Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMore and more, it seems that the Obama administration has utterly forgotten about Iraq. With its laser-like focus on Afghanistan and its diplomacy with Iran, it's rare that Iraq gets any attention. (That's true, too, even in The Dreyfuss Report.) A whole team of State Department and NSC staff is mobilized on the Iran issue, Afghanistan and Pakistan have their special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, and even the Sisyphus-like effort to deal with the Palestine-Israel problem has its own special envoy, George Mitchell. But Iraq is an orphan. At times, it's like the White House has put Iraq in a box called "George Bush's blunders," and it doesn't plan on looking into the box. There's no go-to person in the Obama administration for Iraq. Ambassador Christopher Hill, who's relatively new on the job, isn't an Arabist or an Iraqi specialist, and he's taking -- perhaps appropriately -- a hands-off attitude toward the swirl of Iraqi politics.
But the devastating attacks in Baghdad -- twin car bombs that killed more than 150 people and wrecked the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and the provincial council complex -- are a sign that Iraq is still simmering. The bombings were very similiar to the August 19 attacks that destroyed the Iraqi foreign ministry and finance ministry. Then, as now, the bombers struck at the very heart of the Iraqi government.
In January, Iraq will hold elections to determine whether Prime Minister Maliki remains in power. The parliamentary elections have spurred numerous Iraqi factions to maneuver in advance of the vote -- and most of those factions have armed wings, paramilitary forces and, in the case of the Kurds, whole national armies at their disposal. So far, despite the urgency of the problem, the current Iraqi parliament bas been unable to devise a formula for holding those elections and to pass a law governing them, though there are reports today that a compromise deal has been reached.
The main players in the election drama, so far, are Prime Minister Maliki, a religious Shiite politician from the fundamentalist Islamic Dawa party who's planning to run as a born-again Iraqi nationalist under his State of Law party banner; a broad coalition of Shiite religious parties, backed by Iran, including the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc; a secular, centrist bloc organized around former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraqiyya party, which has support from ex-Baathists, nationalist Sunnis, and many secular, nationalist Shiites, too; and, of course, the Kurds, who control their independence-minded fiefdom in three northern provinces of Iraq.
There is also an amorphous group of dissident Sunnis, including some of the Awakening (sahwa) movement, some parties based in provinces such as Anbar and Ninewa (Mosul), and various Sunni religious parties and individuals, some of which may opt to run as a formal coalition. A new formation, the Unity of Iraq Alliance, which includes some Sunnis and some important Shiites, is emerging, too.
The best continuing analyses of Iraqi politics is the blog by Reidar Visser, a Norwegian political scientist who is a long-time observer of Iraqi affairs. (If you're interested in the details of the various Iraqi coalitions, take a gander at Visser's take on the Iran-backed, Shiite religious Iraqi National Alliance, Maliki's State of Law bloc, and the multu-ethnic, cross-sectarian coalition called the Unity of Iraq Alliance.)
The perpetrators of the huge bomb attacks are unknown. Not unexpectedly, every Iraqi faction is blaming its enemies. Maliki is blaming Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Baathists, but at the very least the attacks have severely hurt Maliki's main cliam to leadership, namely, that he's kept Iraq safe. Many Sunnis are blaming Iran, charging that Iran's intelligence service is orchestrating the Baghdad attacks in order to force Maliki to abandon his independent electoral stance and sign on to the Shiite bloc, the Iraqi National Alliance. And, indirectly speaking for the Shiite bloc, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has blamed "foreign agents" for the attacks:
"The bloody actions being committed in some Islamic countries, including Iraq, Pakistan and in some parts of the country (Iran), are aimed at creating division between the Shiites and Sunnis.... Those who carry out these terrorist actions are directly or indirectly foreign agents."
Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombings, but such claims have to be taken with a grain of salt.
The basic fact remains that, as US forces draw down, Iraq is perched on the brink of renewed civil war. One flashpoint is Kirkuk and other areas of Iraq claimed by the Kurds. Many Sunnis are increasingly resentful of Maliki's arrogance, his refusal to accommodate Sunni demands, and his fealty to Iran. And various Shiite militias, including the Sadr's Mahdi Army and the ISCI Badr Brigades, are likely to support their electoral efforts with armed might. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Oh, now, Mr Dreyfuss, don't you know?
Iraq is "just like Germany and Japan after World War-II".
TONS of car bombs from Nazi and Tojo-militarist insurgents were going off in Berlin and Tokyo in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
We WON in Iraq...and Dubya and Cheney are just like FDR and Truman (less being Commie liberals, of course!).
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:50am
Yea, we won in Iraq, but FDR and Truman were not followed by an "empty suited rhetoric spouting leftist teleprompter in chief"!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 09:05am
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:50am
Hmmm Mask you certainly don't stop to put your brain into gear before tapping on the old keyboard.
The comparison, with Germany and Japan is that an autocratic regime that practiced barbaric cruelty against its own citizens was removed from office and a government of political diversity is now running the country. That's what happened in Germany and Japan post WW2.
One difference is that the German homeland was bombed into submission and the sheer weight of ally numbers and fire power decimated the German military forces.
In case you'd forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki were given an horrifically, devastating first taste of nuclear weapons. If you knew a little more about the war in the Pacific you would also know much the same sort of rolling back of the Japanese military had also occurred.
In other words the stuffing was completely knocked out of the Germans and Japanese.
Now maybe just maybe you could help yourself think through the differences. The war phase in Iraq lasted 4 weeks in which time Saddam's army was routed. Since then it has been an operation against home grown as well as foreign insurgents with elements of sectarianism.
That mask is the fundamental difference that slips under the radar of ghouls like yourself who feel justified when Iraqis now living under a democratic government get blown to pieces. What does that say about you? Have a think about that. In my book decent people don't rejoice in tragic events like this to feel vindicated.
The measure of the success of that nascent democracy of course must include the security of its citizens and there is a lot more work for Iraq's security forces to do.
The challenge for Iraq is to deal with such acts without slipping back to into authoritarian mode.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/27/2009 @ 09:33am
The violence just shows how the dead enders are losing their grip, right?
I am comfortable with the Obama admin taking a hands off approach, now they should bring em home! Just about everything the war mongers said Iraq needed to succeed are allegedly in place; standing army, security forces, a "government", elections pending and according to the neo-cons, a functioning economy. Time to let Iran/Syria/Kurdistan and the myriad Iraqi groups work out their problems on their own. Or, maybe a new envoy, perhaps George W. Bush, as he is universally loved in Iraq.
Unless of course Syria decides to unveil the wmd's Saddam hid in Syria in Feb 2003!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/27/2009 @ 09:33am
It is not MASK that you need to edju-micate, Leeroy, it is your own mongers that continue to make the comparisons to Europe and Japan, continue to make the dichotomous argument that the "war is won", yet we HAVE to keep 140k troops there and seek to show that Obama would be "weak" if he cannot finish what Chimpy McFlightsuit left undone after 5 years.
Good luck.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 09:44am
Good post Lrjones. As usual these freedom hating cretans will never acknowledge the truth. It would mean that there is a legitimate reason to use military might to bring order or to punish and remove totalitarians and they simply will never accede to that logic.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:47am
THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS UNNECESSARY AND ILLEGAL. ONLY THE ARM MANUFACTURERS AND SOME MULTINATIONAL COS ARE BENEFITED .THE IRAQ WAR IS A FAILURE, AND IT IS NOT GOING TO BE WON.WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ IMMEDIATELY. Pl log on www.leadingtowar.com to know more about Iraq war.
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:00am
Good post Lrjones. As usual these freedom hating cretans will never acknowledge the truth. It would mean that there is a legitimate reason to use military might to bring order or to punish and remove totalitarians and they simply will never accede to that logic.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:47am
arrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh
what about when you use military might TO PUT OR MAINTAIN totalitarians IN POWER?!?!??!???
wake up, pawn.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:05am
IRAQ WAR IS ILLEGAL AND STARTED WITH LIES. VISIT.WWW.LEADINGTOWAR.COM
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:12am
i mean larry,
fix your own country.......
DETROIT HOUSE AUCTION FLOPS FOR URBAN WASTELAND
By Kevin Krolicki
DETROIT (Reuters) - In a crowded ballroom next to a bankrupt casino, what remains of the Detroit property market was being picked over by speculators and mostly discarded.
After five hours of calling out a drumbeat of "no bid" for properties listed in an auction book as thick as a city phone directory, the energy of the county auctioneer began to flag.
"OK," he said. "We only have 300 more pages to go."
There was tired laughter from investors ready to roll the dice on a city that has become a symbol of the collapse of the U.S. auto industry, pressures on the industrial middle-class and intractable problems for the urban poor.
On the auction block in Detroit: almost 9,000 homes and lots in various states of abandonment and decay from the tidy owner-occupied to the burned-out shell claimed by squatters.
Taken together, the properties seized by tax collectors for arrears and put up for sale last week represented an area the size of New York's Central Park. Total vacant land in Detroit now occupies an area almost the size of Boston, according to a Detroit Free Press estimate.
••
and you think islam is THE danger.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:34am
...that nascent democracy..there's a lot more work for Iraq's security forces to do. Posted by lr jones
More claptrap from the Prince of the Delusional. The Iraqis seem to interpret your favorite song, "Don't Stop" in a slightly different manner than you do.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/27/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/27/2009 @ 09:33am
You can't have it BOTH ways, Mr Jones.
Either "Iraq is just like World War-II" as you guys keep trying....or it's "a long term insurgency", which WW-2 was NOT like.
Pick one and we'll be happy.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 11:16am
Pick one and we'll be happy.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 11:16am
and the iraqis, dead.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 11:42am
IRAQ WAR IS ILLEGAL AND STARTED WITH LIES. VISIT.WWW.LEADINGTOWAR.COM
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:12am
You really are ignorant of both US constitutional law and international law.
The Iraq was is completely legal within both legal frameworks.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:34am
It is the responsibility of the Mayor of Detroit and the City Council, the Governor, Wayne County and other local govts, not the federal govt to fix the problems with Detroit.
I lived there as a teenager for a few years and later as an adult. It's terrible what the local politicians, the unions, and the automakers did to destroy that area. But it is not the fault of the US govt, nor is it the responsibility of the US govt or taxpayers around the nation to fix it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:51am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:34am
Well, come on Frosty...
