does nothing the change the fact that you're full of sh*t now,
It does mean that you have a track record of failure, unacknowledged, which also means that you have learnt nothing.
Yep... no guns, no way to defend themselves.
So they act like a heard. Hope someone else is killed and not them.
Bunch of sheep. Gave up their rights to defend themselves in the name of 'safety'.
Well how safe are they now?
"It does mean that you have a track record of failure, unacknowledged, which also means that you have learnt nothing."
You claim knowledge you do not have. We do not know how history would have unfolded without the Iraq invasion and we do not know what would have happened if Obama had not fled.
"I could immediately see there was a situation of danger. I told my employee [Lilian Lepere] to hide
Leadership. Plain and simple...
The French director to the mission, blocked by GDR soldiers, ran through a plate glass window to the building, shouting "This is the French entrance!" His fellow French followed, bearing food and champagne.
All the good ones have not been lost from those Roman/Frank gene pools:
Quattrocchi's kidnappers forced him to dig his own grave and kneel beside it wearing a hood as they prepared to film his death, but he defied them by trying to pull off the hood and shouting "Vi faccio vedere come muore un Italiano!" - "I'll show you how an Italian dies!" He was then shot in the back of the neck
However, in those EU countries, the nails that stand out have been pounded fairly flat be centuries of conformity...
Original Mike said...
We do not know how history would have unfolded without the Iraq invasion and we do not know what would have happened if Obama had not fled.
This is some pretty weak sauce. Obama did what he was elected to do by a majority of the American people who realized, belatedly, that they had been sold a bill of goods by Bush and Cheney. A trillion dollar bill of goods.
Obama did what he was elected to do by a majority of the American people who realized, belatedly, that they had been sold a bill of goods by Bush and Cheney. A trillion dollar bill of goods.
He campaigned on lowering Bush deficits, the largest of which was $400M a year, but put in place deficits that averaged a trillion a year...
does mean that you have a track record of failure, unacknowledged, which also means that you have learnt nothing.
What does any of that (stipulating for the moment your awesome telepathic powers) have to with you pulling it out of your *ss now? When people are dying real-time?
Hmm?
ARM's crapped his slacks on current events so he's trying to re-litigate 2003 hoping we won't notice the smell.
"Obama did what he was elected to do by a majority of the American people"
That doesn't mean that it wasn't the reason for what you call a failure.
Maybe, but you've got to admit it's a good one. The sound of hypocrisy never fails to entertain.
And you're our favorite comic relief, ARM.
'Monsieur, we will politely kill you'
AReasonableMan said...
Original Mike said...
We do not know how history would have unfolded without the Iraq invasion and we do not know what would have happened if Obama had not fled.
This is some pretty weak sauce. Obama did what he was elected to do by a majority of the American people who realized, belatedly, that they had been sold a bill of goods by Bush and Cheney. A trillion dollar bill of goods.
And then Obama racked up 7 trillion more.
So just from an economic numbers point of view Bush didn't do too badly.
Good to know that in France, brandishing a machinegun is not an act of aggression.
There is a stunning wave of denial about Islamic terror and the world-wide threat.
Areasonableman wrote:
I am not a big fan of the French, myself,l but I am in solidarity with any opponents of the Iraq war who were called cowards in the lead up to the war, having been called one myself, repeatedly. We were right. You were wrong. Nothing is going to change that now.
how were you right? Bush's rationale was to wage wars over there so that we dont' have them over here. France acted like weenies and undermined our effort there. They're still getting hit by terrorists in their home town.
Now the talk is what they are going to do OVER THERE to deal with the organizations.
In fact Bush was right. And you cheese eating surrender monkeys just got spanked by reality.
I bet they are contemplating new means of tracking terrorism as we speak.
AReasonableMan said...
"You can say a lot about the French but they do have long experience dealing with Muslim nations. Deriding their caution as cowardice was genuinely stupid, as results later demonstrated. Panic is no substitute for experience."
