Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I am arguing that faith as such, faith as an alleged method of aquiring knowledge, is totally invalid and as a consequence, all propositions of faith, because they lack rational demonstration, must conflict with reason.
[George H. Smith, from Atheism: The Case Against God]
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Note to self: don't go easy on 'em | Main | A Very new kid on the block! »
Category: Politics
Posted on: September 14, 2007 2:42 PM, by PZ Myers
Our country seems to have killed at least a million Iraqis at the whim of George W. Bush and his cabal of neocons.
I know that his former friends have started disowning him — he's no True Conservative now — but since he is officially a mass-murdering monster, can we also expect them to retroactively declare him an atheist?
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Shock and Awe...
Posted by: Josh | September 14, 2007 2:48 PM
Come on now, he may be a mass murderer, but he's not as bad as an atheist...
Posted by: Dahan | September 14, 2007 2:49 PM
It's only murder if they're not poor or brown.
Posted by: Caucasian Jesus | September 14, 2007 2:49 PM
Not just those few guys. Bush was re-elected.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | September 14, 2007 2:52 PM
Bush was never elected. He cheated twice.
Posted by: NeoGothic | September 14, 2007 2:58 PM
Well, that's only if you count Bush responsible for deaths directly caused by internecine attacks as well as by the US military.
Posted by: pdf23ds | September 14, 2007 3:00 PM
It seems to me that he's competing with god for worst evil-doer. If anything, this makes him more christian!
Posted by: Brian Thompson | September 14, 2007 3:06 PM
What? Give an atheist credit for wiping out that many Muslims? That would be downright un-Christian. This guy's gunning for a penthouse in Heaven, and by God, he's gonna earn it!
Posted by: Akitagod | September 14, 2007 3:06 PM
Is there good reason to believe those people would still be alive if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq for oil-profiteering and penis-size reasons, or isn't there?
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 14, 2007 3:07 PM
We are a horribly violent, reactionary nation.
We should be extremely worried about that.
We aren't, and millions die as a result.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 14, 2007 3:18 PM
Yes, its all George Bush and the American army who are doing the killing, there are no evil, murdering scumbags who happen to be Iraqis or Iranians, or any other race. It is all George Bush.
Posted by: Donalbain | September 14, 2007 3:30 PM
"We are a horribly violent, reactionary nation."
Yes, I agree. Perhaps we should commit mass suicide; for if America didn't exist, the bluebirds would come out again and everything would be peaceful and people would lay down their arms and grenades and embrace each other.
Let's also add to the list of dead Iraqis all the dead Germans and Japanese. Reactionary, indeed.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | September 14, 2007 3:35 PM
Donalbain, read comment 9 again.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 14, 2007 3:35 PM
Paul, learn to distinguish your country from your fictitious president.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 14, 2007 3:36 PM
"Paul, learn to distinguish your country from your fictitious president."
~My~ president? If you are referring to Bush, I did not vote for him.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | September 14, 2007 3:39 PM
Wooo-EEEE! Dubya's the NEW "Butcher of Baghdad"! Yayyyyyy!
Suck on this, libruls! Your boy Saddam can't compare, he done been beat!
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | September 14, 2007 3:40 PM
Your country has not killed that many, at least half are the result of crazy religious affiliation. If the police went on strike and 60 people got murdered because they were not around, you would hardly say they killed them.
This is not to support the inane attacking and occupation of Iraq, but you cannot hold America guilty for every death - much of it they did to each other in the name of their prophet's relatives if I understand correctly. Let us put the blame for that part where it belongs - on religion.
Posted by: sailor | September 14, 2007 3:41 PM
Not all of the Iraqis would be dead had we not come to liberate them from Saddam - however, quite a few less would be had we taken the time to think our actions through (what will happen if we aren't greeted as saviors? who gets to run things after we leave? how do we facilitate a democratically elected government in a nation where there has not been one for some time?) rather than to jump in and assume that verything would somehow take care of itself. We did not even take the time or money to protect our own people properly, much less those we had come to liberate. Our arrogance has cost many lives that would not have been lost as violently or as early as they would have been if we had gone to war more honestly and with a clearer understanding of what we were to do and how it was to be done. Since President Bush has been the chief architect of the war and how it has been waged, he deserves the lion's share of the blame for its outcome, particularly when the outcome can be traced in large part to his decisions and his dishonesty.