That is clearly the fault of the Detroit Teachers Union. Certainly not worthy of spending money to save Detroit, whereas if we don't spend in Falluja, Al Qaida wins.
Don't you "get" it? It is way more important to funnel US money through offshore companies so they can hire Filipinos, Indonesians and Yemenis at a buck a day or so, than to pay attention to our own collapse. If we spend borrowed money abroad, it is "defense", if we spend it here, it is the end of civilization via socialism.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 11:54am
Going back to the WWII analogy, wasn't it the US govt, and the collective govts of Europe that rebuilt the place after the war, making it a place that business could then operate?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 11:58am
"the war phase in Iraq lasted 4 weeks "
i think the american soldiers would beg to differ.
and btw, what's a "war phase"?
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:09pm
"You really are ignorant of both US constitutional law and international law"
speak for yourself.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:11pm
"not the federal govt to fix the problems with Detroit"
and this from a so-called expert on constitutional law.
and when the next Big One hits california, i'm sure antisocialist won't need any help from the federal government. he's got his underground bunker ready, his 3 month supply of canned goods, and his stack of porn ready to rock it!
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:13pm
The planners of the war are now focused on finding the best way to consolidate and protect the investments of Exxon and the Royal Dutch Shell, etc…in Iraq. Although, there are few idiots who still prefer to pontificate about victory and bringing freedom and liberation to Iraq.
As usual, American blood was shed to pave the way for the multi national corporations in Iraq and we, Americans, are standing ready to reap the benefits at the gas pumps (seems like oil speculators are back in force lately).
Meanwhile, the Neocons have done their motherland, Israel, great service by removing Saddam Hussein from the picture. The Israelis are enjoying unprecedented presence in Iraq, especially Kurdistan. It is reported that the Mossad agents are physically running the checkpoints between Iraq and Iran on the Kurdish side of the Iraqi border. It is also reported that several Israeli airbases have emerged in Kurdistan; ready to attack the Iranians.
The war on Iraq was a win-win situation Israel and the multi national corporations. The losers, as usual, are the American tax payers and those who came back in coffins, believing that they died for the sake of liberty and freedom.
Posted by CripThink at 10/27/2009 @ 12:17pm
"Although, there are few idiots who still prefer to pontificate about victory and bringing freedom and liberation to Iraq"
the perfect encapsulation of conservatives.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:24pm
"The losers, as usual, are the American tax payers and those who came back in coffins, believing that they died for the sake of liberty and freedom"
and those who died who lacked health insurance.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:27pm
and those who died who lacked health insurance.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:27pm
It is still rather expensive to sell insurance policies in Iraq, but it is only a matter of time.
Posted by CripThink at 10/27/2009 @ 12:32pm
You really are ignorant of both US constitutional law and international law.
The Iraq was is completely legal within both legal frameworks.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:47am
Really? Our constitution gives us the right to invade countires that are not threatening us? Where does it say that? I know it has been interpreted, and is legal from a US legal standpoint, but it is clearly unconstitutional as it is not what the founders of the constitution intended (to use your logic against healthcare).
also, the international legality is not so clear cut. I am not saying it was illegal but it is no where as clear as you claim it to be.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[3] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 12:33pm
cripthink,
i meant those who died who lacked health insurance here in the USA.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
i meant those who died who lacked health insurance here in the USA.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
Sure, fully aware of this predicament. Profit is always ranked ahead of human lives under our system and we are always willing to trash American lives for the sake of the insurance companies, as it has been don by our Congress for years. Protecting the multi national corporation's interest abroad, however, requires sending the Marines out to fight and die; and this has never been a problem, Iraq is a clear example.
I know what you meant; my statement underscores the fact that most of our so-called wars of liberations abroad are instigated to protect large corporations. And if our health insurance companies ever to decide to go to Iraq to rip off the Iraqis; our Marines will follow soon after.
Posted by CripThink at 10/27/2009 @ 1:05pm
"not the federal govt to fix the problems with Detroit"
and this from a so-called expert on constitutional law.
and when the next Big One hits california, i'm sure antisocialist won't need any help from the federal government. he's got his underground bunker ready, his 3 month supply of canned goods, and his stack of porn ready to rock it!
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:13pm
I indeed have my food supplies, water, batteries, electrical power generation, first aid kits, and tents.
It's not the responsibility of the Fed govt to take care of me if I wasn't responsible enough to take care of myself.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:07pm
and the iraqis, dead.----Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 11:42am
Well of course...as lrjones no doubt believes "We had to destroy Iraqi lives in order to save them from Saddam!"
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 1:13pm
Really? Our constitution gives us the right to invade countires that are not threatening us? Where does it say that? I know it has been interpreted, and is legal from a US legal standpoint, but it is clearly unconstitutional as it is not what the founders of the constitution intended (to use your logic against healthcare).
also, the international legality is not so clear cut. I am not saying it was illegal but it is no where as clear as you claim it to be.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 12:33pm
It is the sovereign right of the US under both the US constitution and international law to exercise the right of self defense.
Iraq was in material breach of a cease fire agreement signed in 1993 between Iraq, the UK, and Kuwait, signed in Iraq by General Schwarzkopf, representing the president of the US, not the UN.
<At the end of the first Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf wanted to make sure that the Iraqis knew they were defeated. He decided to sign the cease-fire agreement on Iraqi soil to demonstrate our dominance of their military. He chose Safwan Airfield, some 15 miles to the northwest. However, Safwan was being guarded by Republican Guard forces. To ensure General Schwarzkopf's safety, the airfield had to be taken. The 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (my old Army unit) along with 1/4 Cavalry Regiment (also from the famed 1st Infantry Division) gave the Iraqis the ultimatum to either leave or face decisive military action. On 3 March 1991, the cease-fire was signed.>
http://barnabas.lcmsworldmission.org/?p=426
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:14pm
"It is the sovereign right of the US under both the US constitution and international law to exercise the right of self defense."
against a country who had no weapons? right.
"It's not the responsibility of the Fed govt to take care of me if I wasn't responsible enough to take care of myself"
so you'd rather die than accept federal help, should you ever need it. good for you. way to stubbornly cling to the constitution, anti.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:14pm
"It is the sovereign right of the US under both the US constitution and international law to exercise the right of self defense."
-Sure, but invading Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with self defense. Iraq never threatened us. They were never a threat to our sovereignty, they did not fund terrorism or in any way shape or form threaten our freedom.
"Iraq was in material breach of a cease fire agreement signed in 1993 between Iraq, the UK, and Kuwait."
-No they were not.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 1:38pm
"It is the sovereign right of the US under both the US constitution and international law to exercise the right of self defense."
against a country who had no weapons? right.
"It's not the responsibility of the Fed govt to take care of me if I wasn't responsible enough to take care of myself"
so you'd rather die than accept federal help, should you ever need it. good for you. way to stubbornly cling to the constitution, anti.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 1:23pm
Against a country that was firing upon US aircraft on daily basis
Against a country that continued to not only threaten the US and it's allies, but was paying jihadists to kill Jews and Americans. Saddam was paying 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who would kill Jews and Americans in Israel and elsewhere.
As to myself; that's right, I would rather die than take a govt handout which I don't deserve. Personal responsibility and accountability use to mean something in this country.
Now people look for a handout.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
"As to myself; that's right, I would rather die than take a govt handout which I don't deserve."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
"I'd say that's mighty big talk for a one eyed fat man." Lucky Ned Pepper
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 2:00pm
Fill your hand pilgrim! (I got that C.C. permit just for that purpose.) Colt 9mm. missed 4 out of 50 kill shoots, must be getting old.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:17pm
"As to myself; that's right, I would rather die than take a govt handout which I don't deserve."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
"I'd say that's mighty big talk for a one eyed fat man." Lucky Ned Pepper
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 2:00pm
Sometimes I feel that America died and I now live in a strange land. I grew up in a time when you were expected to be responsible for your own life, and not the govt. Now people no longer feel personal responsibility. Their attitude is that if I'm not responsible the govt can take care of me. This has created a nation of whimpering, spoiled brats.
I don't know how all of you look yourselves in the mirror knowing you don't take responsibility for your own lives.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:19pm
Saddam was paying 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who would kill Jews and Americans in Israel and elsewhere.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
"who would kill jews and americans in Israel and elsewhere" -Clever, cover a lie with truth. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers, but there was nothing to do with Americans.
It is irrelevant anyways, how many billions/trillions have we given to Israel in military aid that has been used to kill palestinian civilians. I have never understood how a military bombing of a civilian target is justifiable, but a bombing by the palestinians is not.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 2:20pm
"Colt 9mm. missed 4 out of 50 kill shoots, must be getting old."
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:17pm
Probably the pistol.
Try an Ed Brown, Wilson Combat, or Springfield Custom.
Guaranteed three inch groups at fifty yards.
I kinda forgot who won that argument between Ned and Rooster.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 2:23pm
"Against a country that was firing upon US aircraft on daily basis"
doh, those poor american fighter jets! always getting shot at.
btw, don't recall any iraqi fighter jets flying over ontario or chiapas as of late.
you really have to wonder why anyone *still* bothers defending the military invasion and occupation of iraq.
please, people, admit you were WRONG about something.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 2:41pm
It was almost a tie since Roosters horse died and pinned him, but the hero won out.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:42pm
Try an Ed Brown, Wilson Combat, or Springfield Custom. Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thanks! All I heard was Glock talk from the deputies with thier combat shooting, but they look square ugly to me. Time to get a good conventional one.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:46pm
iraq was such a colossal f*ck up. what is happening to america now was, in part (and a BIG part), caused by iraq. the second biggest part was afghanistan.
and that antisocialist, an admirer of the rule of law, balanced budgets (see: healthcare), and less government, would STILL cheer on the iraq war. is so stupendously orwellian.
how can today's modern conservative call himself "conservative" when he supports massive federal (and massively failed) intervention, at the expense of taxpayers, in a foreign country and/or region?
and what about torture, wiretapping, rendition? these are hallmarks of an international police state, all of which antisocialist supports.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 2:47pm
If there is any failure in Iraq or Afghanistan it will be ALL Obamanation's! As the emptysuited undecider telepromter in chief who said Afghanistan is the right war, and Iraq which was handed to him as a success is for him to turn to failure!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:46pm
Glocks are pieces of shit perpetrated on ignorant buyers.
