Banned by gutless Nathan Newman.

And yet you go where you are uninvited (based on your gutter mouth postings- note the people whose posts remain to have some idea of the quality of this guys's postings.

So much for all the rightwing demands for property rights and the right to exclude based on the "right of association."

Your posting again just shows one more example of your rightwing hypocrisy.

A stellar post in my not-so-humble opinion.

you, Daily Kos, and Steve Gilliard are my must reads every day.

Thanks for fighting these right wing a--holes. I've seen some of their sites and they are nearly speechless with rage.

Funny how they aren't outraged about the 3 'contractors' (US drug war mercs) who have been kidnapped and held hostage in Columbia for over a year now.

Funny how they forget a standard theater rule--if you're holding a gun, you are a combatant, it doesn't matter if you have a uniform on or not -- doesn't apply here.

Funny how the extremely impressive resumes of these guys -- a Bronze Star in Ahghanistan, for crying out loud -- doesn't make them think these are a little more than your average arthritic rent-a-cops?

Funny how the new policy of doing this on the cheap - courtesy of Rumsfeld and Co. - indirectly led to their deaths. Contracting out vital supply functions? Asinine. Imagine if we had launched the D-Day invasion with instructions to the troops to get their food at the local restaurants.

Funny how - get this - in the same theater on the same day an armored M-113 was blown up, they are supplied with: 2 SUV's. Clearly, no-one can doubt their bravery, or perhaps their desperation at trying to provide for their families in this jobless economy.

Funny how there are now 15,000 contractors in theater - bigger than the entire British presence - all because this admin refuses to admit that they need more uniformed soldiers. They would litterally have contractors die because their deaths don't 'count as much' as a soldier's.

There's plenty or legitimate targets for your anger, you right wing a--holes, so why don't you start directing it there?

Why am I supposed to give a shit about a few violent white thugs employed by a corproation, making six-figures to oppress brown people? Fuck em. The Right is just worried because they see what happens when you oppress poor people. It will BLOWBACK to them soon.

Been following this for a few days. Well said, Nathan.

The issue, I think, is that "mercenary" denotes someone who engages in armed conflict for a living. One expects such an individual to run the risk of dying in such a conflict, much as one expects a regular soldier to. Civilians are supposed to be (though often aren't) off-limits in conflicts, so their deaths are typically considered more of an outrage.

So in calling them mercenaries, you said their deaths ought not to have been as much a shock as they were. As much as your critics hate this, it's true. Those who live by the sword should expect to die by it.

Don't want to die in a foreign war? Don't go along with fighting it. The mercenaries, in particular, had the luxury of this choice. They could have refused this job. Regular US troops had less choice -- they had already enlisted, and would have had to desert to avoid it. But still they had more choice in doing so than the Iraqis.

In that light, maybe they are the ones whose deaths should be the most of an outrage.

And yes, what I'm saying is pretty ugly. So be it. War is ugly. It's one of the reasons I didn't want it. And anyone unwilling to face such ugly facts had no business whatsoever advocating any war. So I trust that all those whining about Nathan's choice of words were against the Iraq War all along.

Right, guys?

Nathan,

We did a hell of a lot more than "tolerate" Saddam. Reagan turned him into a client state in the '80s, and he probably wouldn't have been there at all without the help of the CIA.

Here is Wobby on another site engaging in the reasoned speech that is so indicative of the intellectual tolerance of your fellow travellers:

"You are all fascist hypocrites! Do you care about poor people or people with AIDS? Where is your outrage for that? Yet anyone who doesn't shed a tear for three corporate thugs oppressing brown people is guilty of TREASON?

See this post for more:
www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001623.shtml

Enjoy it while you can wingnuts. Civilized countries ban hate speech such as what you warbloggers and talk radio milita spew. In November we will elect Kerry and ban hate speech such as this once and for all.

Posted by Wobby @ 04/03/2004 06:57 AM PST "

it can be found at www.rogerlsimon.com - which, BTW, is a wonderful, civil and usually intelligent forum.

I am sorry for all the foul epithets you cited above - many people find this pretty much anonymous medium, absent social constraints, an irresistable outlet for their craziness. Like Wobby there - "elect my guy and he will ban the hate speech of you facist hypocrits - you're going down!" - you just have to guard yourself against generalizing those responses as characteristic of all.

The hope for communication, conversation and discussion is to increase understanding if not agreement. It seems counterproductive when it deals in bigoted name-calling and simple-minded rage.

Nathan: please note the quality of the support that you are attracting. Does "Wobby" float your boat?

You could do better.

wobby is a troll. They are all over the net. Just there to stir up shit. On some of those long threads it's funny to see how many people will a ridiculous troll post as what 'everyone on the left thinks'.

Personally, I blame flat comment systems. Ya gotta nest this stuff.

As to the mercs, it sucks, no one deserves a death like that. To see people reduced to such beasts is a bad thing, period.

I am not a troll wah! Why would you say that???? Are you a right-wing mole? Why you want to censor me?

A good comment about the whole Kos business, Nathan.

Anyway, the problem with using mercs in place of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is obvious. They had no backup. Bremer may be able to make a show of 'pacifying' Fallujah for the Bush PR machine, but you can bet that after the U.S. soldiers are gone the mercs won't be back.

As usual, I'm confused. You didn't say Screw Them, you said they were rent-a-soldiers and mercenaries--not civilians. What was offensive?

Okay, after reading some of the comments, it appears that calling paid soldiers for hire mercenaries is deeply offensive to some. And suggesting they weren't civilians (your big point) is too accurate maybe? Remind me about who is politically correct now?

Hang in there.

But frankly, the warhawk Right and the WWP antiwar sectarians are basically the same. They see all murder of one side as justified and ignore the evil done by the side they are cheering for.

Boy, doesn't that apply to just about every conflict? The Loyalists & IRA. The Israelis & the Arabs. The Serbs & everyone they shared Yugoslavia with. In each case there are extremists on both sides who are so enraged that they justify every transgression commited by their own side. In each case there is a group of people in the middle, often the majority, who just want to get the conflict over with.

And the same thing is happening in the US. On the one side we have the coalition of the fundy Christians, the Likudnik Israeli-Americans, and the Soldier-of-Fortune types. On the other side we have ... well, okay so far the left has only isolated pockets of hate groups. But give Bush 4 more years and we'll see that change.

Sad.