Posted by: Hap | September 14, 2007 3:44 PM
Donalbain, read comment 9 again.
You're being facetious, aren't you? The second word was a dead giveaway.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | September 14, 2007 3:46 PM
Once upon a time the United States of America was a law abiding global citizen.
We now seem to have descended to the level of an international pariah.
"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.
Excerpted from an article on ZNET titled Crime Against Humanity by John Pilger
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3426
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 14, 2007 3:46 PM
"Let us put the blame for that part where it belongs - on religion."
Oh no, we can't do that. We must blame America, we must. We thrive on self loathing and guilt and to attribute any blame to any other source than ourselves would deprive us of our mental food source.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | September 14, 2007 3:48 PM
Somethings tells me that if everything worked out perfectly and we were greeted with flowers and candy and democracy swept across the middle-east, there wouldn't be quite so much hesitation in calling Bush a "genius" and a "visionary".
Tough to have it both ways, no?
Posted by: syntyche | September 14, 2007 3:51 PM
Hmm, I usually like this blog. This time however I'm a little dissapointed.
Did you follow the link, then follow that link?
The one million+ number comes from a poll (!?!) of 1700+ people.
What the hell? That isnt data. If china attacks us, squanders our resources, and makes it so that your neighborhood is lying in ruins and someone comes along and asks you "how many people died as a result of this war", you think people arent going to exaggerate?
How many people would have been killed if the war didnt happen? There is no way to know? Perhaps Saddam would have gone on another rampage? Perhaps the sunni/shia conflict would have rose on its own. Perhaps iran would have gotten sick of their neighbor again anyway.
I would have been more impressed if the verified the answers.
I too am dead set against this war (because any rational person would have insisted on real data before taking us to war). we have squandered the goodwill we had when we went into Afghanistan, we have wasted 500 billion dollars which could have been spent on far more useful things that improve our economy and security.
I was just sad to see this blog and much of its readership fall right into this poll.
Posted by: techskeptic | September 14, 2007 3:58 PM
Germany has already issued an arrest warrant on war crimes charges for Rumsfeld. How do we get them to indict the rest of the Executing branch?
Posted by: stogoe | September 14, 2007 4:05 PM
I too will echo the comments of some other posters at PZ's knee-jerk statement of "our country seems to have killed at least a million Iraqis". Obviously, many (and probably the vast majority) of these Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis and foreign fighters (to a lesser extent). Too often when the US is blamed (and there is definitely a lot of blame we deserve), it is forgotten that religious, douchebags (who are much more evil than our troops and generals) are a big problem. If there was no possibility of sectarian warfare, then the removal of Saddam Hussein would have gone very smoothly and we wouldn't be having problems and it would be quite a noble thing to do. It is the "religious douchebags" causing the problem and killing their own people. Would we have the same problem if Canada came under the sway of a dictator which we removed? Having said that, I have always been and continue to be against the Iraq war for the obvious reasons.
Posted by: Casey | September 14, 2007 4:07 PM
We tend to forget that often our own troops and generals are also religious douchebags. Keep in mind the Air Force Academy issues with evangelicals harrassing anyone who wasn't, General Boykin, etc.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 14, 2007 4:10 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on this Wall Street Journal article?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118972683557627104.html
We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong. Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye. ....These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 14, 2007 4:10 PM
Yes.
I wonder how the US would react if the world got together and removed its current dictator (I mean, 'Decider'.)
