Gay Patriot Header Image

Blood Of Iranian Gays On Carter’s Hands

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:36 am - April 24, 2006.
Filed under: Gays in Other Lands,War On Terror

As PatriotPartner and I discussed the latest news from the gay holocaust in Iran, a thought struck me.

Jimmy Carter chose not to stand up for the secular government of the Shah of Iran in 1979; instead he allowed Islamic fundamentalism to take root in a major country in the Middle East. He continually wimped out of the way of the growing threat and the best he could do was crash eight helicopters into the desert in 1980.

So now, when you see pictures like this…

…you must remember that Jimmy Carter is to blame for the rope as he was in the unique position to step in and disrupt the series of events that instead he allowed to play out that has led us to today’s War Against America.

Powerline agrees:

It was he and his feckless boss President Carter who saw no cause for concern in a potential Iranian mullocracy, and hence no reason to back the Shah of Iran who stood in the mullahs way.

Now, more than 25 years on, the old foreign policy hand is still assuring us that we have little to fear from the mullahs. He seems to take it as a given that, through negotiations, we can talk them out of developing nukes. Alternatively, he assumes that the mullahs won’t be around much longer. Indeed, in the familiar “blame America first” tradition of his party, Brzezinski suggests, without presenting any evidence, that the mullahs were on their way out until the U.S. gave them a lease on life by being so confrontational. If only we would “treat[] Iran with respect,” our problems with that country would work themselves out.

Wishful thinking is a powerful force in human thinking, but the Carter administration confirmed that it’s a recipe for disaster in foreign policy. But all these years later, wishful thinking is all Brzezinski has to offer.

I certainly hope President Bush will stand up to the mullahs in Iran as he did to Saddam. It is just a shame that it took the attacks of 9/11 to focus this nation’s eyes on the mistakes of its leaders before in not standing up to the threat.

President Bush may have hesitated for eight minutes on 9/11 in Florida, but President Clinton squandered eight years while allowing the threat to build.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

74 Comments

  1. While I agree that Carter was a Nero-type leader, I’m not sure I can sign on to the “Carter didn’t back the Shah in the late 70s so he’s at fault for gays being murdered in Iran today.”

    First, even if the Shah had stayed in power, gay still might have been persecuted and killed. Gays in Saudi Arabia (another monarchy) and even Egypt (a purported democracy) are not in the best positions today either, and the mullahs arent in total control in either country.

    Second, every president makes choices. Of course those choices have consequences and can have consequences for many years to come. But blaming them in hindsight I don’t think is a good practice unless you can first prove that he made the wrong choice on day one. Now, this very well may be a situation where Carter just blew it from day one. It probably is. But a lot of other presidents have made decisions that have come back to bite us in the ass (somewhat). Remember how we propped up Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? What about the money we spent on the Afghan opposition to the Soviets? That where Bin Laden got his start.

    I’m not defending Carter’s decisions. I do think this was a bad one from the beginning and one that had immediate negative repercussions. I just don’t think its as easy as A + B = C. It might be more A(x-y) +B(z + w) = N.

    Comment by PatriotPal — April 24, 2006 @ 9:56 am - April 24, 2006

  2. Carter and Clinton hate gays. Bush hearts gays.

    Comment by jimmy — April 24, 2006 @ 10:09 am - April 24, 2006

  3. Of course, if St. Eisenhower’s CIA had not overthrown the popularly-elected Mossadeg government in Iran in 1953, there would not have been a nutty Shah, and so there may not have been the nutty mullahs.

    Eisenhower is to blame, but, of course, Republican hacks apparently know little of history that they can spout unless they believe they can blame others.

    Comment by raj — April 24, 2006 @ 10:28 am - April 24, 2006

  4. But Mossadeg was not angel either…potentially another Nasser or Saddam. Either-way, you still might have gotten the Mad Mullahs in power by present-day. I’m not sure Carter could have stopped the mullahs, but he is to blame for projecting the image of an impotent America that would allow “adventures” by third-rate international players at no-cost to themselves…or their families.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 24, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - April 24, 2006

  5. “…. the best [Carter] he could do was crash eight helicopters into the desert in 1980.

    Well, Bruce, while I tend to generally agree with you on your criticisms of Carter, this is where you just go frigging ’round the bend. “Unhinged” is too mild a description. You make moonbat Cindy Sheehan look like the height of sanity.

    You personally blame Carter for crashing helicopters?! Shall I point out that if Bush were in the same position today, that that is basically the same military option he would probably choose, at least initially? Especially under the Rumsfield doctrine of tighter, leaner, more use of special operations warfare? Its quite similar in fact, to what was done in the initial invasion of Afghanistan, and continues today. The use of tight, focused military operations.

    And you blame Carter for “wimping out” when he actually takes military action, when it was Reagan who basically made a back-room deal of appeasement with Iran’s Mullahs to release the hostages? (Which was Carter’s initial approach to the problem!) And shall we also discuss Reagan later “wimping out” in Beruit as well? Or Bush in the Gulf War? Funny how you jump right to Clinton and just ignore the intervening years.