There is no such thing as a Glock used in competition.
Absolute garbage. You couldn't tape a $100 bill on one and give it to me.
The depts use em cause they're cheap and they won't jam because they're as loose as a five dollar whore, hence their horrific accuracy problems.
They also don't use a conventional trigger system, instead a cheap junk stryker system that results in a grinding, dragging, miserable double action trigger pull on every shot.
junk
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
We know what you really like about American wars!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:05pm
"This has created a nation of whimpering, spoiled brats."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:19pm
Then I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that cannibis should be legal without an Rx, unless you think that's going to make things bettter.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:07pm
junk
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thanks again!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
Thanks again!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
Maybe.
Those pistols average about $3,500 each.
However, it would be the only one you would ever need, and you could take your friends lunch money at the range, which is priceless.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:22pm
As the 5 blinded by my light ran to their car, I put a spot on them and cut loose over their heads about 10yrs ago and haven't had a problem since? It was a priceless lesson for them and me.
But, they may come armed next time which I will be sure to make it not pretty for them! Be prepared to eliminate the threat was the lesson learned. A good reliable tactical weapon and training is worth the money in all cases.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:29pm
Les Baer AR 15.
www.lesbaer.com
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:33pm
"This has created a nation of whimpering, spoiled brats."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:19pm
Then I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that cannibis should be legal without an Rx, unless you think that's going to make things bettter.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:07pm
Why should I? That has nothing to do with the fact that the Fed govt has no authority to be banning a substance like marijuana.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 2:47pm
To quote Robert Baer:
"Iraq's army, once the fourth largest fighting force in the world, was better equipped than most European ones. For years, the Iraqi army kept Iran from invading the Arabn Gulf states, America's closest allies in the Middle East...For eight years, Iran tried, and failed, to defeat Iraq. Then, in the span of just under two weeks between March 20 and April 9, 2003, American Apache Helicopters, F-16s and Hellfire missiles obliterated the Iraqi army, unintentionally handing Iran a victory it could never have achieved on its own. The United States was the instrument of its own defeat in the Middle East....Destroying Iraq was the greatest strategic blunder this country has made in its history."
Baer's proposed solution? Treat Iran like an equal along the lines of Russia and China. Stop calling for regime change, conduct joint patrols of the Gulf, ease off the embargo, grant Iran defined security role in Iraq and Afghanistan, negotiate Palestinian settlement along UN Resolution 242, encourage incorporation of Hezbollah militia into Lebanese army, support Shia access to Mecca, put all nuclear arms under international supervision (including Israel), and establish international body to audit and set prices for oil.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 3:41pm
"Why should I? That has nothing to do with the fact that the Fed govt has no authority to be banning a substance like marijuana."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 3:34pm
I disagree.
Personal responsibility, which you are bemoaning a lack of, and being stoned, or drunk, do not exactly go hand in hand.
It is a contradiction in common sense.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:41pm
I disagree.
Personal responsibility, which you are bemoaning a lack of, and being stoned, or drunk, do not exactly go hand in hand.
It is a contradiction in common sense.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 3:41pm
If you are drunk and disorderly, is it the Federal govt or local and state laws which are applied?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:00pm
Why are we discussing Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq, a secular ally of America?
Why haven't we bombed Iran?
The 9/11 Commission stated it found that perhaps, "8 to 10," of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran less than a year before 9/11 and its intelligence service intentionally did not stamp their passports to guard against scrutiny during future travels. Iran now trains terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq and has harbored at least 22 senior members of al Qaeda, including a son of Osama bin Laden, under the phony label ‘house arrest' for more than 3 years.
Iran attacked us on 9/11. It is the most active state sponsor of terror. It has killed thousands of Americans. It is developing a nuclear bomb to kill us with.
Iran wants to destroy us. We don't want to be destroyed. There is no middle ground here. There is nothing to discuss, debate, or negotiate.
If we don't destroy the Iranian government, Israel and America will be nuked and millions will die.
The government of Iran not only openly and proudly sponsors every anti-American terrorist it can; it often openly states its intentions to do everything in its power to make sure that American interests, from Iraq to the U.S. itself, are threatened in the most powerful way possible, including nuclear. Compared to the rest of the world--good guys and bad guys alike--the Iranian regime is remarkably lucid, clear and consistent in both words and action.
Anyone who thinks Iran's regime is anything other than a mortal threat, with whom diplomacy is a possibility, is more than out of touch with reality. To evade a threat of this kind is to declare one's intention to desire personal suicide and homicide against millions of other people: meaning, you and I.
Posted by destroyevil at 10/27/2009 @ 4:09pm
"If you are drunk and disorderly, is it the Federal govt or local and state laws which are applied?"
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:00pm
State and local.
I am not talking about the Fed Govt.
Only that a Rx be required before you may possess any amount.
Any. As in controlled medicinal drug, schedule 2 or 3, and regulated in like manner.
Agreed?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 3:41pm
See that Baer's mom sent him to a military academy for high school. She must have had access to the National Geographic's listings on last page of every issue. Seems that was a standard threat thrown at kids who were screwing up through the sixties.
His ideas sound entirely reasonable & from a fluent Arabic speaker no less.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/27/2009 @ 4:14pm
If we spend borrowed money abroad, it is "defense", if we spend it here, it is the end of civilization via socialism. Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
outstanding.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/27/2009 @ 4:15pm
I lived there as a teenager for a few years and later as an adult. It's terrible what the local politicians, the unions, and the automakers did to destroy that area. But it is not the fault of the US govt, nor is it the responsibility of the US govt or taxpayers around the nation to fix it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:51a
clueless
heartless
soulless
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 4:19pm
Posted by destroyevil at 10/27/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
piffle
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 10/27/2009 @ 4:20pm
State and local.
I am not talking about the Fed Govt.
Only that a Rx be required before you may possess any amount.
Any. As in controlled medicinal drug, schedule 2 or 3, and regulated in like manner.
Agreed?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 4:10pm
No I don't agree.
Besides my being against prescription drugs in general, let's tackle this from another perspective.
There are literally thousands of herbal treatments available right now that have no FDA involvement and require no doctor to prescription. Why should marijuana be any different? By what logic do you apply exclusivity to marijuana, but not 1000's of other herbs and plants?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:33pm
"By what logic do you apply exclusivity to marijuana, but not 1000's of other herbs and plants?"
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:33pm
Because marijuana possesses quite a bit more efficacy relative to mind altering capabilities, which is why it's so popular.
You don't see people abusing those stupid herbs you can buy in the health food stores, now do you?
You want to legalize poppy, coca, and shrooms as well?
Same difference, all natural, and yet illegal. Why is that?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 4:42pm
Because marijuana possesses quite a bit more efficacy relative to mind altering capabilities, which is why it's so popular.
You don't see people abusing those stupid herbs you can buy in the health food stores, now do you?
You want to legalize poppy, coca, and shrooms as well?
Same difference, all natural, and yet illegal. Why is that?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 4:42pm
Yes, because there is no authority in the constitution for the Federal govt. You can ask me 15 different ways and you will receive the same answer.
Why don't you tell me what authority the govt has for making something legal or illegal?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:56pm
Posted by destroyevil at 10/27/2009 @ 4:09pm
Read Robert Baer's The Devil We Know and get back to us.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/27/2009 @ 4:14pm
It's not just children of the 60's. I was threatened with the same thing, 20 years later.
He's not just a fluent arabic speaker. He's been on the ground as a CIA agent in Lebanon and many other places. I'd say he's in a unique position to understand both Iran and the workings of the United States government.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 4:42pm
"You want to legalize poppy, coca, and shrooms as well?"
Yes. And while we are at it, why is it that physicians are the gatekeepers? If people want to spend their Saturday nights popping Zoloft, why should they have to convince a physician that this is necessary?
The act of choosing is fundamental to liberty. Personal responsibility is choosing well. You have no opportunity to choose well when you aren't given any choice. It's infantilization. If I want to huff glue, who are you to tell me I can't?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 5:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:56pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 5:05pm
Let me get this straight.
No Rx s required?
All medicines uncontrolled?
You want it? Pop it, smoke it, snort it, shoot it. No big deal.
Damn the consequences to the individual, and society as well?
Have you lost your freakin minds?
Am I in the F-n TWILIGHT ZONE?!
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
Ok, with that vent out of the way, you still haven't answered the question;
Where does the Federal govt get the constitutional authority to make natural substance (or unnatural for that matter) legal or illegal?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 5:26pm
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
On the question of drugs, antisocialist and I largely agree - call it a melding of the radical right and radical left. I've never asked about his thoughts on prescription medications, largely because he is against them on principle but I don't think he would argue that the government should be regulating it - beyond getting sales tax revenues.
What, exactly, do you think would happen in such a world? I think it would remain largely unchanged, except it would suddenly make our prison population much, much smaller and decriminalize the behavior of a large portion of the citizenry. If you look at studies comparing places like The Netherlands and the United States, most of the evidence I've seen suggests that drug usage rates and addiction rates are higher here. As some sources put it, if it is on the shelves, it's not on the streets.
As for prescription medication, I can think of dozens of examples where it doesn't work as intended. Doctors who will prescribe whatever their patient's ask for - which is why direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising works. So, why not cut out the middle man?
Or, let's assume I'm from a country like India that doesn't have these kinds of controls. I know I need a certain heart medication, and in my country, I just go and buy it - based on my doctors recommendation. Here', I'd have to visit another doctor - and get him to write a prescription. Again, why?
Even if I was intent on killing myself or merely to use some drugs recreationally, why should the state get in the middle of it? I can read a book like Final Exit, but I cannot follow it's suggestions because some busybody thinks they know more about my life's value than I do?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 5:45pm
"Where does the Federal govt get the constitutional authority to make natural substance (or unnatural for that matter) legal or illegal?"
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 5:26pm |
Well, I'm fairly certain that every court in the land would not feel comfortable with you legally possessing some plutonium.
But feel free to go try to get you some.
Just tell them what you told me, and hopefully they won't shoot you on the spot.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 6:12pm
"If you look at studies comparing places like The Netherlands and the United States, most of the evidence I've seen suggests that drug usage rates and addiction rates are higher here. As some sources put it, if it is on the shelves, it's not on the streets."