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by: Brownian | September 14, 2007 4:10 PM
This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. What kind of moral myopia is necessary to blame George Bush for the fact that religious fanatics would rather tear their society to shreds than participate in its consturcution? An you as an atheist think your clear headed. Your giving us atheists a bad name with this kind of partisan crap. You not only uncritically accept the statistics but also uncritically put the blame on Bush. I fail to see how it is Bush's fault that a great number of people think the Creator of the Universe commands them to blow up innocent people over a disagreement about a 7 century succession dispute for a caliphate. Absurd. As occupying powers go I challenge someone here to find an example of one that has worked harder and sacrificed more for the society under its control? The British? They simply killed outright for nothing more than disloyalty to the crown. The french? Not many colonial powers have become as good at torture and mass murder as they became in Algeria. Germany? Well lets not list their horrors. The blame for the vast majority of the civilian death toll lies with the Iragis. Give me a break. This is excuse making worse than the religious apologists you decry. "No their not killing eachother because of their infatuation with insane religious myths. Its because George Bush invaded." Yeah's its only murder when their not poor and brown, and their only to be blamed for their religious hysteria when their white and Republican and American apparently.
http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Bill C. | September 14, 2007 4:17 PM
I suppose it would be the kind of moral myopia that recognizes that forcing democracy without any kind of power sharing agreement onto a region with stark racial, cultural and religious divides will cause either a permanent hegemony of whichever group happens to have the most members, or a civil war perpetrated by the groups who don't want to live under that hegemony. Does that help?
Posted by: Dustin | September 14, 2007 4:21 PM
He, and he alone, made a decision. The direct consequences of that decision led to the deaths of many thousands of people. Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult moral calculation to me.
Posted by: syntyche | September 14, 2007 4:23 PM
"Obviously, many (and probably the vast majority) of these Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis and foreign fighters (to a lesser extent)."
No, the point is that many of those people wouldn't have been killed either, if Bush hadn't initiated this war in Iraq. This war has had consequences, which has resulted in the deaths of scores upon scores of innocent people in Iraq - who would still be alive today - if Bush had not insisted on this war. Whether they were killed by Americans or other Iraqis or foreign fighters does not serve to undermine that fact.
Now do you get it?
Posted by: Robert S. | September 14, 2007 4:24 PM
Suggesting that George W. Bush was responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis is like saying Tim McVeigh was responsible for the deaths of 168 people. All McVeigh did was set off a bomb -- it was the bomb and debris from the building that killed everyone.
Posted by: Bill C., gitwizard extraordinaire | September 14, 2007 4:28 PM
What kind of atheist uses the term 'moral myopia'?
So your argument boils down to "we're above reproach because others are/have been worse"?
Should we have a system of law in which any crime that is not worse than the most heinous crime so far committed is immediately dismissed?
Bring in the neurobiology students. I'd be most interested to find out what the fuck your brain is running on.
Posted by: Brownian | September 14, 2007 4:29 PM
I'd like to see statistics for shia/sunni violence in Iraq before we toppled their civilization, disbanded the army, and pissed on the ashes.
Everyone knew that shia/sunni violence was going to be a huge problem if we invaded, and Bush the Lesser decided to prove his penis size rather than leave the powder-keg alone.
Posted by: stogoe | September 14, 2007 4:34 PM
Do try to keep in mind that America, and America alone, started this war. For those of you who think killing the innocent is the path to peace, you can go fuck yourselves. Iraq was not a threat to us. Not at all, and it's been proven time and time again. Iraq did not, and could not, attack us. That's been proven time and time again.
Keep that in mind the next time you get on your damned knees to worship this worthless, murderous, treasonous president.
Posted by: Dan | September 14, 2007 4:38 PM
I have this funny idea that this is outside of their realm of expertise, and that we'd ought to talk to a zoo keeper instead.
Posted by: Dustin | September 14, 2007 4:42 PM
Bill C. said (#29): I fail to see how it is Bush's fault that a great number of people think the Creator of the Universe commands them to blow up innocent people over a disagreement about a 7 century succession dispute for a caliphate.