    If you want to criticize “wishful thinking” taking the place of sound judgment in foreign relations, I suggest you start with Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc., and examine their statements about the troops needed to initially secure the country, or that Iraqi oil was going to pay for the invasion, or “its just a few dead-enders”, etc. There is no shortage of “wishful thinking” in the Bush Administration. And apparently there is no shortage “wishful thinking” at this blog either.

    You might want to consider reading Mark Bowden’s (Black Hawk Down) accounting of the Desert One mission.

    http://iran.theatlantic.com/homepage.html

    You should also consider at least asking some of the families of those that died in that mission whether its OK with them that you trivialize the deaths of their loved ones in casual insults to a former President.

    And BTW, if you want someone to blame about the hangings of gays in Iran, you might start with the people who strung up the rope. Whether its for the blind partisan interests of the Left OR the Right, joining the “Blame America” crowd is never a good idea. And it shows a certain use of the “morals of convenience” on your part. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 24, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - April 24, 2006

  6. At one time Iraq had a liberal leader, or at least liberal for the time and place, but he was deposed by the Baathists. If I can remember the show I watched it went something like this… the Europeans carving up the mid-east found an arguably legitimate monarch and stuck him in power. Then oil got big and there was no need to pay much of any attention to the people anymore so the ruler, who might not have actually been a bad person, sort of let everything fall apart and the people began to suffer greatly. So he was deposed by a cadre of military led by a man with social-liberal ideas about how things should be done. He didn’t turn out to be quite ruthless enough, though, and having modern ideas about women’s rights wasn’t popular with everyone, and the Baathists deposed him in turn and then Saddam removed his boss and put himself in power.

    At the time I doubt anyone really thought that what was going on “over there” would ever matter much to us, over here. The last century seems to be a series of really stupid moves in a foreign policy that (perhaps rightly) feared communism to the extent that the conditions that bred people’s movements were ignored in favor of strong rulers and (false) stability.

    We know better now, I hope.

    Carter’s answer wasn’t much of one. Nor would simply supporting the Shah be an adequate answer because it would have been more of the same. The closest that any US president has come to being willing to address root issues is Dubya. (I suppose Reagan, too, concerning communism.)

    Classical liberalism has become a conservative virtue while the progressives have gone on to the next sparkly thing on the horizon like a child going… ooooo, shiny!

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - April 24, 2006

  7. Patrick, of course he didn’t personally crash helicopters and democratic presidents have *always* been willing to use the military. They just don’t use the military with *intent*. Trying with the helicopters wasn’t necessarily a bad idea but it was done with no determination or force of national will to follow through when it didn’t work. Those holding our embassy could not have been worried by this failed attempt because they could not have any reason to believe that there would be any greater effort, no escalation, no B-52’s intent on vengance, no ICBM’s.

    Reagan, OTOH, scared the crap out of people. What would he do? The percieved willingness to use overwhelming force makes it *possible* to use no force at all. You can’t give the enemy an either-or choice when you’ve proven that one of those choices is ineffectual hot-air.

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - April 24, 2006

  8. Last time I checked, gays in Bush’s Iraq were just as persecuted. Forget about standing up to the mullahs in Iran… Bush isn’t even standing up to the mullahs in Iraq.

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/153203

    I suppose Jimmy Carter is somehow to blame for that, too?

    Comment by Anonymous — April 24, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - April 24, 2006

  9. And you don’t think that concepts of liberty and secular government and rule of law are a step in the right direction?

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - April 24, 2006

  10. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 24, 2006 @ 1:06 pm – April 24, 2006

    But Mossadeg was not angel either….

    This being relevant to–what? Whether or not Mossadeg was an angel, at least he was democratically elected, unlike the Shah. And, it is far from clear whether the Bushies actually believe that the democratically selected rulers in Iraq will be particularly good in regards human rights. It may very well be that the democratically selected rulers in Iraq may be just as obnoxious as the current-day undemocratically selected rulers in Iran. And I’ll refrain from commenting on the shenanigans in 2000 that brought the Bushies–who have shown little if any regard for even civil rights, much less human rights–to power.

    Comment by raj — April 24, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - April 24, 2006

  11. But Mossadeg was not angel either

    That’s an understatement. He was a communist, who wanted to steal British and American property by “nationalizing” the oil, when every refinery was built by American and British companies, which gave Iran far more from the sales than they deserved, since they didn’t lift a finger to build or pump the oil. He was in bed with both communist militias and Islamist terrorists, and was appropriately convicted of treason.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 24, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - April 24, 2006

  12. #11

    Poor deluded rightwingprof’s looney clap-trap. Let’s see:

    All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (U), By Stephen Kinzer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003. 258 pages; Reviewed by David S. Robarge

    Blaming the British: From cabbies to shahs, most Iranians believe political events can be traced back to English interference, writes Robert Tait

    One might expect that even right wing professors would recognize the URL of the first link as one to the US government’s CIA.

    Comment by raj — April 24, 2006 @ 3:47 pm - April 24, 2006

  13. And you don’t think that concepts of liberty and secular government and rule of law are a step in the right direction?