They have experience with the Jews too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11335980/Antisemitism-in-France-the-exodus-has-begun.html
The Godwin law no longer applies. The modern left is aligning themselves with people that are indistinguishable from Nazis.
Please move to France you piece of shit.
We pulled out of Iraq and now Obama has to conduct bombing missions there to deal with ISIS. How was he right then? We told you it would happen if you withdrew so quickly.
These are home grown terrorists who were radicalized in their own home town, then flew over to ME and got trained by Al Qeada. Then came back. And yet ARM is treating them like lone wolves every time. Even when they say they are part of Al Qaeda.
The left has no way to address dealing with the organization overseas, which is why its sprouting everywhere. And Obama's drone strikes, while effective in killing some jihadis here and there, is not giving us much actionable intel on the orgs themselves since we are never interrogating anyone, only killing them from on high.
AReasonableMan said...
furious_a said...
Oh, yes, tell us more about what the superior French approach to the Muslim World can teach us. I'm ALL EARS!
"We could have avoided a quagmire in Iraq for one."
It was only a quagmire because Obama chose to make it that way. We were safer in Iraq than we would have been in Chicago. You people chose to make our sacrifices meaningless because you needed us to lose.
Obama polls in single digits in the armed forces. There is a reason for that. We hate him and we hate you. Please get the fuck out. Go to France. Live with those Muslims. They are so much better than us.
AReasonableMan wrote:
We could have avoided a quagmire in Iraq for one.
If you are sending troops into areas to secure the area you will be involved in a quagmire. Some worse than others. But what's the alternative? If we never set foot in those areas we now get to see Al Qaeda/ISIS making inroads in countries all over the world. And then home grown terrorists are travelling to them so they can be trained to come back and kill people on western shores. At some point you're going to have to put feet on the ground and deal with the orgs or you are simply playing whack a mole.
And then you will have to recognize that you are in a quagmire. But so what? They similarly would be in a quagmire.
Part of the reason we were in the quagmire in the first place was because Al Qaeda made a calculation that they could fight our troops directly, rather than hitting soft targets overseas. And that is a costly endeavor.
AL Qaeda was in fact decimated by our troops. They too felt the attrition. In many ways it was like Tet. We kicked their asses, yet the media portrayed their decimation as a victory. Because they only report on quagmires from one side because they never wanted us there to begin with.
Just an aside while ARM and Furious go at each other. On this, I believe caution is advisable.
"but I am in solidarity with any opponents of the Iraq war who were called cowards in the lead up to the war, having been called one myself, repeatedly. We were right. You were wrong. Nothing is going to change that now."
Cautious, that is to never say never. Historians constantly revise the revealed wisdom, such as it is. Plenty will point out that Iraq was starting to do well after the surge and the lack of a SOFA under Obama plunged it back into chaos. I don't say that's all correct, but the Iraq War is in fact far from over. You might want to wait a few decades to see how it comes out before you decide how it came out.
Actually, that's a semi-myth about the French cutting and running. The French enlisted ranks and field commanders contain men as good as any who have served, and their elite forces are outstanding.
The problem is, and has always been, their calcified and insular higher command and the moral cowardice of their civilian leadership. Their deployments for the Battle of France in 1940 were nonsensical, and fully half the French army, in the south of France, was never brought into action.
Dien Bien Phu was a failure of higher leadership; the base was suicidally located. The men on the ground fought with all the courage our own Marines showed at Khe Sanh and Hue.
After the surge occurred Iraq was SO quiet it was almost scary. Why was that? WEll for one the surge was very effective. But two, the insurgency only had so much strengthen before it burnt itself out. Al Qaeda only had so many jihadis they could send and the Baathist generals were running low. IF there was no surge, my guess is the insurgency would have died simply because we were throttling them so badly. The surge allowed us to complete that portion of the mission with fewer casualties on our side going forward. But even if we didn't have one it would have ended soon enough.