Empirical evidence is irrelevant to right-wing religious fascists. It would be like showing that in every country where pornography use is more acceptable and widespread, rapes and sex crimes generally all go down dramatically from what they were in those same countries when pornography was shunned, even if the percentage of rape victims who report the offenses against them goes up. Yes, they'll say, and maybe masturbation does improve concentration, prolong life expectancy, improve performance when working, and eliminate stress, but what about the "fact" that God will torture you in Hell forever and ever if you do it?
Right-wing religious fascists believe that faith is superior to reason. Hence no empirical evidence will sway them. Nearly half of all of our law enforcement resources are spent going after non-violent drug offenders. If we stopped the war on drugs, we would double our law enforcement resources without taxing anyone. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts. Prohibition simply gives money from honest Americans and the state to criminals. America's murder rate has doubled because of the War on Drugs. Anyone who supports this Orwellian policy is clearly delusional and in denial of basic facts of reality. Support for this policy should be equated with rejection of reason and hatred for freedom.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 6:17pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 5:45pm
Not everybody is like you SRJ.
The VAST majority do not possess your intellect, nor your ability of reason.
The casinos in my state are not supported by intellects, but poor dumbasses who don't know any better.
You want a bunch of drunk, stoned, cocaine snorting meth-head red necks running amock legally?
The trailer parks would be a hoot then, huh?
I'll pass.
And thank my lucky stars things are as they should be at present.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 6:27pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 6:17pm
Then what is your answer for this right wing religious nut who advocates that the govt has not right to make drugs illegal? How did I somehow overcome my fanaticism to engage in reason on this subject?
Your generalization is really faulty (putting it politely).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:39pm
Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 3:41p
no way!
squish the towelheads!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 6:46pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:39pm
YOU cannot condone illicit drug use.
It is not your nature, nor is it responsible in any sense.
You are against prescription drugs not because they are controlled, but because you do not believe people should be taking them at all. Period.
That degrades your argument and supports mine simply because their use will increase if all controls are dropped.
Death rates secondary to overdoses will skyrocket in the short term as the addicts have unrestricted access to their drug of choice.
As a "Prophet of G-d", you are accountable for holding such views relative to Whom you represent, no?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 6:52pm
"Then what is your answer for this right wing religious nut who advocates that the govt has not right to make drugs illegal? How did I somehow overcome my fanaticism to engage in reason on this subject?"
I don't regard you as a "right-wing religious fascist," which was the phrase I used. You are on the right, but so am I. You may be religious, but not all religious people are fascist nutcases (in fact, it's hard to find Jewish or Christian religious fascists these days). I would not apply my stereotype to you. Benchrest is certainly a ludicrous religious fascist however. You seem to be far more concerned with reason over faith than the average self-deceptive left liberal quasi-Socialist.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 7:03pm
" Benchrest is certainly a ludicrous religious fascist however. "
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 7:03pm
I am?
Cool! When did that happen?
You are a clueless noob and have no idea who is what.
May I suggest you GET a clue before you open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Idiot
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 7:12pm
As I said above:
"Nearly half of all of our law enforcement resources are spent going after non-violent drug offenders. If we stopped the war on drugs, we would double our law enforcement resources without taxing anyone. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts. Prohibition simply gives money from honest Americans and the state to criminals. America's murder rate has doubled because of the War on Drugs. Anyone who supports this Orwellian policy is clearly delusional and in denial of basic facts of reality. Support for this policy should be equated with rejection of reason and hatred for freedom."
If you favor this but I am the idiot, what are you?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 7:13pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 5:05pm
Whatever you say, jenkins. About the Arabic fluency. Clean up the wiki article.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/27/2009 @ 7:16pm
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 6:27pm
"You want a bunch of drunk, stoned, cocaine snorting meth-head red necks running amock legally?"
More than I want the police state necessary to keep people from their preferred method of self-destruction and the inevitable life lessons that stem from it.
As William Blake would have it, "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom."
Or perhaps it's more appropriate to quote William Burroughs here: "Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has."
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 7:21pm
Yea, we won in Iraq, but FDR and Truman were not followed by an "empty suited rhetoric spouting leftist teleprompter in chief"!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 09:05am
In other words, as Patreaus always said, there was never going to be a victory in Iraq.
Gen. Petraeus wouldn't let folks use words like ‘triumph' or ‘victory' or say ‘we're winning.'"
It's a pitty wingnuts don't listen more to the Generals.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 7:24pm
"If you favor this but I am the idiot, what are you?"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 7:13pm
Not twelve?
Make em legal, just controlled, so dopeheads like you are less likely to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill innocents.
You can still be a stoner Spicoli, just not legally.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 7:25pm
"... any more than a smallpox virus has."
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 7:21pm
Well, Larry doesn't believe in vaccinations which eliminated that as a common threat to the public some time ago, as well as polio.
If you believe an end to the war on drugs is a positive thing, I have no problem with that.
But leaving these recreational drugs unregulated is foolish in my opinion if the state is to gain anything from it, and to prohibit their abuse and endangerment of innocents by idiots.
They must be a controlled substance relative to state laws.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 7:34pm
YOU cannot condone illicit drug use.
It is not your nature, nor is it responsible in any sense.
You are against prescription drugs not because they are controlled, but because you do not believe people should be taking them at all. Period.
That degrades your argument and supports mine simply because their use will increase if all controls are dropped.
Death rates secondary to overdoses will skyrocket in the short term as the addicts have unrestricted access to their drug of choice.
As a "Prophet of G-d", you are accountable for holding such views relative to Whom you represent, no?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 6:52pm
You are conflating two very separate arguments.
the first is the constitutional question. For that, there is no defense for the Govt position of making a natural substance illegal. You've yet to provide any constitutional argument.
the second question is unrelated to the first. I don't condone any behavior that is destructive to one's body.
Third, your argument on controlling prescription drugs is faulty because I have not stated that each state has no right to control the prescription drugs. The states do have that authority while the Fed does not.
Finally, even with current law, over 100,000 people die every year from the normal side effects of taking prescription drugs. How does the Fed govt stop that? They can't
<There are over 106,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs each year in the USA, even when prescribed correctly and taken as prescribed. (Lucian Leape, Error in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1994, 272:23, p 1851. Also: Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA. 2000 Jul 5;284(1):95-7.)>
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 7:36pm
You really are ignorant of both US constitutional law and international law.
The Iraq was is completely legal within both legal frameworks.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:47am
Actually it wasn't.
It was a violation of international law.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 7:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:14pm
"It is the sovereign right of the US under both the US constitution and international law to exercise the right of self defense."
Except that Iraq had not attacked us and was no threat to us. Any allegations of threats were based on forgeries and lies.
"Iraq was in material breach of a cease fire agreement signed in 1993 between Iraq, the UK, and Kuwait, signed in Iraq by General Schwarzkopf, representing the president of the US, not the UN."
False. Our government said Iraq was in material breach of a cease fire agreement, but this has been subsequently debunked. Any allegations of material breach were based on forgeries and lies.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 7:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
"Against a country that was firing upon US aircraft on daily basis"
Aircraft that were in Iraqi airspace and had no legal justification for being there. In any case, this is by no means a threat to the US.
"Against a country that continued to not only threaten the US and it's allies, but was paying jihadists to kill Jews and Americans."
Rubbish. The country was not paying anyone to kill Jews and Americans.
" Saddam was paying 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who would kill Jews and Americans in Israel and elsewhere."
Correction. Saddam was paying $25,000 to the surviving families of suicide bombers. Families who had no measn of survival. No suicide bomber accepted $25,000 in exchange for a suicide attack.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 7:48pm
If there is any failure in Iraq or Afghanistan it will be ALL Obamanation's! As the emptysuited undecider telepromter in chief who said Afghanistan is the right war, and Iraq which was handed to him as a success is for him to turn to failure!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:01pm
You gotta love how the right love to move their goal posts. When 911 happened on Bush's watch, it was all Clinton's fault.
Bush had 8 years to win in Afghanistan, after he took his eye off the ball, but it will be all Obama's fault if we don;t have victory.
Iraq was a poisoned chalice. All Bush and Patreaus did was wrap it in bandages for long enough to stem the bleeding until Bush's term ran out, which is why Patreaus forbade anyone from using the word victory.
BigPasture evidently didn't get the memo.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 7:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 7:36pm
"You've yet to provide any constitutional argument."
**How about "promote the general welfare"?
"the second question is unrelated to the first. I don't condone any behavior that is destructive to one's body. "
**You also don't believe in treating cancer either, kids or adults. That can be taken several ways, right?
"Third, your argument on controlling prescription drugs is faulty because I have not stated that each state has no right to control the prescription drugs. The states do have that authority while the Fed does not. "
**Malarky. You have been crystal clear cannibis should be legal without a prescription. I am the one in the argument who wants it controlled.
"Finally, even with current law, over 100,000 people die every year from the normal side effects of taking prescription drugs. How does the Fed govt stop that? They can't "
**Well, let's make it worse then and take away all controls.
Larry, I wish you well. May your days be filled with dope smoking twenty somethings driving and texting. That oughta keep you busy enough.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 8:07pm
"8 to 10," of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran less than a year before 9/11
Posted by destroyevil at 10/27/2009 @ 4:09pm
It obviously never occurred to you that all 19 passed though the US.
"intelligence service intentionally did not stamp their passport"
Iran has NEVER stamped their passports o those entering the country.
"Iran now trains terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq and has harbored at least 22 senior members of al Qaeda"
ran has those 22 senior members of al Qaeda sitting in prison cells. In fact, Iran offered to hand these AQ members over to the US in exchange for members of the MEK (listed by the state Department as Terrorists) in Iraq. The Bush Administration refused, choosing instead to support the terrorist MEK as they set off bombs in Tehran.
2 weeks go, AQ affiliated Jundulla claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Tehran. The Jundulla, Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang, are CIA supported.
Iran nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 Commission didn't even suggest Iranian involvement.
Iran has killed no Americans.
The IAEA and 16 UN Intelligence agencies have stated there is no evidence that Iran is developing a nukes.
"If we don't destroy the Iranian government, Israel and America will be nuked and millions will die."
Iran haven't attacked any country in 300 years The government of Iran does not sponsor terrorism, though the US is supporting at least 3 Al Qaeda terrorist groups as they attack Iran.
Iran has never made any suggestion of using nukes, or threatening the US. In fact, the Iranian government has been central to stabilizing Iraq and supports the Iraqi government.