    Of course they don’t, Synova. When you read that article, it makes it clear that these people think life under Saddam was better for all Iraqis.

    And what’s even more hilarious is how that article hides information that directly contradicts Hili’s own description of Saddam’s Iraq as a gay paradise:

    Hili, who has a bachelor’s degree in English literature, and who used to work for Iraqi radio and television, fled to the U.K. in 2002 after having been persecuted for being gay under Saddam Hussein.

    He has been receiving telephoned threats of beatings or death from supporters of SCIRI and Sistani living in England since he became publically identified with the cause of Iraqi gays and as a gay man himself.

    “I had two menacing calls just last night,” he said.

    “In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s there were a couple of gay clubs in Baghdad,” Hili explained, “but they were all shut down in 1993 after sanctions were imposed against Saddam’s regime and Iraq. We had a weekly gay nightclub in the Palestine Hotel that became the gathering place for gay people, especially for actors and others in the entertainment world, but it, too, was shut down. I was arrested three times for being gay, and tortured. After several attempts, I finally was able to escape the country, going first to Dubai, then Jordan, then Syria, and finally reaching England.”

    Maybe Anonymous can explain why his leftist radio program saw fit to leave THAT part out and spin a tale that made Ba’athist Iraq look like a faggot’s paradise.

    That’s how these leftists and liberals play the game; they lie and hide information about just how awful life was in Saddam’s Iraq. Why? Because they cannot admit they opposed Saddam’s removal for proven crimes even worse than those they now bash the Iraqis for allegedly doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - April 24, 2006

  14. #13 North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2006 @ 3:53 pm – April 24, 2006

    Unlike Norht Dallas Thirty, some of us know that life is not a double point, double throw switch, it is more like a potentiometer. According to Hili’s article, life for gays was better under Saddam than it is now, and that it would be expected to be later. Norht Dallas Thirty would like us to believe that life is either hell or heaven (the “DPDT switch”), whereas most of us know that it is somewhere in between (the “potentiometer”).

    Norht Dallas Thirty is obviously a troll.

    Comment by raj — April 24, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - April 24, 2006

  15. I have to agree with some others here: this goes a bit far to hold Carter personally responsible for the execution of gays in Iran today. The man’s administration was terrible and deserves a lot of criticism but this is a stretch. It also opens every president up to a lot of flack for events which happens years after they were in office. No one who sits in the White House has a crystal ball.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — April 24, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - April 24, 2006

  16. Synova

    Those holding our embassy could not have been worried by this failed attempt because they could not have any reason to believe that there would be any greater effort, no escalation, no B-52’s intent on vengance, no ICBM’s.

    Synova, the Iranians were worried that we would attack, that was omong the reasons after the failed mission that they split up the hostages and placed them into different cities. I’ll grant that Carter did make a mistake by going back to the appeasment idea, but isn’t that the solution that Reagan eventually chose? If they were afraid of him as much as you say, then they would have handed over the hostages pronto, instead of negotiating for paybacks.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 24, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - April 24, 2006

  17. I’m just trying to be provocative and have y’all think outside the MSM box.

    Comment by GayPatriot — April 24, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - April 24, 2006

  18. How long after Reagan took office were they released?

    Negotiating *at all* doesn’t work unless the other guy believes he has lost or will lose.

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - April 24, 2006

  19. I have to agree with some others here: this goes a bit far to hold Carter personally responsible for the execution of gays in Iran today.

    Yes, but it’s not even a small stretch to blame him for the fall of the Shah, and the rise of the barbaric terrorist state of Iran. It was precisely, directly his fault.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 24, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - April 24, 2006

  20. Why is it that the length of history is longer for democrats than republicans? Here you place blame on Carter and he hasn’t been in the white house for over 25 years. Of course, if anyone brings up the fact that America asisted in helping to build up Saddam Huessin and his aspirations, people here immediately respond that liberals are living in the past.

    By the way, while the government under the Shah of Iran was secular, let’s keep in mind tha he too was a dictator who kept his people under his heel and that was one of the reasons the fundamentalists were able to seize power.

    Comment by Kevin — April 24, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - April 24, 2006

  21. It may be the apparent motivation for bringing it up, Kev. Quite obviously we should learn from the past and please not do it again. When someone brings up “we supported Saddam” it’s usually as an argument to support the idea that we don’t have the moral authority to do what we need to do *now*.

    Pointing out that wishful thinking didn’t work then is more like saying that supporting dictators didn’t work then… and we should not think that it will work any better now.

    So if you want to argue that supporting Saddam as a counterweight to Iran was a very poor choice for which we are paying now and that we should not repeat the policy, I have no argument with it.

    Being “nice” to the bad guys has never worked in our favor in the long run, has it? Who knows… maybe that’s why Carter didn’t support the Shah… maybe he felt like we were responsible. But I hardly see how that is a legitimate excuse.

    I’ve been having fun with Sun-tzu lately and this reminds me of this part about “five dangerous traits”. Granted, he’s talking about generals and these traits are clearly presented as dangerous *in excess*. One of them is “One obsessed with being scrupulous and untainted can be shamed.”