If we had ended it that way, with a complete rout of Al Qaeda in Iraq we should have then followed them to Pakistan or wherever they were going until we drove them to the hills. Don't follow them there necessarily but don't let them out either. We could have crushed Al Qaeda if we didn't fight the war with half measures. And we didn't have traitors undermining us at every turn trying to give our secret programs away
Obama has caused a lot of Muslim fearlessness by his declaring that we were not at war with Islam.
Areasonableman wrote:
"I am not a big fan of the French, myself,l but I am in solidarity with any opponents of the Iraq war who were called cowards in the lead up to the war, having been called one myself, repeatedly. We were right. You were wrong. Nothing is going to change that now."
Bullshit. History will show that Obama tanked the Iraq war and that the people who need this country to lose wanted chaos and genocide.
We had a choice. South Korea or Vietnam. Yes it would have been hard but it would have been worth it to give Iraq that chance. It would have taken decades. But women would be educated and have opportunity. People would have enjoyed something close to what you take for granted.
The left chose Vietnam. You chose to turn Iraq into a shit hole where women are second class citizens at best and sex slaves at worst. The left chose genocide and mass displacement.
Yes you are a coward and a piece of shit.
We were safer in Iraq than we would have been in Chicago.
You are an idiot, a liar, or both. A total of 4489 U.S. military were killed in Iraq. In the years 2003--2008 deaths varied from a low of 314 (2008) to 904 (2007). Murders in chicago varied between 448 (2007) to 601 (2003). So while the total number of deaths may be comparable, Chicago has a population of 2.7 million. At most we had 165000 troops in Iraq, about 6% of the population of Chicago. Which means your chances of being killed in Iraq was more than 15 times higher than Chicago.
The left chose Vietnam. You chose to turn Iraq into a shit hole where women are second class citizens at best and sex slaves at worst. The left chose genocide and mass displacement.
By refusing to pay for the war or expand the military enough to truly win, we all chose to fail Iraq (and Afghanistan).
The difference is the left wouldn't have wasted the borrowed money in the first place, while you and Althouse thought it was a fine idea to go to war without committing the necessary troops or money.
There's a reason why all the goodwill towards the US dissipated so quickly after the 9/11 attacks - Bush, Cheney and their flaks acted like they knew more than everyone else.
No, it's just easier for people to return to, as Mark Steyn would call it, the polite fictions of the 9/10 world rather than confront the problem.
Two days ago it was easy to imagine that this would be the event that would rouse France and, perhaps, Europe, out of its slumber, but already President Hollande is already declaring that the Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.
Freder Frederson said...
We were safer in Iraq than we would have been in Chicago.
"You are an idiot, a liar, or both. A total of 4489 U.S. military were killed in Iraq. In the years 2003--2008 deaths varied from a low of 314 (2008) to 904 (2007). Murders in chicago varied between 448 (2007) to 601 (2003). So while the total number of deaths may be comparable, Chicago has a population of 2.7 million. At most we had 165000 troops in Iraq, about 6% of the population of Chicago. Which means your chances of being killed in Iraq was more than 15 times higher than Chicago."
And you post completely void of context. 2007 was the surge. 2008 we were watching elections. 314 deaths was a quagmire? We were willing to take that risk. Many of those deaths were accidents as well. We were going in the right direction.
Then you people got involved and turned Iraq into a shit hole. You did it on purpose just like Vietnam. Millions of people die when you get involved.
I wish you all would just leave. We all hate you too you piece of shit.
Freder Frederson said...
"By refusing to pay for the war or expand the military enough to truly win, we all chose to fail Iraq (and Afghanistan).
The difference is the left wouldn't have wasted the borrowed money in the first place, while you and Althouse thought it was a fine idea to go to war without committing the necessary troops or money."
