Why did some people mark this comment as flamebait? I wonder if they bothered to read the article I linked to. Was the article also flamebait?
If I understand your argument correctly, I believe it is refuted fairly well by that Atlantic article which I linked to.
If they want to re-purpose a symbol once seen as bigotry and hatred into something people of today can get behind, that's pretty much a win for us all.
If they want to re-purpose a symbol once seen as bigotry and hatred into something white people of today can get behind, that's pretty much a win for us all.
That is a very incomplete and one-sided retelling of American history.
The Confederate battle flag represents the Confederacy, which was formed in order to defend the economic interest of the south to maintain the evil system of slavery. So, it's not unfair to say that it is a white supremacist symbol.
It is, however, dishonest to boil down over 200 years of history in the way you have done. For instance, the U.S. has provided financial support and also apologized to native Americans essentially for driving them off of their land. The American flag represents that as well. It's a complex history.
The Confederate battle flag has not been banned. It has merely been removed from product offerings and search results by private corporations and the national park service. You are still free to purchase and display that flag.
That flag represents the brutal subjugation and slavery of human beings for profit. It is akin to the Nazi swastika.
Some are commenting that Google is not removing shopping results for 'swastika'. That's Google's editorial policy. It has nothing to do with free speech or any other individual rights. It is a double standard though.
When Putin charges someone with corruption, it's usually because they control government expenditures and are unwilling to give him his usual kickback.
I should have said that Putin charges people with corruption when they have access to government expenditures and won't give him his cut, if they control a company whose assets he would like to steal (usually via an associate), or if he perceives them as a threat.
When Putin charges someone with corruption, it's usually because they control government expenditures and are unwilling to give him his usual kickback. So, it looks like he's going to create a new space agency and install an ally to take advantage of the inherent business opportunities provided by access to a budget of over $5 billion.
Read more about Putin's kleptocracy here:
Some Iraqis may have very well wished for the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That has no bearing on the misrepresentation of the intelligence by the Bush administration in order manipulate the country into going to war. It also has no bearing on the bungling ineptitude of the Bush administration in prosecuting that war and the subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Read Cobra II. It's a very balanced account of the planning and prosecution of the war. Rumsfeld micromanaged the military, and unfortunately for everyone involved he was grossly incompetent.
"Almost 1000 soldiers died!"
What about the Iraqis that just up above you claimed we were trying to save? Over 200,000 dead documented by Iraq Body Count. These deaths are all a result of the invasion of Iraq and the power vacuum which ensued.
"you learn from the mistakes and move on"
The U.S. borrowed the money to pay for the war. The final tab will be in the trillions.
Tens of thousands of American lives have been shattered, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives have been shattered, millions of Iraqis have had to flee their homes, barbaric ISIS has taken over parts of the region that the Bush administration intentionally weakened. Iran has turned into a major player in the region. The war was a complete, unmitigated strategic disaster.
It doesn't seem very objective to say that Democrats deserve "all the blame", which to me implies that you think the Bush administration is blameless. There's no factual basis for that opinion.
I said the Bush administration is "almost" wholly responsible. They deserve the preponderance of blame. They misrepresented the evidence on alleged WMDs and links to Al Qaeda.
They executed a sustained propaganda campaign for the purpose of manipulating the country to go to war.
Also, Rumsfeld has to rank as one of the three worst defense secretaries in American History. Read Cobra II for more information:
The Bush administration was incompetent. They promised that it would be easy to invade Iraq. They said it could be done on the cheap. SecDef Rumsfeld forced the military to deploy less than a quarter of the force which their own planning had determined was necessary for the occupation of Iraq. They expected and planned for no resistance. They expected and planned for all of the existing government structure to remain intact. They disbanded the military, which overnight created a highly armed and trained resistance movement which resulted in the deaths of thousands and debilitating injuries to tens of thousands of American soldiers. They were arrogant and stupid, and we as a country will be paying the price for a very very long time. Trillions of dollars and countless American lives ruined.
On top of that, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives and millions were displaced (fled their homes) by the sectarian conflict which was unleashed by the invasion of Iraq. On top of that, priceless antiquities from the birth of civilization were destroyed in the looting which occurred after the liberation of Baghdad, and subsquently in areas where ISIS has taken over, such as Mosul, due to the power vacuum which resulted directly from the toppling of the Iraqi government.
The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary. It was stupid. It was careless. It was evil. It was the Bush administration's strong desire to invade Iraq. They ginned up the intelligence to make it happen. They are almost wholly responsible for the debacle which ensued.
I agree with you that Democrats and Republicans in Congress should not have authorized the Iraq war. It was a colossal mistake. But, the blame rests squarely with the Bush administration, which manipulated the country into going to war.
Democrats deserve far less blame than the Bush administration, which actually set the war in motion. The Bush administration argued that they needed the authorization to use force in order to have a strong negotiating position with Saddam Hussein. Turned out negotiation was the furthest thing from their minds. The actual invasion of Iraq was ordered by Bush. The Democrats watched from the sidelines, powerless to affect the actions of the executive branch (they had abdicated their power by authorizing the use of force).