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - April 24, 2006

  22. If being nice to the bad guy never works for us, Synova, then why are we making nice with the Saudi royals and Pakistan’s brutal dictator? These are Bush’s best friends! Our allies in the war on terror! The fact that they routinely murder and oppress people just doesn’t seem to register with you. Clearly, some oppressive dictators are more equal than others! You preach long and loud about “liberty and secular government and rule of law”… just not for Saudis or Pakistanis, right?

    Like most Republicans, Synova, you are happy to make nice with bad guys if there is something in it for you. And like most Republicans, you are shameless enough to pretend that what you really care about is freedom and democracy. Where is the blame on Bush for propping up Musharraf’s regime? Where is the criticism for his coddling of the Saudis? When do THEY get democracy?

    Comment by Anonymous — April 24, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - April 24, 2006

  23. GayPatriot says:

    I’m just trying to be provocative and have y’all think outside the MSM box.

    If by “outside the MSM box” you mean repeating or expanding on every tired hysterical cliche about the EVIL LIBERAL DEMOCRATS OMG!!!!….

    ……Then “Mission Accomplished”.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 24, 2006 @ 6:58 pm - April 24, 2006

  24. Unlike Norht Dallas Thirty, some of us know that life is not a double point, double throw switch, it is more like a potentiometer. According to Hili’s article, life for gays was better under Saddam than it is now, and that it would be expected to be later.

    Of course — because Hili hides and does not talk about what happened to gays under Saddam, which directly contradicts his assertions.

    That was proven with links, Raj. Your rebuttal consisted of nothing but hurling vitriol in an attempt to smear me.

    You have been exposed as someone who covers up and hides facts, then screams and throws tantrums when those coverups are exposed.

    Given your behavior, I should take the fact that you call me “troll” as a compliment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - April 24, 2006

  25. If being nice to the bad guy never works for us, Synova, then why are we making nice with the Saudi royals and Pakistan’s brutal dictator?

    Better question: why did you and yours, then, oppose putting a swift and immediate end to Saddam’s regime?

    Go ahead, talk about how you were engaged in “diplomacy”, how it would have been more effective to bring world and economic pressure against Iraq, how violence should only be the last possible option after economic and diplomatic sanctions have been imposed and ignored by the country in question.

    Then stick your foot in your mouth and realize that you are now criticizing the Bush administration doing with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia what you demanded that it do with Iraq.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - April 24, 2006

  26. #23 And what do *you* care about? NDT is perfectly correct… does this mean that you promote and support putting a swift military end to the Saudi and Pakistani governments, or any of the very many other nasties arond the world?

    All at once, or else… what? We’re hypocrites? How is this even logical?

    But, since you asked… being known to have the national will to follow through gives us a better place to bargain from. Diplomatic pressure is not being “nice”.

    “… attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.” Sun-tzu

    The application of force doesn’t have to be military.

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - April 24, 2006

  27. Why did we oppose putting an end to Saddam’s regime? Twenty-three hundred reasons, and counting.

    Was Saddam bad? Yes. Did he need to go? Yes. Was the price we paid for it worth it? Not even close.

    Now we are engaged in nation-building (something Bush specifically campaigned against in 2000) and not doing a very good job of it unless our goal is to build another Shi’ite theocracy and put paid Iranian agents in charge of it.

    “Let me tell you what else I’m worried about: I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. … I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.'” That was Bush in 2000.

    “Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support. They shall be given priority comparable to combat operations… .” That was Rumsfeld just last December. Do conservatives REALLY believe that “stability operations” in a foreign country are properly a core mission for the United States military? Really?

    Comment by Anonymous — April 24, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - April 24, 2006

  28. Is the question “nuclear-armed” Iran? Or, nuclear-armed “mad Mullahs”?

    At this point I think it’s just not feasible to militarily-damage Iran without swinging the currently “Mullah-pliant” population against us. So if we can not achive one gaol, let’s concentrate on the opposite end of the problem….how much political and social damage can we apply against the Mullahs to get them out of power and a popularily-elected, Western-friendly government installed if we applied the moral-equivalent of war to the effort…including violations of international law and past treaties. What fi we aage a “dirty war to end all dirty wars” directly against the Mullahs and their immediate families. Gloves-off and tightly-targeted; assassinations, direct-strikes against their homes and properties, electronic-war against their assets, and every dirty low-down black-ops tricks.

    What’s the threshold of mullahs that we can kill before overtly-offending the Iranian populace? No trials, no war-crimes prosecutions…just dead and rotting in the streets? Can we provoke the mullahs into doing something so offensive to the secular Iranian population that the mullahs will either pack their political-bags and leave…or be driven or voted out of office?

    The mullahs hold on political power is not as entrenched as Saddam.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 24, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - April 24, 2006

  29. Patrick, #5 — I agree with much of what you posted in your comment(s). But please don’t claim that Bush 41 “wimped” out in the Gulf War. The United Nations and U. S. congressional resolutions only authorized military force to remove Iraq’s military from Kuwait. Bush 41 and the coalition had no authority to invade Iraq and take down Saddam.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — April 25, 2006 @ 12:36 am - April 25, 2006

  30. He could have done it, at least as a hit and run, and maybe *should* have, but it’s quite right that the “mandate” as it was, was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Only. Going on to Bagdad would certainly have been firmly in lone cowboy territory. If the US congress had put a limit on the authorization then it *would* have been an illegal war. (Unlike this one, which isn’t, no matter how much some people don’t like it.)