We were committed. And it cost less than half to run that war than Obama's "stimulus" cost. Obama's spending exploded on things that dwarfed the OIF/OEF budgets. But you people chose to line your pockets with stimulus money rather than help people who were far far less wealthy than you.
Freder wrote:
You are an idiot, a liar, or both. A total of 4489 U.S. military were killed in Iraq. In the years 2003--2008 deaths varied from a low of 314 (2008) to 904 (2007). Murders in chicago varied between 448 (2007) to 601 (2003). So while the total number of deaths may be comparable, Chicago has a population of 2.7 million. At most we had 165000 troops in Iraq, about 6% of the population of Chicago. Which means your chances of being killed in Iraq was more than 15 times higher than Chicago.
If you compare Iraq's quagmire to other quagmires it ended up not being too much of a quagmire at all.
904 deaths in 2007. How many deaths in Vietnam in, say 1968? 16,900 or so deaths. So, maybe the talk of quagmires was a bit overblown.
And it cost less than half to run that war than Obama's "stimulus" cost.
Actually, the stimulus was half the direct costs of the Iraq war (and less than a third of the entire cost).
If you took all the deaths from all the war on terror from not just us but all our allies and added them all together it would equal to less than the worst year in Vietnam.
Freder wrote:
Actually, the stimulus was half the direct costs of the Iraq war (and less than a third of the entire cost).
Considering the lack of shovel ready jobs and all the Solyndra's going bust, I'd have rather we spent it on maintaining a victory in Iraq. Considering we're spending how much now on ineffectual bombing of Isis, who wouldn't be in Iraq if we hadn't pulled out and left a vaccum.
We actually got a lot more out of Iraq then we ever did from the stimulus.
We overthrew the dictator, we setup a fledgling democracy and we didn't take their oil. And we ended containment and don't have to worry about Iraq being a state trying to aquire WMD. Wait, spoke to soon. Now that ISIS is in town we have to worry about it all over again.
Obama polls in single digits in the armed forces.
Produce these polls. They don't exist.
ARM;
Like a dog with a bone.
(Is ARM a robot?)
Freder wrote:
You are an idiot, a liar, or both. A total of 4489 U.S. military were killed in Iraq. In the years 2003--2008 deaths varied from a low of 314 (2008) to 904 (2007). Murders in chicago varied between 448 (2007) to 601 (2003). So while the total number of deaths may be comparable, Chicago has a population of 2.7 million. At most we had 165000 troops in Iraq, about 6% of the population of Chicago. Which means your chances of being killed in Iraq was more than 15 times higher than Chicago."
Freder conflates a country the size of Iraq where the enemy was disbursed throughout and Chicago where most of the murders were in a relatively small area of the city. The risk of getting killed in Chicago during that time was greater than Iraq on a per square mile comparison basis.
If you are in the market for a military rifle always go for a French one. Never fired and only dtopped once.
It is my understanding that the northern and western section of Chicag are as safe as any other metropolitan area in the country; it is in South Chicago that life gets dangerous.
The risk of getting killed in Chicago during that time was greater than Iraq on a per square mile comparison basis.
Yeah, deaths per square mile is a common measure of mortality.
Actually, the stimulus was half the direct costs of the Iraq war (and less than a third of the entire cost)....
...and because of the Reid Senate's multi-year failure to vote out a.budget, the CRs necessary to keep the federal govt running enusred that the "one-time" 2009 $835B stimulus has been baked into the budget baseline ever since.
"Bush, Cheney and their flaks acted like they knew more than everyone else."
Whereas you know more than they did and anyone else who disagrees with you.
Did you also, like Barbara Boxer, oppose Gulf War I ? We could have been buying Saudi oil from Saddam all these years and his nuclear bomb might even protect us from the Iranians that Obama is trying to arm with one.
Is that your argument?
I am always amused at the left which never seems to go back to why things happened as they did. Maybe Roosevelt should not have met with Ibn Saud after the Yalta conference.
What do you say ?