Nice straw man, Bill. Nobody claims that. However, Bush is clearly responsible for the disaster we are currently engaged in down in Iraq. Deaths have resulted from his decisions, that number in the thousands, if not millions.
And I'm assuming comment #29 is not actually you, but somebody parodying your earlier comment. People don't kill people, guns kill people...ha!
Posted by: Mike | September 14, 2007 4:43 PM
Now PZ, let's get real.
Since when did you have to be an atheist to kill Muslims?
As far as I can tell, that's the one thing that his "former friends" seem to think he's done right. If anything, he probably hasn't killed enough of them yet.
(And yes, to people arguing upthread - anyone with half a brain and a MINIMAL understanding of the history of Iraq - or even a minimal understanding of the history of Islam - would have known what a powderkeg was going to be set off by toppling the strong man WE helped build to power in Iraq. Hell CHENEY KNEW that this was the inevitable outcome - he said so himself back in 1992. Either Bush knew that the Sunni/Shia infighting would be inevitable and he didn't care, OR he didn't know and invaded anyway. Neither explanation makes him out to be anything good. So yes - Bush is responsible for the deaths of folks due to "sectarian" violence - as the chief cheerleader for this invasion, and the only person who really could have started it, the buck stops with him. I wish I still believed in a hell, because I'm fairly certain that there will be no justice meted out against him in this life, and that whatever rudimentary conscience the man has will never cause him enough grief to even start to try to atone for what he's done.)
Posted by: NonyNony | September 14, 2007 4:43 PM
Everyone who knew anything about the region or religion knew that, or who paid serious attention to such folks. Pretty much excludes Shrub and his advisors (and the 29% backwash).
Posted by: MAJeff | September 14, 2007 4:44 PM
"...before we toppled their civilization..."
And what a lovely civilization they had! The trains ran on time, and there certainly wasn't any secterian violence. Of course, there was that whole totalitarian regime thing, but hey. The UN certainly had no problem with it.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | September 14, 2007 4:45 PM
Donalbain, read comment 9
Fuck that. The rest of you read PZ's astoundingly stupid post.
"Our country seems to have killed at least a million Iraqis at the whim of George W. Bush and his cabal of neocons."
"Our country"(America) hasnt killed that many people. Not even close. The VAST majority of the deaths are by internicene murderers and sectarian fighting. THIS is exactly why the anti-war movement hasnt made the progress it could have done. You seem obsessed with one man, George Bush and blame him for everything, no matter the details or facts. When you say GWB has killed 1 million people, you make it so easy for the other side to say "Err.. no, he didnt. Look at the facts. Why would anyone trust people with such a pathetic grasp of reality ANY semblance of power. Vote Republican!"
Posted by: Donalbain | September 14, 2007 4:45 PM
The blame for the vast majority of the civilian death toll lies with the Iragis.
George Bush completely destabalized Iraq. He destroyed the infrastructure, he dismantled the government, he created total chaos. He created a failed state. He sparked a civil war.
If someone came to your town and did the same thing, would you not blame that person for the ensuing mayhem?
Those deaths are on Bush's fundie head. That doesn't mean others are not also to blame, but he and his band of neocons share in it fully.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 14, 2007 4:50 PM
"Nice straw man, Bill. Nobody claims that. However, Bush is clearly responsible for the disaster we are currently engaged in down in Iraq. Deaths have resulted from his decisions, that number in the thousands, if not millions."
Straw man? Did you read PZ's post. He claimed exactly that.
When an Iraqi, or a foreign fighter, straps a bomb to a car and explodes it in a crowd of people I blame him. Not George Bush. His attachement to psycopathic religious doctrines does not excuse it. But to you it may as, according to comment 33, Iraqis are not more capable of human agency than pieces of flying debris.
Posted by: Bill C. | September 14, 2007 4:51 PM
Donalbain: Why would anyone trust people with such a pathetic grasp of reality ANY semblance of power. Vote Republican!
Wow. The irony there almost exploded my head! Not that it would have mattered, I'm just a dumb lib-rul!