    What I’ve often found curious and somewhat humorous are the arguments that I’ve heard from time to time that Bush 41 basically made the decision not to remove Saddam for reasons that primarily had to do with Iraq… and that he was right. Usually it’s something like, “Even his dad realized that it was the wrong thing to do.”

    Comment by Synova — April 25, 2006 @ 1:46 am - April 25, 2006

  31. Why did we oppose putting an end to Saddam’s regime? Twenty-three hundred reasons, and counting.

    Was Saddam bad? Yes. Did he need to go? Yes. Was the price we paid for it worth it? Not even close.

    Of course, under sanctions, nearly one million Iraqis, if not more, were systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.

    So what’s the threshold of mass murder before the United States should go to war, Anonymous? What’s the ratio of US lives to Shi’ite, Kurd, Marsh Arab, and other lives before someone’s behavior becomes intolerable?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:25 am - April 25, 2006

  32. “Why is it that the length of history is longer for democrats than republicans?”–Kevin (#20).

    Because in the edited form taught in public schools, it’s easier to remember.

    Comment by Anthony — April 25, 2006 @ 7:34 am - April 25, 2006

  33. North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:25 am – April 25, 2006

    Of course, under sanctions, nearly one million Iraqis, if not more, were systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.

    Anyone can make up numbers. Your source for this number being–what?

    Comment by raj — April 25, 2006 @ 9:10 am - April 25, 2006

  34. raj above, “(Asked of NDXXX) Anyone can make up numbers. Your source for this number being–what?”

    After calling someone a troll, demeaning the speech of others, and playing the pompous, pretentious, pusillanimous pedantic professor, you have the utter unmitigated gall to ask for sources????

    Good God man, have you no sense of shame? Oh wait, you’re a lawyer. Sorry, forgot.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 9:43 am - April 25, 2006

  35. Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 9:43 am – April 25, 2006

    you have the utter unmitigated gall to ask for sources…

    Yes, Matt. I have the unmitigated gall to ask for sources. NDXXX has, on another web site (IndeGayForum), posited certain numbers that he supposedly had obtained from the Wall Street Journal. On further examination of the supposed source of the WSJ’s numbers, none of them jibe with the WSJ’s own source.

    I’ll ask for sources. If you don’t like it, well, that’s your problem. And, if he can’t provide them, that’s his problem.

    And if he exaggerates to the point of bloviation, yes, as far as I’m concerned, he is a troll.

    Although, considering that around here, virtually nobody provides sources, NDXXX’s failure to provide sources shouldn’t be a surprise.

    Comment by raj — April 25, 2006 @ 10:30 am - April 25, 2006

  36. #31 Shiite and Kurd lives are worthless NDT. Don’t you know nuttin?

    Comment by Synova — April 25, 2006 @ 10:48 am - April 25, 2006

  37. # 31 North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:25 am – April 25, 2006

    So what’s the threshold of mass murder before the United States should go to war, Anonymous?

    You really, truly, don’t want to go there.

    Comment by raj — April 25, 2006 @ 11:03 am - April 25, 2006

  38. Our country goes to war to defend OUR interests and OUR people and OUR country, North Dallas Thirty. We are not the world’s policeman to run around preventing any and all murders in far-off countries. And THAT has been conservative doctrine for forty years.

    If you think that our military should be used to go out and keep people from killing each other, then don’t pretend to be a conservative. Our military is not a machine for social engineering. Put down the White Man’s Burden, at long last, why don’t you?

    As for the ratio of lives, it is irrelevant before the fact (especially since the Bush people assured us that the war would be over in six weeks and we would lose few lives). Considering that Bush in 2000 attacked Clinton for going into Somalia to save lives, I find it rather surprising that you are now arguing that he should do the very thing he campaigned against! (Well, considering your record of hypocrisy, I guess I don’t find it that surprising, after all…)

    As Bush said in 2000: “But we can’t be all things to all people in the world, Jim. … I’m worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti. I didn’t think it was a mission worthwhile.”

    So we don’t send troops into Haiti to prevent mass murders, but we do send them into Iraq? What is the threshold there, North Dallas Thirty?

    Comment by Anonymous — April 25, 2006 @ 11:03 am - April 25, 2006

  39. Synova… is that what Bush said in 2000… that Haitian lives are worthless? Because Bush said in 2000 that he didn’t think the Haiti mission was worthwhile.

    Thank you for clarifying that for us.