Contd...
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:12pm
"Iranian regime is remarkably lucid, clear and consistent in both words and action."
Agreed. 1. Iran are a signatory to the NPT (unlike Israel who refuse to sign it). 2. They have stated repeatedly they want no nukes and are not developing them. 3. They have stated repeatedly that they want peace. 4. In 2003, Iran offered to normalize relations with the US, wash it's hands of Hebollah and Hamas, negotiate it's nuclear program and even make up with Israel. Washington rejected the offer.
Before you talk about being in touch with reality, you might want to brush up on a little thing called facts and evidence.
No, see your doctor and check the expiry date on your meds.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:15pm
in fact, it's hard to find Jewish or Christian religious fascists these days
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 7:03pm
Not if you know where to look. Just go to the West Bank in Palestine. There's plenty of religious fascists (ie. settlers) there.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:20pm
"The country was not paying anyone to kill Jews and Americans."
Iraq sponsored terror against Israel and Iran only, according to the State Department. So, it only paid people to kill Israelis.
"It was a violation of international law."
Actually, since Saddam waged wars of aggression that killed over 1,000,000 innocent people and committed genocide twice and massacred 900,000 Iraqis and violated the NPT, it was illegal under international law not to overthrow him. Under international law, it is also illegal not to intervene in the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Burma, North Korea, and many, many other countries (like, what, 80% of Africa?).
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:23pm
"Just go to the West Bank in Palestine."
I agree. Virtually all Palestinians are primitive religious fascists and Israel should expel them from the West Bank and Gaza and incorporate those lands into Israel.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:28pm
The Palestinians might be the most primitive savages and most savage primitives on the face of the earth.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:29pm
Actually, since Saddam waged wars of aggression that killed over 1,000,000 innocent people and committed genocide twice and massacred 900,000 Iraqis and violated the NPT, it was illegal under international law not to overthrow him.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:23pm
Rubbish. There is no article in international law that makes any advocacy of overthrowing any government.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:42pm
I agree. Virtually all Palestinians are primitive religious fascists and Israel should expel them from the West Bank and Gaza and incorporate those lands into Israel.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:28pm
Palestinians are not settlers. They are indigenous to the land.
it's a pitty you're consistent with your advocacy of ethnic cleansing and genocide though. You only seem to have a problem with it when it's done by Arabs, but happy to see it done by Israel.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:44pm
The Palestinians might be the most primitive savages and most savage primitives on the face of the earth.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:29pm
That's funny. The people that committed the worst genocide in human history were very educated, advanced and civilized.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:46pm
"Rubbish. There is no article in international law that makes any advocacy of overthrowing any government."
There are four criteria under international law for regime change. Only one such criterion is needed to necessitate such action. One is genocide, which, according to the signatories of the Genocide Convention (the United States is one), necessitates immediate action either to prevent or to punish the perpetrators. Another is aggression against the sovereignty of neighboring states, including occupation of their territory. A third is hospitality for, or encouragement of, international terrorist groups, and a fourth is violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty or of U.N. resolutions governing weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:47pm
"The people that committed the worst genocide in human history were very educated, advanced and civilized."
China wasn't very advanced under Mao, who killed 70 million. The Chinese have historically been some of the most advanced people on earth however.
Come to think of it, Persians also have an extraordinary cultural heritage, despite the sad state of their current governments.
But Arabs? What do they have to be proud of?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:51pm
There are four criteria under international law for regime change. Only one such criterion is needed to necessitate such action. One is genocide, which, according to the signatories of the Genocide Convention (the United States is one), necessitates immediate action either to prevent or to punish the perpetrators. Another is aggression against the sovereignty of neighboring states, including occupation of their territory. A third is hospitality for, or encouragement of, international terrorist groups, and a fourth is violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty or of U.N. resolutions governing weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:47pm
Sorry but all of the above is complete rubbish that you have simply made up.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:52pm
"it's a pitty you're consistent with your advocacy of ethnic cleansing and genocide though. You only seem to have a problem with it when it's done by Arabs, but happy to see it done by Israel."
Israel is as morally flawless as any nation could concievably be expected to be.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:53pm
But Arabs? What do they have to be proud of?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:51pm
Oh I dunno. How about creating the numerical system and the alphabet, without which, our society wouldn't function.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 8:55pm
"the numerical system"
Stolen from India.
Language would exist regardless of the Arabs.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:59pm
The Palestinians also helped plan and execute the Holocaust, getting tens of thousands of Muslim SS volunteers, rounding up Jews, and working with the Nazis to develop the plot behind the Final Solution.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:01pm
The Palestinians also helped plan and execute the Holocaust, getting tens of thousands of Muslim SS volunteers, rounding up Jews, and working with the Nazis to develop the plot behind the Final Solution.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:01pm
It's also been demonstrated that this is a lie.
No Palestinians planned the Holocaust, not even the Mufti.
There were 7 times more Jewish SS volunteers than Palestinian. In fact, there were no Palestinians in the SS.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 9:09pm
No worry, we'll be out of there a year from now.
Obama said so.
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/27/2009 @ 9:09pm
Stolen from India.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:59pm
Rubbish. The numerical systen had nothing to do with India. In fact, the Arabs even invented the concept of Zero, which the Romans couldn't understand.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 9:10pm
Israel is as morally flawless as any nation could concievably be expected to be.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:53pm
You mean as far as fascistic, militaristic, apartheid, criminal states go?
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 9:11pm
Israel is as morally flawless as any nation could concievably be expected to be.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 8:53pm
are you on shrooms?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:42pm
YOU cannot condone illicit drug use.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 6:52pm
bench,
what is your favourite drug?
coffee?
coca-cola?
catnip?
chile?
spudweiser?
i mean, por favor.
the government is the biggest drug dealer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:44pm
(in fact, it's hard to find Jewish or Christian religious fascists these days).
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 7:03pm
i was looking for something else,
but perhaps you need to read this:
"The bombing of Nagasaki means even more to me than the bombing of Hiroshima. By August 9, 1945, we knew what that bomb would do, but we still dropped it. We knew that agonies and sufferings would ensue, and we also knew – at least our leaders knew – that it was not necessary. The Japanese were already defeated. They were already suing for peace. But we insisted on unconditional surrender, and this is even against the Just War theory. Once the enemy is defeated, once the enemy is not able to hurt you, you must make peace."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:47pm
I just saw a video of Kamau Kambon, owner of Blacknificent Books, calling for the extermination of all white people.
I'm no racist, but I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, sure. I'll be afraid once a single black country is militarily stronger than a single white country."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:48pm
But leaving these recreational drugs unregulated is foolish in my opinion if the state is to gain anything from it, and to prohibit their abuse and endangerment of innocents by idiots.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 7:34pm
if you have public health care,
then then all these substances should be taxed as best as possible.
for example, a simple grow your own permit.
but the money MUST go directly into the health care fund and not into the general fund.
just keep in mind that bacon and high-fructose corn syrup should also be taxed in a similar manner.
if you don't have public health care,
well, it's just none of your business.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:52pm
I'm no racist, but I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, sure. I'll be afraid once a single black country is militarily stronger than a single white country."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:48pm
i say, "make 'em slaves!".
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:54pm
I'm no racist, but I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, sure. I'll be afraid once a single black country is militarily stronger than a single white country."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:48pm
i was right, you ARE a viceroy reincarnate.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:54pm
I'm no racist, but I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, sure. I'll be afraid once a single black country is militarily stronger than a single white country."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:48pm
mask!
quick, to the archives!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:55pm
Larry, I wish you well. May your days be filled with dope smoking twenty somethings driving and texting.
That oughta keep you busy enough.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 8:07pm
you should worry much more about the texting part.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:56pm
ATTENTION, RIGHTWINGRACISTBIGOTEDFOOL:
there is a brand new afghan thread were you can truly project the vile rot found in the well-intentioned centre of your soul.
it is found here:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/489398/a_ patriot_asks_about_afghan_war_why_and_to_what_end
see ya' soon.
[karma, please ignore what i've just written]
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:59pm
are you on shrooms?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:42pm
No, he's probably just watched way too much porn.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 10:07pm
"You really are ignorant of both US constitutional law and international law.
The Iraq was is completely legal within both legal frameworks."
I see antisocialist is still peddling his profound ignorance of international law.
Again, the only cease-fire agreement that involved WMDs was the one covered by a UN Security Council resolution. The subsequent resolution that found Iraq to be in violation also stated that the UN Security Council "remained seized of the matter".
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:18pm
"I don't know how all of you look yourselves in the mirror knowing you don't take responsibility for your own lives.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
We do it by knowing that we aren't hate-dripping, homophobic bigots who considers the Gilded Age to be the good old days.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:22pm
"Why don't you tell me what authority the govt has for making something legal or illegal?"
When those somethings are objects of interstate commerce. Part of that authority is setting standards for those objects that are injected into commerce.
I do disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that upheld a federal marijuana possession prohibition (as opposed to distribution weight).
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:25pm
thank god your back, brunowe!
now,
deal with this:
I'M NO RACIST, BUT I COULDN'T HELP BUT THINK, "YEAH, SURE. I'LL BE AFRAID ONCE A SINGLE BLACK COUNTRY IS MILITARILY STRONGER THAN A SINGLE WHITE COUNTRY."
POSTED BY RIGHTWINGNUTCASE AT 10/27/2009 @ 9:48PM
times are truly tough, brother.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:26pm
damn homophones!
"you're"
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:27pm
Thanks, Frosty, but I put rightwingnutcase on ignore almost immediately.
I do have a disagreement with your take on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. My understanding is that the Japanese actually didn't offer unconditional-except-for-the-Emperor until after the second bomb. Before that, the terms involved only a token occupation, maintenance in power of the militarist clique, etc.. Indeed, even after Nagasaki, there was an attempt by hard-liners to stop the surrender with a coup.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:37pm
"The comparison, with Germany and Japan is that an autocratic regime that practiced barbaric cruelty against its own citizens was removed from office and a government of political diversity is now running the country."
And Mr. Jones is again peddling the idea that the rationale for invading Iraq was its totalitarian regime (I doubt he's called for invading Myanmar or Zimbabwe on those grounds) when it was the WMD rationale that was presented.