I'm sure you are opposed to the Mossadegh overthrow as the USSR was never our enemy. They were just misunderstood.
I could go on and on, I suspect.
"ensured".
Obama polls in single digits in the armed forces.
Well, maybe not single digits, but 15% approval is pretty damn close.
Produce these polls. They don't exist.
As usually are, Freder, you are woefully wrong. This was national news back in November. Well, maybe not on MSKGB.
"The French also spent the Cold War on the sidelines...."
They could see it as the political machinations of two political entities of which they were not a part, and there was no point or benefit to involving themselves. It was largely a crock, frankly, the United States exaggerating the power of the Soviet Union--as they have the Muslim extremists--in order to justify perpetually increasing military budgets, and the Soviet Union just trying to keep up.
"...'popularity contest?' As if that means sh*t."
If you think trying to play nice with others and gain influence or achievement of desired ends through diplomacy and mutual cooperation is a "popularity contest"--it isn't--then, yes, it DOES mean shit.
The alternative is to impose one's will on others through force, never a way to foster willing cooperation or stability, and always a way to create resistance, resentment, instability...and enemies.
"Re-litigating 12 years ago does nothing...."
It serves to remind that virtually everything that has happened in the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks would not have happened if not for our monumentally stupid and criminal response, born of ambition and hubris.
"...we do not know what would have happened if Obama had not fled."
Heh...Obama didn't flee...the Iraqis kicked us out by not agreeing to renegotiate and extend our exit date.
(You choose not to point out that our exit from Iraq was negotiated by George W. Bush.)
"Bush's rationale was to wage wars over there so that we dont' have them over here."
That was his purported rationale but it was a Big Lie. It's also like saying "we started the forest fire on the far edge of the forest so they couldn't start one on the near edge of the forest." The thing is, once a forest fire has been started, there's no predicting which way it will burn and who or what will be burned it up in it.
It we hadn't started the wars over there, there probably wouldn't be any wars at all right now.
"We had a choice. South Korea or Vietnam. Yes it would have been hard but it would have been worth it to give Iraq that chance. It would have taken decades. But women would be educated and have opportunity."
Actually, Iraq had already had an excellent education system for decades, and women there were educated...or didn't you know that our invasions of Iraq destroyed that opportunity for many who had it or would have had it previously?
"You chose to turn Iraq into a shit hole where women are second class citizens at best and sex slaves at worst. The left chose genocide and mass displacement."
Umm...are you saying the Bush administration was leftist? They, after all, are the ones who wrought the horrors in Iraq you describe.
"Then you people got involved and turned Iraq into a shit hole."
I think the shit hole thing happened when we illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.
Robert Cook wrote:
It serves to remind that virtually everything that has happened in the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks would not have happened if not for our monumentally stupid and criminal response, born of ambition and hubris.
Are you talking about the attack on 9/11. Why yes it was monumentally stupid and a criminal response born of ambition and hubris.
Robert Cook wrote:
I think the shit hole thing happened when we illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.
Wait, I thought that passed the international test that Kerry was talking about.
Robert Cook wrote:
Umm...are you saying the Bush administration was leftist? They, after all, are the ones who wrought the horrors in Iraq you describe.
Um no. Sadaam Hussein wrought those horrors. Bush removed him and his psychotic sons and helped Iraq set up a transitional democracy that didn't have a strong man dictator with rape rooms for his sons and with shredders for his enemies.
We got the regime change that Clinton and the democrats talked about AND we didn't have to further contain Iraq for threats of WMD's.
That is until ISIS rolled into town and stole the chemical weapons that were stored there.
Afer the surge, could you honestly say that Iraq was worse off than under Sadaam Hussein. Really?
I think the shit hole thing happened when we illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.
I think the shit hole thing happened a long time ago. Ask any Shiite.
Also, we've seen what your benign hands off policy looks like Robert. ALl the people getting their heads chopped off by ISIS right now might beg to differ with your approach.