    Comment by Anonymous — April 25, 2006 @ 11:05 am - April 25, 2006

  40. But please don’t claim that Bush 41 “wimped” out in the Gulf War.

    But he did. What you say is true — it was UN pressure that kept us from finishing the job, but if Bush.41 had had the cojones and strength of character his son has, Bush.41 would have told the corrupt UN to take a hike and completed the job.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 11:14 am - April 25, 2006

  41. Somalia was a waste. Why? Because we spent blood and treasure and then we ran away. It would have been far less of a waste had we pushed through to a successful conclusion. We went into Somalia without the national will to do what needed to be done. From the moment our guys were met on the beach by floodlights and news crews the whole mission was screwed. The troops there should have turned around and got back on the amphibious landers and gone home.

    Moreover, it was yet one more example, proving to the world, that the US can not abide *any* US casualties. Because one US life is worth more than any number of other lives. Knowing this “truth” means that people like Bin Laden or anyone else for that matter, will behave toward us according to that truth. And look where it gets us.

    Iraq is not *primarily* a humanitarian mission, yet the humanitarian aspects relate directly and forcefully to our national interest. For now (but possibly not later) Darfur doesn’t pose a threat to us because, as far as I know, it’s not developing hatred for us as a scapegoat for their troubles. In the future? Maybe we’ll be sorry that we didn’t do something.

    The threat posed by Saddam was secondary to the threat posed to us by the situation itself. Finding Saddam replaced by the next sadistic tyrant (or worse yet, either of his sons) would have served our purposes not at all. Putting in some other strongman with the belief that we could control him would be repeating mistakes of half a century ago.

    It’s *dangerous* to allow the situation in the middle east to continue. The fact that they live with a mindset from the last century doesn’t keep them from the science and technology of *this* century… they could bomb or gas or infect any part of the world and have proved it.

    Being “nice” and hoping that they will just decide *not* to attack is not an option.

    Comment by Synova — April 25, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - April 25, 2006

  42. raj writes, with a smirk I hope because no human can be that patently and blatantly duplicitous, “I’ll ask for sources. If you don’t like it, well, that’s your problem.” (Ed. note: LOL) “And, if he can’t provide them, that’s his problem. And if he exaggerates to the point of bloviation, yes, as far as I’m concerned, he is a troll.”

    Did anyone see a blackened kettle around here? Raj baby, you not only take the cake for outrageous silliness with that last bit, you baked and burned it too. I hope you were smirking because, if not, you have some issues with truthful discourse. Oh wait, you’re a lawyer; forgot.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - April 25, 2006

  43. raj writes, with a smirk I hope because no human can be that patently and blatantly duplicitous, “I’ll ask for sources. If you don’t like it, well, that’s your problem.” (Ed. note: LOL) “And, if he can’t provide them, that’s his problem. And if he exaggerates to the point of bloviation, yes, as far as I’m concerned, he is a troll.”

    Not long ago, he claimed to have done a study. I asked to see his data and analysis. I have yet to see either.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - April 25, 2006

  44. Actually, Matt, the smear attack he’s making is relative to where I gave the exact location of the source. Obviously, there IS a discrepancy in numbers, but that is as likely to be the WSJ’s fault than mine. He can look himself.

    But the funny thing is, Matt, that Raj himself, as I demonstrated, can’t read his own sources. He clearly is wrong, but instead of admitting his mistake and providing an explanation, he clams up.

    In short, I’m more than happy to give sources. But in his case, I’m not inclined to cast pearls before swine.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - April 25, 2006

  45. Our country goes to war to defend OUR interests and OUR people and OUR country, North Dallas Thirty. We are not the world’s policeman to run around preventing any and all murders in far-off countries. And THAT has been conservative doctrine for forty years.

    However, had we acted to end the murders in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden would have been denied a sheltering government, training camps, and the stability necessary to put in place and carry out his devastating plans.

    Prior to 2001, when the threat was primarily from real armies and countries, your thrust of logic made more sense. But this is post-9/11, and the threat to the US is less that of rogue nations using their armies on us than it is of rogue nations sheltering, equipping, and encouraging other elements to attack us as their proxies.

    The price of eliminating those nations as a threat is nation-building and restructuring. Period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - April 25, 2006

  46. “So what’s the threshold of mass murder before the United States should go to war, Anonymous?”

    You really, truly, don’t want to go there.

    Yes I do, Raj, for a very simple reason; the smaller the number you try to bring up, the more the case for war against Saddam builds. The larger the number you bring up, the more you make look like fools your liberal counterparts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - April 25, 2006

  47. RWP, NDXXX –thanks for the clarifications. I’ve never found raj baby to be inclined to answer on task, admit error, or restrain the bloviating.

    It’s a shame because I think we need more people reinforcing for America that Germany and all things teutonic is the answer to our problems. That raj, he’s a handful.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - April 25, 2006

  48. RWP, NDXXX –thanks for the clarifications. I’ve never found raj baby to be inclined to answer on task, admit error, or restrain the bloviating.

    As I said, he’s like a first-year grad student: overly impressed with his own intellgience when he knows very little, and inclined to cite sources that are either unreliabe, or don’t support his position.

    I’ve known — and slapped down, though gently — hundreds of him.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 3:17 pm - April 25, 2006

  49. To begin an article by writing “As PatriotPartner and I discussed the latest news from the gay holocaust in Iran…” is both insensitive and degrading to the Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust. Because frankly, nothing before or since comes remotely close to the horrific, systematic exterminiation the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Thus, to use that word, Holocaust, to describe anything else diminishes its power and relevance.