Incidentally, it doesn't seem that anyone is actually "governing" Iraq at the moment.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:42pm
We do it by knowing that we aren't hate-dripping, homophobic bigots who considers the Gilded Age to be the good old days.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:22pm
OOOHHH, I'm so wounded by another religious bigot. How will I ever recover (romfl)
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:50pm
You can call me a racist for not talking down to blacks and Arabs, but that just shows how little you expect of them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 11:04pm
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 7:34pm
Even innocents aren't clockwork oranges. The state cannot protect them from themselves or from the world. In addition, it is rare for anyone to become addicted to anything without either making the conscious choice to try it or to continue trying it.
So, let's not blame idiots, even the idiot innocents. It's about choices and personal responsibility. And the more choices are limited by the state, the less responsibility you have.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 11:28pm
"OOOHHH, I'm so wounded by another religious bigot. How will I ever recover (romfl)"
No doubt you'll survive. However, characterizing your homophobia as bigotry hardly constitutes bigotry against religion. The statement about your antediluvian views on the Constitution aren't even religious.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 11:41pm
"bench,
what is your favourite drug?
spudweiser?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:44pm
I wasn't born in a barn.
I realize the blatant double standard of Unibroue versus White Widow or Purple Haze, but the THC content in the modern strains can be debilitating with two or three hits.
You cannot compare coffee to THC or mushrooms, or cocaine, etc. It doesn't work.
I firmly believe that the current methodology of availability by Rx only is a wise one, and will be adhered to regardless.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 11:49pm
You can call me a racist for not talking down to blacks and Arabs, but that just shows how little you expect of them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 11:04pm
sure thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 12:53am
You cannot compare coffee to THC or mushrooms, or cocaine, etc. It doesn't work.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 11:49pm
coffee kills some people,
others smoke until they're 90.
ever think that coffee has played a major role in THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN?
i do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 12:56am
As the violence in Iraq esclates again? We must all remember to thank former President Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney for the horror they have brought to the Iraqis. What I don't understand? Why have investigations not been started for war crimes against these fools?
Posted by sheila60 at 10/28/2009 @ 06:54am
I don't know how all of you look yourselves in the mirror knowing you don't take responsibility for your own lives.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:19pm |
Just proves you don't know shit about the people you insult daily. What a joke of a preacher. Sad, shameless, clueless, and such a hypocrite.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2009 @ 07:55am
Yea, we won in Iraq, but FDR and Truman were not followed by an "empty suited rhetoric spouting leftist teleprompter in chief"!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 09:05am
Ahh, he kind of was.
BTW, which Messiah was the king of Teleprompter in the 1980's?
hint: His words are quoted more than the Bible in certain political circles.
2nd hint: He allied himself with the guy you mongers declared war on, then could not finish the job you started.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2009 @ 08:11am
Some real history, not the revisionist praddle seen often:
In 2003 the Iraq war was "accomplished". At the end of 2008 (five years after the war was won) George W. bush returned home ALL US troops from the Iraqi theatre. Then, in a stunning reversal of policy, Barak Hussein Obama, an illegal alien, Islamo-fascist supporter and known Marxist, sent ALL Us troops back into Iraq.
Therefore, Barak failed in Iraq, whereas Bush was victorious.
This failure of conscience can also be seen in Barak Obamas bailout of Us banking institutions in late 2008, in tandem with President Henry Paulson.
Simple PontiFlogic, represented by Big Pasture, and many house members with an (r) after their name.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2009 @ 08:18am
Iraq paid 25 k to families of suicide bombers.
Israel gives land, housing and police and military support to those that rout others from their homes, even those that kill to do it.
Israel is THE MOST perfect state ever.
No question.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2009 @ 08:22am
Good luck.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2009 @ 09:44am
You Leftwing Americans of all people can hardly talk about not being able to prevent insurgent attacks.
Terrible as were the 150 deaths and 500 or so wounded in Iraq several days ago that happened in a country that is still fighting insurgents who are operating inside Iraq.
Let me remind you that your country was unable to prevent an attack on your homeland about 6000 miles from where the perpetrators came.
What are you like at mental arithmetic? When your deadly visitors from so far away brought down the Twin Towers they killed 3000. That's about 20 times the number killed in this last tragic killing in Baghdad.
In fact with all the proximity advantages that the insurgents have in Iraq they as yet have not be able to even approach what happened on 9/11 in their own country or region (for non indigenous insurgents).
How many operatives did it take to bring down the Twin Towers? One hundred? Fifty? Probably not even that many. So how many would it have needed to cause the terrible carnage in Iraq a day or so ago. You see that wasn't hard was it? Not much hope for Mask as he seems to have off standard wiring but you can do better.
If I were Mask I could ask was 9/11 an indication that democracy was struggling in America but I think you can see what that means when we apply the same faulty wiring "logic", that you have got emotionally caught up in (at least I hope that's what it was) to this terrible incident in Baghdad.
I trust you now see the folly of imagining that these sorts of bombings are a measure of the strength of a democracy, whether it's in Turkey, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq, or dare we say it? New York, USA.
Could I suggest preacher man that you stick to that banjo or whatever it was?
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 08:26am
"In fact with all the proximity advantages that the insurgents have in Iraq they as yet have not be able to even approach what happened on 9/11 in their own country or region (for non indigenous insurgents). "
Yes, but they've been able to strike chronically whereas al-Qaida only had the one strike in 2001.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 08:30am
In fact with all the proximity advantages that the insurgents have in Iraq they as yet have not be able to even approach what happened on 9/11 in their own country or region (for non indigenous insurgents). "
whattacrock. the term insurgents is most imprecise. the war in Iraq was and is primarily between Iraqis, and the dead are measured in the hundreds of thousands.
imagine the US lecturing Israel about a peace process, while carrying on two wars with dubious motives and strategy. a bitter joke.
the american people have had it with the guns part and are in dire need of butter.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/28/2009 @ 09:04am
Let me remind you that your country was unable to prevent an attack on your homeland about 6000 miles from where the perpetrators came.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 08:26am
but timothy mcveigh was from lockport, new york.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:18am
If I were Mask I could ask was 9/11 an indication that democracy was struggling in America but I think you can see what that means when we apply the same faulty wiring "logic", that you have got emotionally caught up in (at least I hope that's what it was) to this terrible incident in Baghdad.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 08:26am
of course, 9/11 was an indication that democracy is struggling in america.
think hard, now......
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:20am
Either "Iraq is just like World War-II" as you guys keep trying....or it's "a long term insurgency", which WW-2 was NOT like.
Pick one and we'll be happy.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 11:16am
Look Mr. Mask I'm still pretty sure that you have off standard wiring (remember Will who lived with his mum in NY-you are a bit like him- not a first cousin by any chance?)
So Mask I'm going to try and help your unusual thought processes (once again) by picking both.
Though history is said to repeat itself it never does so exactly and so in evaluating Iraq alongside Germany and Japan there are comparisons (similarities) and contrasts (differences).
You go away and think about that Mask and see if you can grasp what most people, who haven't been excessively influenced by Left-wing fundamentalism, seem to grasp quite readily.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 09:24am
Though history is said to repeat itself it never does so exactly and so in evaluating Iraq alongside Germany and Japan there are comparisons (similarities) and contrasts (differences).
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 09:24am
so much blood, so little time.
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:28am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 09:24am
No, we get it....and I said it.
You guys want the "War on Terror" to be "World War-II Redux" and want to pretend that YOU are the "2nd Greatest Generation". "Dubya won the war, just like Patton rolling into Germany", etc., etc., etc.
Except where it blows up in your face, then it's a "ongoing struggle that will take DECADES to fight, but we can't back down."
Too much of one and it falls apart as well. Can't be TOO much like World War-II or people start asking "Why no tax increases to pay for it? Why no draft? Why no oversight of war production?".....the reason being...because it would have hurt Bush and the Republicans political fortunes in 2002, 2004, 2006 (2006 seemed lost regardless).
Too much of "It's a struggle that will go on for years and years and years"....and the public turns on you.....as they have.
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 09:34am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:28am
Beyond stupidity, Zoom. Guilt or sociopathy.
If Jones has a conscious, it would eat him alive if he EVER considered that he was wrong and that he sent 1000s of troops and 10,000s of civilians to their graves over a false belief. So?....he'll NEVER consider that he was wrong or the guilt would destroy him.
If Jones has no conscious...it's sociopathy. And he cares nothing for throwing away the lives of others...as long as HIS beliefs are maintained.
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 09:40am
"In fact with all the proximity advantages that the insurgents have in Iraq they as yet have not be able to even approach what happened on 9/11 in their own country or region (for non indigenous insurgents). "
Yes, but they've been able to strike chronically whereas al-Qaida only had the one strike in 2001.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 08:30am
B,
I noticed your other post also. Bit late here,2am Thursday.
I have a lot better opinion of America and its motives than you and most of those broadly on the left, who post here have. Of course it is the same around the world. The Left thinks almost identically on every issue. There are a few rare exceptions; Hitchens on Iraq and one of the Cockburns on climate change. So, apart from a few independent thinkers it seems to be a follow the leader game.
A while ago when discussing ILA 1998 you were more concerned that that document limited America's financial involvement to, was it $90 million? Which you interpreted as not meaning much.
However, despite that, it marked a clear break in America's former relationship with the Saddam regime and was an influential landmark document in its statement of US policy and certainly provided, pre-9/11, the moral arguments for removing Saddam.
If you want to think that you Americans in foreign policy are a rotten bunch or that it was an illegal war that's your prerogative. I don't however share your opinion nor am I influenced by your predictable standard Leftwing arguments.
Remember pre-war the Left said invading Iraq would set the ME ablaze. Nothing of the sort happened. And despite the hopes, (prayers?) and prognostications of those whose attitude to Iraq is conditioned by their hatred of Bush and the neo-cons, Iraq is still forging ahead as a parliamentary democracy.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:06am
"If you want to think that you Americans in foreign policy are a rotten bunch or that it was an illegal war that's your prerogative. I don't however share your opinion nor am I influenced by your predictable standard Leftwing arguments."
The point is the $90 million cap means quite a bit. It means that the US was only committed to supporting certain Iraqi exile groups, it was not committed to going to war to rewrite the government of Iraq.
Second, you can say "ILA" all you like but it was WMDs that were the rationale given. Incidentally, the only ones I think were rotten were the ones who used Hussein's dictatorship as a pretext when they haven't uttered a peep regarding invading, say, Myanmar or Zimbabwe.