Donalbain: You seem obsessed with one man, George Bush and blame him for everything, no matter the details or facts.
Um, no, it's not just GWB, it's mostly Cheney, Rove, Perle, Rummie, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neo-con cronies in Washington.
Posted by: Mike | September 14, 2007 4:51 PM
Paul,
Yeah,let's also go kick some butt in North Korea. And Iran... And whatever these other damn countries around there are called. We can showcase our great success in Afghanistan too. Man, at least we won't run out of dope now that they have our style of democracy over there. Oh yeah, we also liberated their women. Bush deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, at least. Heil to the Chief!
Posted by: Paul Lurquin | September 14, 2007 4:53 PM
Good point, Bill C.
You're right, I take back what I said about GWB. He hasn't actually killed anyone, at least not with his hands.
When you think about it like that, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy either! I mean, he didn't ACTUALLY kill anyone.
Oops, Godwin's law... I guess it doesn't matter, because I already admitted defeat. I can't compete with these intellectual heavyweights.
Posted by: Mike | September 14, 2007 4:55 PM
Well, the sad part of it is that the premise was that this was going to help the Iraqis. Let's see.... The choice is:
- Oppressed by Saddam
- Dead
We're from the government and we're here to help.... sounds like it applies.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 14, 2007 4:58 PM
"George Bush completely destabalized Iraq. He destroyed the infrastructure, he dismantled the government, he created total chaos. He created a failed state. He sparked a civil war.
If someone came to your town and did the same thing, would you not blame that person for the ensuing mayhem?"
They really are obsessed aren't they. "He" created a failed state. "He" sparked a civil war. "He" caused total chaos. You would get the impression there was no one in Iraq until "He" decided to invade.
Posted by: Bill C. | September 14, 2007 5:00 PM
264,126 killed by car bombs is approx. 165 people a day.
Reasonable?
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 14, 2007 5:02 PM
"You're right, I take back what I said about GWB. He hasn't actually killed anyone, at least not with his hands.
When you think about it like that, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy either! I mean, he didn't ACTUALLY kill anyone."
Are you that blind? Is this the kind of idiotic hysteria you feel proud of? Intellectual heavyweights? Yeah we are compared with this drivel.
Posted by: Bill C. | September 14, 2007 5:03 PM
"Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."
Posted by: King of Swamp Castle | September 14, 2007 5:10 PM
The sad thing about this series of comments is that even though the people making them generally see clearly enough through all of the BS of religion, most writing here are still slavishly tied to the "religion" of nationalism. As Marx essentially said, people will maintain illusions about their conditions as long as their conditions require illusions.
Poverty breeds ignorance and is further a breeding ground for religious fanaticism. Capitalism long ago outlived its usefulness for generating wealth, as witnessed by the pathetic GDP and the boom/bust cycles. The natural tendency of capitalism is to concentrate that wealth and lead to imperialism (the international competition for markets and/or resources). When normal trade and competition is carried to its logical conclusion, we end up with international imperialist war.
The only way to break the cycle of war and poverty that not only generates but is also supported by ignorance and religious fanaticism is to develop a class-conscious party that can lead the working people to overthrow capitalism through socialist revolution.
And don't fall into the nonsense that because Stalin, Mao, et. al. were horrors that communisum MUST be that way. They evolved out of particular historical conditions and it didn't have to end up as it did. Saying that the "experiment" of socialism failed and therefore Marx is "wrong" is like saying that the first times people rubbed sticks together and all they got was a splinter means that you can't make fire by rubbing sticks together.
What needs to happen is that the working class needs to remember its past, learn from its mistakes and move forward, not give up and roll over.
Posted by: Gene | September 14, 2007 5:10 PM
I invite the people of Iraq to occupy the USA...fair is fair after all.