    Comment by Erik — April 25, 2006 @ 3:43 pm - April 25, 2006

  50. Because frankly, nothing before or since comes remotely close to the horrific, systematic exterminiation the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Thus, to use that word, Holocaust, to describe anything else diminishes its power and relevance.

    Sure it does — according to gay Democrats, the Bush administration IS the Holocaust. They even make the claim that there are concentration camps for gays operating.

    Did you see who was making these claims?

    Mike Rogers and Ann Northrop (pictured above) were part of a panel, including Michelangelo Signorile, on October 12 at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center that discussed the impact of outing closeted officials who oppose gay rights.

    All prominent gay journalists esteemed by the Left, eh?

    Did you see who was sponsoring the public event?

    Four queer political clubs — the Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats, the Stonewall Democratic Club, the Lambda Independent Democrats of Brooklyn and the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens — sponsored the event that was moderated by Paul Schindler, the editor in chief of Gay City News.

    Why not go after them first, especially since they can’t even prove that said concentration camps exist, than go after GP reporting on the real news from Iran?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - April 25, 2006

  51. #50 – So, Erik – Do you make a similar objections about MoveOn.org’s (and your other leftist buddies’) radically incorrect use of words such as “Nazi” in describing Bush?

    #49 and earlier – Guys, guys 🙂 It’s fun to see you catch raj in YET ANOTHER set of outright lies about sources, about the meaning of his own words, etc. But you must know, on some level, that you are wasting your time. It is SO not about honesty or integrity, with raj. He is a pervert, in the word’s exact sense: someone deeply twisted. Words have no meaning to him. They’re just weapons – Formalisms to be shifted and twisted at will, in his (many) efforts to wound others. You must already know that he doesn’t care how successfully you nail him.

    Comment by Calarato — April 25, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - April 25, 2006

  52. P.S. raj’s “style” (ugh) of using words as meaningless pure weapons-for-the-sake-of-wounding is something I usually / only see from certain Leftists who have had, and who have quite thoroughly enjoyed, a Post-Modern or “critical [sic] theory” type of philosophy education. Using words as meaningless pure weapons-for-the-sake-of-wounding is a conscious part of their political, social and philosophical strategy. As I’ve said before, it’s neatly explained here.

    Comment by Calarato — April 25, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - April 25, 2006

  53. So, Erik – Do you make a similar objections about MoveOn.org’s (and your other leftist buddies’) radically incorrect use of words such as “Nazi” in describing Bush?

    Damn you, Calarato, you beat me to it!

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - April 25, 2006

  54. 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — April 25, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - April 25, 2006

  55. “Of course, under sanctions, nearly one million Iraqis, if not more, were systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.’

    Fiction.

    Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 25, 2006 @ 10:51 pm - April 25, 2006

  56. Have we lost sight of the fact that there is a handsome gay man in the prime of his life standing in this picture about to be hanged. Gay people everywhere in the free world should be outraged and want to destroy the evil regime that does this to us. We should be willing to raise our own army and go country to country wiping out evil such as this.

    Comment by Mike — April 25, 2006 @ 11:14 pm - April 25, 2006

  57. […] I was reading gaypatriot as I do and came across this story. I am tired of listening to safe young liberals talk about our invasion of Iraq and how we can’t police the world. Of course we can!!! The fact is that there is a handsome gay man in the prime of his life standing in this picture about to be hanged. Gay people everywhere in the free world should be outraged and want to destroy the evil regime that does this to us. We should be willing to raise our own army and go country to country wiping out evil such as this. […]

    Pingback by mikeandpaul.com » Blog Archive » Gay stuff — April 25, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - April 25, 2006

  58. Considering Saddam documented in detail his determination to destroy America I would say that the Iraq Liberation was vital to our National Security.

    Haven’t checked but has Amy Goodman from Democracy Now ever posted any of Saddam’s translated documents for her followers to read. Afterall, Ms. Amy does believe in freedom of information doesn’t she?

    Comment by syn — April 26, 2006 @ 7:24 am - April 26, 2006

  59. syn, the answer to your question is a simple one… Ms Goodman has not posted those documents because, if she did, her followers would revolt.

    The radical Dem-Rule-O’-The-Day is ignore the Saddam files, if unable to ignore then try to discredit, if unable to discredit then steer attention to the unanswered allegations in the Downing Street Memo –which clearly said Bush wanted to lie to get us into war, he conned Congress, Britain, Blair, and the MSM to do it, he knew the French and UN had effectively neutralized Saddam, sanctions were working, and his oil buddies in Texas wanted to grab the Iraqi oil so they could screw Westerners with high gas prices –today is proof it was all a conspiracy.

    Oh, and Rumsfeld just wanted to play Napoleon to Rice’s Metternich…. yeah, that makes the spin sound like it’s based in historical fact.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 8:52 am - April 26, 2006

  60. Have we lost sight of the fact that there is a handsome gay man in the prime of his life standing in this picture about to be hanged.