"I influenced by your predictable standard Leftwing arguments.""
Of course not, they are way too fact-based for your tastes.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 10:30am
"And despite the hopes, (prayers?) and prognostications of those whose attitude to Iraq is conditioned by their hatred of Bush and the neo-cons, Iraq is still forging ahead as a parliamentary democracy."
Right, the stalling of the election law, the return to armed actions of the Sunnis whom Maliki failed to co-opt and the continuing problem of the Kurdish issue are such definite signs of progress.
Incidentally, if you want to compare degrees of error; it is you lot who stated that this would be a piece of cake, that we wouldn't need more troops in the occupation then we did for the invasion, that said occupation would pay for itself and, oh yeah, that there were WMDs.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 11:27am
No doubt you'll survive. However, characterizing your homophobia as bigotry hardly constitutes bigotry against religion. The statement about your antediluvian views on the Constitution aren't even religious.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 11:41pm
Characterizing belief in the teachings of one's faith as a psychological disorder is RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY. And like most leftists, you are guilty of religious bigotry.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:38pm
"Characterizing belief in the teachings of one's faith as a psychological disorder is RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY. And like most leftists, you are guilty of religious bigotry.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
Not at all. Homophobia is a form of bigotry. The fact that is may be based in someone's religious belief doesn't change that. Therefore decrying it as a form of bigotry isn't bigotry.
Further, you haven't simply defined homosexuals as sinners, you have referred to them as perverts. That is a psychological judgment, not a religious one.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 2:00pm
Remember pre-war the Left said invading Iraq would set the ME ablaze. Nothing of the sort happened.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:06am
yet.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 2:43pm
Not at all. Homophobia is a form of bigotry. The fact that is may be based in someone's religious belief doesn't change that. Therefore decrying it as a form of bigotry isn't bigotry.
Further, you haven't simply defined homosexuals as sinners, you have referred to them as perverts. That is a psychological judgment, not a religious one.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 2:00pm
Utter and complete nonsense. Homophobia is a slur created by the left rather than to accept that most major world religions condemn homosexuality as incompatible with G-d's holiness.
My calling them perverts is a moral condemnation that is no different than calling them a sinner. It has nothing to do with psychology.
From the dictionary- Pervert
noun
10. a person who practices sexual perversion.
11. Pathology. a person affected with perversion.
12. a person who has been perverted, esp. to a religious belief regarded as erroneous.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:18pm
"Homophobia is a slur created by the left rather than to accept that most major world religions condemn homosexuality as incompatible with G-d's holiness. "
No, homophobia is an irrational aversion to homosexuals that has, in extreme cases, been expressed as violence. Further, the American Psychological Association has long held that "both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. "
"My calling them perverts is a moral condemnation that is no different than calling them a sinner. It has nothing to do with psychology.
Wrong again-- Oxford Online Dictionary "a person with abnormal or unacceptable sexual behaviour. "
Calling their behavior abnormal has psychological, not theological, implications.
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 3:34pm
I have no misconception that your religious bigotry would ever be admitted.
I have no aversion to homosexuals that is any different than I express to adulterers. I don't have a phobia of adulterers either but they are equally bound for hell unless they repent.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:38pm
So antisocialist, you think that one day, people just wake up and think to themselves, "I've deliberately CHOSEN to be gay from now on!"?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/28/2009 @ 4:38pm
So antisocialist, you think that one day, people just wake up and think to themselves, "I've deliberately CHOSEN to be gay from now on!"?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/28/2009 @ 4:38pm
I've explained this on the Nation website ad naseum.
Every person is born with moral weaknesses to which they are tempted.
For some it's theft.
Sexual addictions, of which includes serial adulterers, pedophiles, homosexuality, sex addicts, compulsive masterbators.
Violence
uncontrolled anger
and others
These weaknesses are enhanced by our environment (family, culture, etc)
They are played upon by demonic influences which pull us towards acting on our weaknesses.
And in rare instances, by demonic possession.
For some behaviors like homosexuality or adultery can be also initiated in response to emotional hurts. I've had people tell me that they began engaging in such activity after being hurt from a lengthy relationship.
I've had many a person attempt to justify their heterosexual promiscuity by the claim "that's the way G-d made me". It's just as ridiculous from them as the person claiming to be homosexual.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 7:41pm
"in rare instances, by demonic possession"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/28/2009 @ 8:08pm
Oh yeah, you definitely got everyone figured out, huh Spicoli?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/28/2009 @ 9:08pm
Homophobia is a slur created by the left rather than to accept that most major world religions condemn homosexuality as incompatible with G-d's holiness.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:18pm
so why was god so dumb as to put the prostate where it is?
remember, most major world religions also tell you to go kill the other folks.
if god is so smart, why does she keep writing new books?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:46pm
compulsive masterbators.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 7:41pm |
ooh,
such a telling orthographic freudianism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:48pm
compulsive masterbators.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 7:41pm |
How about compulsive right wing posters on left wing websites?
Remember to wipe when done.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2009 @ 07:47am
"The comparison, with Germany and Japan is that an autocratic regime that practiced barbaric cruelty against its own citizens was removed from office and a government of political diversity is now running the country."
And Mr. Jones is again peddling the idea that the rationale for invading Iraq was its totalitarian regime (I doubt he's called for invading Myanmar or Zimbabwe on those grounds) when it was the WMD rationale that was presented.
Incidentally, it doesn't seem that anyone is actually "governing" Iraq at the moment.
Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:42pm
You B clearly are living in another universe aka as self delusion.
No one, which includes your Congress and former president Bill Clinton, has said the reason for seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from office was because he was running an authoritarian or totalitarian regime except your good self.
For those not suffering your Left-wing delusion the very simple answer is that neither Myanmar nor Zimbabwe were on your country's hit list. Saddam's regime was.
Here is what your Congress determined with respect to the latter. These are the portions you have either never read or ignored:
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."
"Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."
Of course the further delusion you harbour is that GW Bush did not mention the Saddam regime's
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/29/2009 @ 4:03pm
gross HR violations as a reason for removing Saddam from office.
GW Bush in his address to the UN 12 Sept 2002 and in other speeches laid out the rationale for removing the then present Iraq regime from office in terms of its HR violations as spelled out of the ILA 1998. So they were never mentioned by Bush as a prime reason for regime chance? I refrain, in the interests of civility, from calling you a liar but do you have a better word? I'll accept ignorance.
That brings us back to your misrepresentation of why Saddam and not other totalitarian regimes was taken out. Very simple really. It was because it was official United States policy to remove that regime and that one only. That not because it was an autocratic regime, per se, but because it practiced HR violations including genocide that matched, in kind if not scale, those of Nazi Germany.
You may want to pussyfoot around with the method of achieving the goals of ILA 1998, viz regime change and its replacement with a democratic government.
However its goals were achieved by GW Bush's steadfastness in implementing US policy. What you face, in the real universe, if you blink for a moment, is an executed Saddam along with some of his co-HR violators, the removal of the Saddam Baathist regime and a functioning multi party parliamentary system of government in Iraq.
It may take as long as your system of government often does to get things done. That I'm sure you will concede is, despite its slowness, a more democratic way of doing state business than an invitation to an obstinate cabinet member to a room next door for a discussion which lasted as long as it took to put a bullet into his head. Personal attention from the president, no less, and a quick way to get business done, yes but hardly democratic, B?
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/29/2009 @ 4:04pm
"No one, which includes your Congress and former president Bill Clinton, has said the reason for seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from office was because he was running an authoritarian or totalitarian regime except your good self."
Except the text of the very Iraq Liberation Act that you cite.
""Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."
So the act that supports Iraqis trying to overthrow Hussein cites Hussein's human rights violations but no one said that the reason was that he was running a totalitarian regime.
Since civility suggests that I not call you a liar, I'll simply assume that you were temporarily illiterate.
Posted by brunowe at 10/29/2009 @ 10:11pm
"GW Bush in his address to the UN 12 Sept 2002 and in other speeches laid out the rationale for removing the then present Iraq regime from office in terms of its HR violations as spelled out of the ILA 1998."
George Bush focused on the WMDs. The presence of a passing mention of the human rights issues doesn't change that. Condolezza Rice spoke of aluminum tubes that "had" to be for centrifuges. Bush mentioned putative uranium from Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address. Powell's speech to the UN Security Council concerned WMDs. The alleged contact with Atta in Prague was about links to al-Qaida and the alleged threat of Iraq giving them WMDs. The White House lied about Iraq having long-range drones. Bush made claims about Iraq possessing Sarin.
Since it would be uncivil to describe your cherry-picking as lying, I'll just assume a very nasty case of amnesia.
Posted by brunowe at 10/29/2009 @ 10:29pm
"t was because it was official United States policy to remove that regime and that one only. "
Which is lame because Bush could've made it US policy to remove those other regimes.
"it practiced HR violations including genocide that matched, in kind if not scale, those of Nazi Germany. "
Well I suppose it was inevitable that you'd violate Godwin's Law at some point. In fact, the killings in Darfur came at least as close to genocide as anything Hussein had done. Bush could certainly have made taking out the Khartoum government as policy but didn't.
"You may want to pussyfoot around with the method of achieving the goals of ILA 1998, viz regime change and its replacement with a democratic government."
What you call pussyfooting around most people would call not misrepresenting the ILA. When an act specifically bars using military force, that is also part of the policy.
"What you face, in the real universe, if you blink for a moment, is an executed Saddam along with some of his co-HR violators, the removal of the Saddam Baathist regime and a functioning multi party parliamentary system of government in Iraq. "
What we face, in the real world, is Iraqi civilian deaths in the hundreds of thousands, diversion of resources from Afghanistan back when they could've done much more good and a thoroughly dysfunctional system in Iraq that can't even pass an election law.
Incidentally, the linking of Iraqi security forces with Shi'ite squads finishing the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad; the passing of new censorship laws; the centralized control of a burgeoning security apparatus that has brought back the "lost" are of nighttime arrests and torture suggests that Maliki has learned a few strongman lessons.
Posted by brunowe at 10/29/2009 @ 10:46pm
Posted by brunowe at 10/29/2009 @ 10:11pm
You disappoint me.
Let me take you back to my response to your post and show you that you were unable to understand what was being said. Perhaps because the explanation was a few paragraphs down in the next post?