Robert Cook wrote:
"Umm...are you saying the Bush administration was leftist? They, after all, are the ones who wrought the horrors in Iraq you describe."
Before there was a George Bush white house and before there was a 9/11 there was a Clinton White house. And Clinton came to the decision that Iraq under Sadaam was so bad regime change was needed. Which is why he got the Iraq Liberation Act passed with bipartisan support. He said that so long as Sadaam was in power they would always be dealing with Iraq as a threat. He was the impediment.
All the people saying Bush lied were themselves saying that Sadaam posed a threat.
And the UN was similarly on board for the first 15 resolutions as well as containment because of the points all agreed on and articulated by Clinton and Gore.
So, perhaps, just perhaps, Sadaam's Iraq was in the situation it was in because of Sadaam Hussein. So if it was a hellhole so bad it required a regime change then don't fault Bush for getting it. He got rid of that regime. That's how we should be handling all regimes that pose that many problems. Enough with the quarter measures. If you are going to go so far as calling for regime change, you get it done.
Clinton wreaked much havoc and death in Iraq himself. He is not exempt from complicity for the destruction of Iraq.
Look, Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but Iraq was a better place to live for most of its residents under him than what has come after. It was a functional society, and the people were educated and literate. More, the different factions were living in peace with each other. The utter hell that Iraq has become in the last dozen years is directly our fault. We invaded Iraq illegally and under false pretenses, for our own reasons. And the forest fire that has engulfed other nations in the region in these past dozen years follows from our phoney "war on terror" and our military intervention in these countries.
Robert Cook: "We invaded Iraq illegally and under false pretenses, for our own reasons. And the forest fire that has engulfed other nations in the region in these past dozen years follows from our phoney "war on terror" and our military intervention in these countries."
Ah, I see Robert Cook has "reset" to the ME was a virtual paradise prior to Bush line of attack.
The western marxist never changes his stripes.
Robert Cook said...
"Then you people got involved and turned Iraq into a shit hole."
"I think the shit hole thing happened when we illegally invaded Iraq in 2003."
We were overseeing elections in 2008.
And we found WMD's if you are talking about false pretenses. Just another of your lies.
We were trying to give the Iraqi's a chance at a life you take for granted. If we are so terrible, just get the fuck out. Seriously you are worthless and cowardly.
Robert Cook said...
"Look, Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but Iraq was a better place to live for most of its residents under him than what has come after."
Things were going in the right direction until Obama chose to lose. You progs chose to lose Vietnam and millions died. You are responsible for the chaos that is occurring now. All you people do is cause choas and blame it on other people.
You were sitting on your couch doing nothing. All you had to do was stay there. But you couldn't even do that. Obama chose what Iraq is now. There are consequences to cowardice. Genocide and mass rape are some of those.
I would rather be at war then let ISIS run around murdering and raping. You are so pathetic sitting their on a couch hiding from evil.
This attack really isn't a big deal.
Sort of JV-level of murder and mayhem only.
Nothing to worry about.
Now, about that inevitable and unwarranted and mean-spirited islamophobic response by western nations (which has not yet happened once even though it's predicted everytime), it's very very very important we spend alot of time contemplating that.
On the Cold War -
Since all the relevant material has come out over the last 20 years, maintaining the idea of the innocence and pacifism of the USSR has become a difficult trick. The material available concerning Soviet policy, intentions and activities is tremendous. It takes a truly heroic effort in selective reading to maintain opinions like Cook's.
The best authority, that gives the various devils their due, are the current editions of the works of J L Gaddis (my wife is a distant relative).
For an idea of what is in (part) of the Soviet archives, see the works of Mitrokhin.
As for the military balance in Central Europe, and the intentions of the Soviet military dispositions, as far as I know there is absolutely no qualified analyst willing to disagree with the usually quoted comparisons of materiel (the Soviets really did have a sea of tanks), the offensive orientation of tactical, operational and strategic doctrines for the Central European front. And by this time the details of the technical balance are well known too. It was indeed the plan to attack on a massive scale and rush to the Rhine, and the Soviets had the men, material, and technology to pull it off.