    Please don’t think I’m being contentious, but what does his appearance or age have to do with it?

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 26, 2006 @ 10:34 am - April 26, 2006

  61. More silliness from the peanut gallery.

    rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 2:19 pm – April 25, 2006

    Not long ago, he claimed to have done a study. I asked to see his data and analysis. I have yet to see either.

    Take a look at comments ## 33 and 34 on http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=1204

    Take a look at the date/time stamps on those comments, as well.

    And, refer to comment #22. I did not claim to have done a study. I claimed to have done an “an analysis of marriage and divorce statistics that I found on the internet.” I don’t know what the Prof is referring to by a “study” separate and apart from statistics found over the internet. Maybe he would like to explain.

    Comment by raj — April 26, 2006 @ 11:53 am - April 26, 2006

  62. #61 I suppose it doesn’t, really… except it does, somehow, just in gut reactions. I’ve started scrolling the picture up so I can’t see it because it’s painful and part of that reaction is, if I’m honest, a reaction to youth and vitality.

    I do frequently get annoyed when some famous young person dies and everyone goes on an on about “before their time” because when is it ever time? When the cause is sickness people tend to mention God, and I think… does God really value a 12 year old girl differently than a 50 year old man? And it annoys me.

    Even so and even having thought about it a lot… I still have that gut reaction. I think this particular picture even more so, possibly because he’s looking at the camera.

    Comment by Synova — April 26, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - April 26, 2006

  63. Still no data or analysis. Still waiting.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 26, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - April 26, 2006

  64. rightwingprof — April 26, 2006 @ 2:26 pm – April 26, 2006

    Still no data or analysis. Still waiting.

    Your inability to provide evidence countering what I had earlier posted based on evidence is of no particular relevance. As I said in the previous comment thread prove me wrong.

    No evidence, no proof.

    Comment by raj — April 26, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - April 26, 2006

  65. Still no data, still no analysis, and still no evidence. Still waiting.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 26, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - April 26, 2006

  66. Calarato — April 25, 2006 @ 4:44 pm – April 25, 2006

    raj’s “style” (ugh) of using words as meaningless pure weapons-for-the-sake-of-wounding is something I usually / only see from certain Leftists who have had, and who have quite thoroughly enjoyed, a Post-Modern or “critical [sic] theory” type of philosophy education.

    You seem to have blinders on. Apparently, you haven’t been to FreieRepublikaner.com (the ridiculously-named FreeRepublic.com web site–Rusty Lamebrain’s favorite web site), or to the LittleGreenGoofballs web site. I have. The goofballs who post on those websites are amazing. I learned more than a few synonyms for faggots there than I had ever learned in my 50 or so years (depending on when I was posting) on this earth.

    Now, let’s get something, uh, straight. “Using words as meaningless pure weapons”? That’s ridiculous. Maybe some should consider actually responding. Some, in particular, refuse to respond, even when confronted with data–even from the Census Bureau–and one can only conclude that they wish to continue wandering around with their blinders on. Es ist mir egal.

    Comment by raj — April 26, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - April 26, 2006

  67. Sort of like saying the BEA is a private sector enterpise and highly regarded, raj? LOL. You go girl; when faced with you own errors, you run, hide, and obfuscate.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - April 26, 2006

  68. Patriot:

    I lived under the Shah in Tehran in the 70’s. I was an out, gay college student at that time.

    IMO, you don’t know what you are talking about in this post.

    If you want to know the truth, e-mail me, if not don’t.

    Comment by Diogenes — April 27, 2006 @ 11:48 am - April 27, 2006

  69. Awfully hard to email someone who doesn’t leave an email address, isn’t it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - April 27, 2006

  70. E mail sent to you with same comment at:

    GayPatriot2004@aol.com

    If this address incorrect please advise.

    E mail was filled in here, as well, in appropriate blank space.

    Comment by Diogenes — April 27, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - April 27, 2006

  71. the shah was a horrible brutal dictator. The people who support him today are the chalabis of Iran ( ie crooks). the idea that a “patriot” would support a dictator with “the” in front of his name is ridiculous. iranfocus and all the beverly hills Iranians have the blood on their hands, not jimmy carter

    Comment by lester — May 1, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - May 1, 2006

  72. I guess the blood of THIS gay Iraqi is on Bush’s hands then?

    http://ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2006may/0401.htm

    Comment by Anonymous — May 4, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - May 4, 2006

  73. When you all have a few minutes, you should see this site: http://www.saneworks.us.

    Comment by Jakes — May 17, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - May 17, 2006

  74. We are committing the same problems that we did with Iran. We are supporting a government that is lacking in its legitimacy through the indiscriminate use of large amounts of firepower. The reason the shah came to power was that the powers that be did not want a islamist, if you will, to rule one of the most important oil producing countries in the Middle East, if not the world. Carter was just cointinuing a policy that the U.S. articulated in the 1950s. Were we supposed to abandon the dictator that we installed less than twenty years previous. Also, it is not like Reagan improved on our Iranian policy, lest we forget Iran/Contra.

    Comment by Trey Nixon — July 6, 2006 @ 5:16 am - July 6, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.