Posted by: NotaUselessDumbshite | September 14, 2007 5:13 PM
Sure. It's all about medicine (I've read about it months ago in more serious sources than the WSJ). That's where people have an interest in certain outcomes. In most of the rest of science... what do I really care where the turtles come from? That's a highly interesting question that will make up a large part of my Ph.D. thesis, but I'm not going to gain or lose money depending on what the results will be. If anything, that will depend on how robust the results will be, whatever they will be.
I think there was a review in Nature about it a few months ago.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 14, 2007 5:16 PM
...he didn't ACTUALLY kill anyone.
Let's not forget the folks no longer on death row in Texas.
The count goes up.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 14, 2007 5:17 PM
Then why were the folks involved int he English airport bombing plot middle class professionals (doctors as i recall)? Why were the majority of the folks who hijacked the flights on 9/11 from middle class families?
Why are so many vile mega-churches arising in affluent American suburbs?
Yes, class matters. But, religious idiocy and evil don't recognize class boundaries.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 14, 2007 5:21 PM
Bill C.
You know, Bill, on one level you're quite right. People are obsessed with Him. I think your criticism is off the mark.
Nobody is suggesting that GWB went into Baghdad with a pitchfork and killed one million people all by hisself.
People say "He" because GWBush represents and leads the adminstration that has made all the decisions since January 2001. If you don't think that supports of Bush praise "him" for all "his" courage and tough decision-making, then you're not really being honest with yourself. "He" gets as much credit as he does blame. It just depends on who's doing the talking.
The fact remains that He (Bush) or They (the neocons) or We (the people) or It (The military of the United States of America) deposted Hussein and destabilized the country, and it's been a bleeding mess ever since. The fact remains that many of the deaths have been the result of internecine violence, and that those who perpetrate that violence are responsible for the deaths the cause. These two facts are inextricably intertwined. The USA created a situation in which civil-war conditions would INEVITABLY OCCUR. "We" have to be responsible for that, and "He" represents "Us".
Split the hair that Bush didn't actually kill anyone himself all you like. It doesn't change the responsibility matrix. He's The Decider. He WANTS credit (blame).
Oh, by the way, didn't you know that 9/11 was actually all Bill Clinton's fault?
Posted by: Kseniya | September 14, 2007 5:27 PM
Yecch... bad editing, lotsa typoes. Sorry.
- "I think your criticism..." should be "But I think your criticism..."
- "supports" should be "supporters"
- "deposted" should be "deposed"
- "the deaths the cause" should be "the deaths they cause"
Posted by: Kseniya | September 14, 2007 5:33 PM
Fine, then let PZ read comment 9, too.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 14, 2007 5:41 PM
Nice try at covering your errors Kseniya, but the typo police have already been alerted and are probably on their way to put bamboo splinters under your fingernails as I write this.
For all the offence you've given us, you might as well have ended your post with 'God bless.'
C+
Posted by: Brownian | September 14, 2007 5:41 PM
Ack!!! Who are you - O'Brien?! That's my worst nightmare! (Well, almost.)
Sigh. There goes the GPA.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 14, 2007 5:51 PM
Bill C and Donalbain attack myself and others here for being partisan because we think W has done a terrible job.
Let me try to explain something to you. Looking at a situation and coming to the conclusion that someone has royally fucked up and we're paying for it is not partisan. Ending your posts with "Vote Republican" is.
Perhaps you should get out a dictionary and read up on the terms you're using before posting.
Posted by: Dahan | September 14, 2007 6:01 PM
"He, and he alone, made a decision."
Guess again.
You overestimate the power of the presidency. There was a vote to put up the funding for the undeclared war, and a majority of both houses went for it. The only congressman who attempted to require the congress to exercise their constitutional duty and power over whether to declare war was Ron Paul: he introduced an amendment to the Iraq funding bill which was a declaration of war, and he got shouted down.
So, GWB was never the sole decision maker of whether the USA sent troops into Iraq. Nor is he the person who decides to detonate human bombs in markets, schools, and mosques.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 14, 2007 6:02 PM
Oh come on. Congress didn't pass a declaration of war, they passed an AUMF, which put the decision into the hands of the President. Yes, they abdicated their oversight and a large part of their appropriations responsibility, for which they should be judged harshly, but once that AUMF was passed, the decision to go to war was Bush's, and his alone.