Here is what you stated:
"And Mr. Jones is again peddling the idea that the rationale for invading Iraq was its totalitarian regime (I doubt he's called for invading Myanmar or Zimbabwe on those grounds) when it was the WMD rationale that was presented. "
This was my response:
1. "No one, which includes your Congress and former president Bill Clinton, has said the reason for seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from office was because he was running an authoritarian or totalitarian regime except your good self."
Reason for that statement: There are and have been totalitarian regimes that though exercising undue control over its citizen's lives are/were never guilty of the gross HR violations including ethnic cleansing consistently practiced over many years by Saddam's Regime. eg Myanmar and Zimbabwe.
Thus and only thus it was the exceptional nature of the Saddam Regime's HR violations that elicited ILA 1998 in which, extraordinarily, it became the official policy of your country to not only seek the removal of Saddam's Regime from office but also to replace it with a democratic government.
What you missed:
"That brings us back to your misrepresentation of why Saddam and not other totalitarian regimes was taken out. Very simple really. It was because it was official United States policy to remove that regime and that one only. That not because it was an autocratic regime, per se, but because it practiced HR violations including genocide that matched, in kind if not scale, those of Nazi Germany."
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/30/2009 @ 9:18pm
Since it would be uncivil to describe your cherry-picking as lying, I'll just assume a very nasty case of amnesia.
Posted by brunowe at 10/29/2009 @ 10:29pm
Ha Ha, Good one B. I see you like giving a bit of cheek too.
Your problem, as noted in my last post, is not so much amnesia as a rush of blood to the head when you come across anything that challenges your "totalitarian" approach to facts in which, so it seems, your emotional state prevents you reading any further.
I can only assume you have the same difficulty with Bush's speech at the UN 12 Sept 2002.
I've listed all his references to HR violations, in that speech, on posts here before, which you may have started to read but got "internally" switched off on the first para. (As seems to happen when anything challenges your biases).
Anyway see if you can get through all these GW HR violation mentions, in the Sept 12 speech, without having a seizure.
HR violation mentions in GW Bush UN Speech:
"In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities. This demand goes ignored."
"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents -- all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state."
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:32pm
"In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them."
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others -- again as required by Security Council resolutions."
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues as required by the Security Council resolutions.."
"If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections."
"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:32pm
"We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages."
"If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time."
"We must stand up …(and) for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well."
"Thank you"
Still with it B? I know those indoctrinated into a position need a lot of repetition, always of the cherry picking sort of course.
From all these Bush quotes reasonable, unbiased persons would get the strong impression that Saddam's HR violations were at the very heart (along with resolution 1441 violations) of Bush's call, at the UN, to do something about regime change in Iraq. Why he even talks about establishing democracy in Iraq. Where on earth did he get that idea? Try ILA 1998.
Here's the close of Colin Powell's "infamous" UN Speech that shows HR violations as per ILA 1998 were also in his mind:
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:33pm
"My friends, this has been a long and a detailed presentation."
"And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights."
"Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died."
"His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages."
"He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shiite Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium."
"Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade."
So there you have it B. My position and I carry no partisan torch for either of your political parties, is that the only moral argument for invading Iraq was its government's gross HR violations.
Even had the WMD intelligence been factual there would be no moral argument there unless Saddam also had the means of delivery to the US mainland. And he did not. Then and only then would the US government have had a moral responsibility to protect its citizens.
Thus we are back to ILA 1998 and Congress's Oct 2002 war authorisation
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:33pm
"Well I suppose it was inevitable that you'd violate Godwin's Law at some point. In fact, the killings in Darfur came at least as close to genocide as anything Hussein had done. Bush could certainly have made taking out the Khartoum government as policy but didn't."
That is a rather childish diversion about hypotheticals and I'm assuming you are intelligent enough to know it. Further I don't want to do a Mask on you but are you suggesting that Bush's only mistake is that he didn't spread democracy to a few more places? I'm sure you don't believe that. So why imply you really could be a Bush fan if only he'd done a few more "Iraqs"?
"What you call pussyfooting around most people would call not misrepresenting the ILA. When an act specifically bars using military force that is also part of the policy."
Let us look more closely at the section to which you refer:
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act ".
Where does it say "bars using military force"? Do you know what except means? (All it seems it may be saying is that the Act is not an invasion authorisation).
Now let's go back to Section 4:
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/31/2009 @ 02:48am
Lest you think the words "Military Assistance" is a typo it is repeated:
(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
For your long overdue education what ILA 1998, in its call for the removal of the Saddam regime and its replacement with democratic government, represents is the final stage of a sea change in America's thinking about its former ally against Iran, Saddam Hussein.
The evidence had been piling up against his barbaric government until the horror of that rule could no longer be hidden. If it was needed I would suggest the final straw was delivered by Dr. Christine Gosden before a Bi-Senate committee on 22 April 1998.
There is little doubt that though there was no authorisation to take Saddam out until Congress, overwhelmingly gave that authority to Bush in October 2002, ILA 1998 was influential in producing the attitudes and mindset against Saddam by those who would later vote in pursuit of the aims of the Act.
There also is little doubt that that document was influential in Bush's thinking and formed the rationale and blueprint for the Iraq invasion.
That history is what makes stupid the claim that Bush lied to the public so he could pursue his war. It wouldn't have mattered if he had. The American public is irrelevant. The only actors that really matter are the Congress and the Administration. In this case the Congress had long shown, by passing ILA 1998, where its sympathies lay.
The war authorisation was a shoe in given that attitude.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/31/2009 @ 02:49am
What we face, in the real world, is Iraqi civilian deaths in the hundreds of thousands, diversion of resources from Afghanistan back when they could've done much more good and a thoroughly dysfunctional system in Iraq that can't even pass an election law.
Incidentally, the linking of Iraqi security forces with Shi'ite squads finishing the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad; the passing of new censorship laws; the centralized control of a burgeoning security apparatus that has brought back the "lost" are of nighttime arrests and torture suggests that Maliki has learned a few strongman lessons.
Posted by brunowe at 10/29/2009 @ 10:46pm
Afghanistan is a semi-medieval backwater with little real sense of nationality that should always have been left to Pakistan to clean up, seeing its special forces were instrumental in the rise of the Taliban. That is once the al Qaeda training camps had been dislodged by the initial invasion.
American aid should be given to Pakistan as it realises what sort of mischief some in its military have caused and gets more serious about dealing with the Taliban in its own territory.
The important war was always in Iraq. Compared with Afghanistan it is a modern state with a sense of national identity, a highly educated elite, a healthy economy and is now in the process of learning how to make a democratically elected multi-party parliamentary system work for the good of all its citizens.
The sort of smears you repeat here about the Iraq government are the sort of unsubstantiated garbage one comes to expect from the Cassandra's of this world. Of course there will be mistakes and failures but how they are dealt with by the new Iraq will tell us much more about the value of this ILA 1998 fruit than sour grapes comments from sore losers.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/31/2009 @ 03:22am
"That is a rather childish diversion about hypotheticals and I'm assuming you are intelligent enough to know it. Further I don't want to do a Mask on you but are you suggesting that Bush's only mistake is that he didn't spread democracy to a few more places?"
Wrong, I am pointing out that your argument that it was only the policy to take out Hussein (the ILA) is a non-argument since Bush could easily have made it the policy to take out Sudan. The idea that the ILA constituted a limitation on what oppressive countries to take out simply doesn't work. Likewise, the extent of the human rights violations in Sudan certainly equaled that in Iraq.
Except that the push to invade Iraq consisted of more than one speech. As I've already pointed out, the consistently leading theme was Hussein's ostensible WMDs and his alleged links to active terrorist groups. Likewise, Powell's speech did mention HR violations but it was at the end of a speech that hammered on the theme of WMDs time and time again.
ILA 1998 was influential in producing the attitudes and mindset against Saddam by those who would later vote in pursuit of the aims of the Act. "
Except, again, you simply overlook that the consistent administration theme was WMDs. Further, 9/11 was hugely more influential on the AUMF then the ILA was. The rationales were given in the "Whereas" clauses of the AUMF. SIXTEEN of them mention either WMDs or links to terror organizations. Two of them mention oppression, including one that mentions the ILA. You keep missing the WMD forest for a couple of ILA trees.
Posted by brunowe at 10/31/2009 @ 06:48am
"The sort of smears you repeat here about the Iraq government are the sort of unsubstantiated garbage one comes to expect from the Cassandra's of this world."
The Economist is hardly in the smear business. Their September article is entitled Iraq's freedoms under threat/Could a police state return? http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14380249
"The important war was always in Iraq."
The important war was never in Iraq. Iraq didn't house the people who attacked us and had been, in fact, strategically neutered.
"is now in the process of learning how to make a democratically elected multi-party parliamentary system work for the good of all its citizens. "
Between the impasse with the Kurds and the resurgence of violence, Iraq is in the process of becoming another Lebanon.
Posted by brunowe at 10/31/2009 @ 06:58am
Now people look for a handout. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm |
I thought we cancelled the F-22?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvagxfPFhaI
There's a prophet on a mountain and he's making up dinner With long division and riding crop Anybody can feel like a winner When it's served up piping hot
But the people aren't looking for a handout THEY'RE AMERICA'S WORKING CORPS Can this be what they voted for?
Let them eat war Let them eat war That's how to ration the poor
There's an urgent need to feed: Declining pride
From the force to the union shops The war economy is making new jobs But the people who benefit most Are breaking bread with their benevolent hosts
Who never stole from the rich to give to the poor All they ever gave to them was a war And a foreign enemy to deplore
Let them eat war Let them eat war That's how to ration the poor
We've got to kill 'em and eat 'em Before they reach for their checks Squeeze some blue collars Let them bleed from their necks Seize a few dollars from the people who sweat Cause it's freedom or death and they won't question it
At a job site the boss is god-like Conditioned workhorses park at a stoplight Seasoned vets with their feet in meds A stones throw away from a rock fight But not tonight...feed em death
Here comes another generation (feed them death) Cause they're the finest in the nation (feed them death) When there's nothing left to feed them with It's freedom or it's death
Posted by snowball777 at 10/31/2009 @ 12:28pm
compulsive masterbators. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 7:41pm |
get your hand outa your pants, and learn to spell masturbator
Posted by emile duBois at 10/31/2009 @ 12:34pm