Robert Cook said...
"You chose to turn Iraq into a shit hole where women are second class citizens at best and sex slaves at worst. The left chose genocide and mass displacement."
"Umm...are you saying the Bush administration was leftist? They, after all, are the ones who wrought the horrors in Iraq you describe."
You are too much of a coward to take responsibility for the effects of your policies. You are pathetic. There is a reason nearly everyone in the army hates you people.
"Look, Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but Iraq was a better place to live for most of its residents under him than what has come after."
Yeah guys..you had to be really unlucky to have your wives raped in front of you and then be thrown into a wood chipper feet first after all.
""Look, Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but Iraq was a better place to live for most of its residents under him than what has come after."
Not after the surge. Maliki was no great leader but you weren't seeing the atrocities under him that you were under Sadaam. And built into the system was the mechanism to vote him out. That was never there under Sadaam.
Now, what's happening is as bad or worse than what happened under Sadaam with ISIS. THough, that's only occurring because the dems cut and ran even though the Iraqis were not yet ready to assume full security. This bloodshed is what occurs when we adopt cut and run strategies and don't base our exit on whether it's strategically feasible.
"They asked me very calmly if they could have some water and I was trying to be cool so I said I could make them some coffee,"
Must have been some good coffee.
Good thing they weren't printing cartoons. And how fast that "ounce of humanity" would have evaporated if the guy was Jewish.
Under Maliki the kurds were not being gassed, there was issues with Shia and Sunnis but no one was being sent to rape rooms. And there was stability. Not to mention we didnt' have to keep cointaining the country because of the threat of WMD. And as I stated, Iraqis had the ability to vote out Maliki if they didn't like his leadership. ALL better than Under Sadaam.
Sorry, but when republicans democrats and the International community all act under one belief either they are all liars or there is something to that belief. If all was as good as you say there would be no reason to pass the Iraq Liberation Act, nor have sanctions in place, nor have no fly zones, or Operation Desert Fox
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Last chances for Iraq in 1998. Regime change. Yet there he was 2 years later. And the same crowd wants to reset as if nothing happened prior to warrant Clinton saying IRaq had abused its last chance.
You are literally arguing against history at this point Robert.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Said George Bush....er, I mean Bill Clinton.
This is like groundhog day it's so repetitive. the difference being George Bush got the regime change. and Clinton didn't. And then then dems lied about Iraq being a threat and acted treasonous trying to undermine the war effort.
"Look, Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but Iraq was a better place to live for most of its residents under him than what has come after."
That, my friends, it what absolute moral bankruptcy looks like.
It is the the antithesis of over 500 years of western classic liberal thought.
I didn't get the impression they would harm me, as unbelievable as it sounds. Perhaps they had an ounce of humanity because they let me out
That sounds like two professionals. They weren't out to personally slay every human they encountered. It was a military mission, to decapitate Charlie Hebdo 'to encourage the other' free-speechers to shut up, and it succeeded.
The main media reaction has been, first hand-wringing about Charlie's 'deliberate provocations', as if they wore their skirts too short, and then a public 'concern' lest unwashed Europeans take violence into their own hands and apply it to Muslims.
Imagine a Europe with a thousand such Islamic professionals, armed and prepared.
...but Iraq was a better place to live for most of its residents...
The residents of Halabja could not be reached for comment.
"Europe's Muslims Fear Backlash from Next Week's Massacres and Transit Bombings"
The linked article no longer seems to have the comment about "Stockholm Syndrome," or some of the subsequent ones. Anyone know why?
The events of 1939 and 1940 in France stem from the events of 1916 and 1917. In WW I the French had a massive proportion of the men of a generation wiped out. They couldn't afford to have that happen 2 generations in a row.
Post a Comment