Posted by: syntyche | September 14, 2007 6:10 PM
Thank you Syntyche, seems like some people can't quite grasp that rather simple fact.
Posted by: Dahan | September 14, 2007 6:14 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on this Wall Street Journal article?
yeah, if your post was something other than a ridiculous attempt at trolling, what are you doing getting advice on science from the wall street journal?
moreover, isn't this just a rehash of a similarly ridiculous article that made the press routes over a year ago?
not one of your better attempts at trolling, GWW.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 14, 2007 6:17 PM
This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. What kind of moral myopia is necessary to blame George Bush for the fact that religious fanatics would rather tear their society to shreds than participate in its consturcution?
yeah, what kind of myopia must one engage in to think that tearing down a dam would result in the flooding of towns downstream of it.
surely one can examine exactly that kind of myopia from a historical perspective, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 14, 2007 6:21 PM
moreover, isn't this just a rehash of a similarly ridiculous article that made the press routes over a year ago?
Chill the fxck out, dude.
I'm just noting that the article was published. Last time I checked this blog was about science and the relationship between science and public, to some extent. Where else am I supposed to ask a question? How is it trolling here to point out that the article was published, in a relatively widely read forum?
I agree that there is a whiff of "anti-science" about the article (the WSJ article). I am curious what, if anything, is known about the author of the "study". Has he published anything like this before? What was the previous reaction?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 14, 2007 6:22 PM
Poverty breeds ignorance and is further a breeding ground for religious fanaticism.
so do fear and uncertainty, quite independent of income levels.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 14, 2007 6:26 PM
I am skeptical of these kinds of statistical body counts. The Lancet study done last year on the same topic was pulled apart here.
These kinds of studies suffer greatly from self-selection and polling locations. I'm not saying its wrong necessarily, but gross exaggerations weaken the position of those that oppose the war on the grounds of terrible cost it inflicts on the Iraqi people.
Posted by: Martha | September 14, 2007 6:28 PM
How is it trolling here to point out that the article was published, in a relatively widely read forum?
because we know you, and know that you know better. No way are you that uninformed nor had completely missed the many threads about that paper that appeared months ago.
I still call BS if you claim you posted that as if you were asking an honest question.
chill out??
right...
stop trying to yank chains.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 14, 2007 6:30 PM
Martha,
Actually, the Lanet study was NOT pulled apart by any reputable group in any scientific way. Check the link http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/44454/ to learn more.
Posted by: Dahan | September 14, 2007 6:36 PM
Obviously Lancet, not Lanet...
Posted by: Dahan | September 14, 2007 6:37 PM
Idiotic troll. Hitler didn't personally kill six-million Jews, but he was damn well responsible. Stalin didn't personally kill seven-million Ukranians, but he was responsible. Pol Pot didn't personally kill one-and-a-half million Cambodians, but he was responsible.
Bush, leading the USA, caused the problem, we're responsible. End of story.
Posted by: Moses | September 14, 2007 6:49 PM
When the fuck have we ever cared about a totalitarian state? We've supported tin-pot dictators around the world as long as it meant cheap labor and resources. Hell, we over-threw DEMOCRACIES in Iran (installed the Shah) and Iraq (installed the Baath Party (you know, Saddam's Party)) so we could have unfettered access to oil.
So, really, we're seriously fucking responsible for the entire fucked-up middle east. We've been fucking things up since 1948. We're responsible for setting up the oppression in Iran that lead to the over-throw of the Shah. Responsible for putting a Fascist (yes they were allied with Nazi Germany) government in Iraq that, naturally and inevitably, lead to Saddam. Responsible for engendering the bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine and the rest of the Arabs.
Bloody fucking hands for almost 60 years.
So, yeah, what civilization? They've never had a damn chance. Pawns in a geopolitical/economic game not of their making.
Learn some goddamn history before you spout off.
Posted by: Moses | September 14, 2007 7:04 PM
He was being ironical- not actually campaining.
Posted by: a nony mouse | September 14, 2007 7:09 PM
Who are these new-names demanding a more reasonable assessment of Monster Dudya? One-time troll whom we shall never hear from again, because even going 24/7 from mom's basement they can't maintain the fiction that the Bushite religion is not dead on the vine by signing into every major blog and newspaper on earth.
Any who pretend to excuse, much less support, the Iraq war and our criminal, evil-is-banality-itself pResident is nothing but different sorts of cocktails of ignorance (the otherwise "nice" Republicans are veritable Martinis of ignorance), hatred, insanity, and greed.
No debate possible or needed with your kind.
Posted by: darwinfinch | September 14, 2007 7:12 PM
Kseniya, in Southern white mericun dialect the word hissef is preferred over hisself by an overwhelming majority of red neck speakers.
Posted by: gerald spezio | September 14, 2007 7:15 PM
a nony mouse,
But of course he was! I'm afraid that I'm just an idiot. (sigh) Thanks for pointing that out. And of course, an abject apology. I got distracted during reading...and lost the thread...oh well. At least nobody died because of my mistake...
Crap, now I have to go back and re-read this whole thing and see what else I missed.
Posted by: Dahan | September 14, 2007 7:23 PM
Personally, Lancet's numbers sound a bit high - but, then, the blindness of the media to massacres is nothing new. So, I think, like most of us, I am dumfounded and have no idea what the casualties likely are. That makes me uncomfortable, but - as I said earlier - "oppressed beats the hell out of dead"
What IS a good way to determine casualty rates? Presumably, if there was census data you could start subtracting. But that doesn't account for people who left the area of conflict. And you can't exactly send people in with clipboards to count the bodies.. The statistics Lancet threw out look dodgy (estimating deaths in an entire country by interviewing 1,500 people?!) to me. But I'm not sure how you'd "do it right."
All the accounts I've read (and I have talked to a friend who was there) our initial forays into Baghdad were one-sided and bloody.
War sucks. Governments and religions cause wars. Therefore governments and religions suck.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 14, 2007 7:30 PM
George Bush is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to the United States. That is his legacy. If you want to know what all the lying and deceit was about to get us into this war all you have to do is follow the money, who's proffited from this disgrace Bush has tricked the nation into? War profiteers...arms manufacturers, Haliburton, etc. Bushs' peers. This whole abomination was an effort to increase Haliburtons' bottom line. These neocon pigs should all be tried for war crimes. Lying bastards, not a one served in the armed services, or their children. In fact Bush broke the law to get out of Viet Nam, and has no qualms about sending a generation of young people to that cesspool of sectarian violence and creating another Viet Nam scenario. Fucking lying coward.
Posted by: S. Fisher | September 14, 2007 7:40 PM
Now I feel a little better.
Posted by: S. Fisher | September 14, 2007 7:43 PM
Dahan,
You aren't very bright it seems. I didnt attack anyone for being partisan. In fact, I have never seen a decent explanation of what partisan means other than thinking your side of an argument is right. Whiich everyone does.
What I criticised (not attacked) was the idea that Bush and America, killed all the people who have died in the tragedy that is Irag. My "Vote Republican" quote was in quote marks and was thus NOT meant to be my own speech, I was demonstrating how easy essays such as Pee Zed's made life for Republicans.
Posted by: Donalbain | September 14, 2007 8:10 PM
Yes, I am the idiotic troll...
Because of course I am the one who suggested that George Bush personally ordered the deaths of the 1 million people who have died since the start of the war.
What? You mean I didnt suggest any such thing? But then surely the analogy between George Bush, Hitler and Stalin would fall apart, making the person who suggested such an analogy look stupid.. we cant have that!!
Posted by: Donalbain | September 14, 2007 8:16 PM