Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditToday marks the fourth anniversary of America's war against Iraq. The Nation vigorously and rigorously opposed the war before it began. In "An Open Letter to Congress," published on the eve of the vote on the war resolution, we wrote, "the case against the war is simple, clear and strong."
As we mark what may well be the most colossal foreign policy disaster in US history, we mourn the death and destruction--which has not ended. We mark the lies and delusions that launched this war--since they too are continuing.
The majority of the American people have found their way to the truth and are demanding an end to this catastrophe. Yet the political system continues to crawl hesitantly toward accepting the enormity of this failure.
The political battle is joined in Congress as the House approaches a fateful vote on how to compel withdrawal through legislation on military appropriations. We applaud those who seek to defend the principles of a fully funded withdrawal. Yet we also understand that the new Democratic majority is struggling to find ways to force the President ‘s hand and an exit from his wrongful war. It will be a long and tortuous process---judging from the painful political calculations the House leadership is making to cobble together a compromise bill.
As the House grapples with legislative maneuvers it is worth remembering that from the start of this war four years ago, House Democrats stood tall and bravely alone. A substantial majority opposed the original war authorization and their initial skepticism has been fully confirmed by subsequent events.
But as we mark the anniversary of the Iraq war, it is also time to consider the longterm damage the misconceived "war on terrorism" has inflicted on our security and engagement with the world. Eventually US troops will leave Iraq because the brutal facts on the ground will compel it. But even as we struggle to get out of this failed war, our political system continues to evade the challenge of finding an exit from the "war on terror." At a time when we need a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine and an alternative vision of what this country's role in the world should be, we see both parties calling for intensifying the "war on terror" --even for increasing the size of the military, and for expanding its ability to go places and do things. But who is asking the fundamental question: Won't a war without end do more to weaken our security and democracy than seriously address the threats and challenges ahead?
Witness the collateral damage to our democracy. This Administration has used the "war" as justification for almost anything--unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, equating dissent with disloyalty and condoning torture.
The Administration has also justified the expansion of America's military capacity---over 700 bases in more than 60 countries, annual military budgets topping $500 billion -- as necessary to counter the threat of Islamic extremism and to fight the "war on terror." What too few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism-- a brutal, horrifying tactic -- is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't succeed. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world. Indeed, the failed Iraq war demonstrated anew the limits of military power.
Fighting terror requires genuine cooperation with other nations in policing and lawful and targeted intelligence work; smart diplomacy; withdrawal of support for oppressive regimes that generate hatred of the US; and real pressure to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and justice and a secure state for the Palestinians. (There are other effective means of combating terrorism; what is important is that they are harnessed and coordinated so as to provide a true alternative to hyper-military ventures.)
It is also worth remembering as we mark this anniversary that military invasion and occupation, and crusades masquerading as foreign policy, divert precious resources from real security. Four years ago, the doubts and warnings about military action in Iraq were brushed aside (including those clearly and consistently expressed by the Nation). Now that reality has confirmed the argument, isn't it time to act on the knowledge?
Alongside the get-out-of-Iraq debate, the political system needs a parallel debate that lays out how we will exit this "long war" --which is a formula for unlimited militarization and recurring wars. (As an industrial project for the arms industry, it could be even more open-ended than the Cold War.) We need a debate that confronts the danger of inflating a very real, but limited threat of terrorism into an open-ended global war, to be fought simultaneously on countless obscure battle fronts, large and small, visible and secret.
Major political leaders in both parties continue to buy into a view of US global supremacy--the "indispensable nation" scenario. They were silent when the Pentagon opened a new "Africa Command" to hunt down Islamists on that continent. Nor they did object when CIA gunships bombed villages earlier this year in Somalia. When Bush announced intentions to increase Army troop strength by 90,000, Democrats boasted it was their idea first.
To what end? These new troops won't be available for Iraq. Are they for the next war or occupation? The delusion of military power is deeply rooted.
We would do better --both in addressing the danger of a wider sectarian war with failing regimes in the Middle East, and in combating terrorism-- to reduce the heavy US military and geopolitical footprint in the region. That means withdrawing US forces from Iraq and organizing regional diplomacy, including with Iran and Syria, to contain the civil war from spreading to other countries in the region. It would mean addressing the legitimate grievances that arouse the passions of many in the Islamic world, especially Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And it would mean changing the conversation with the people of the Arab and Islamic worlds from the danger of extremism to the promise of more economic opportunity.
A purposeful opposition must form to rethink America's role in the world. There are large and fateful questions to confront: What kind of country does the US want to be in the 21st century? Republic or Empire? Global leader or global cop? Where, as Sherle Schwenninger asked in the Nation's pages a few years ago, "is the America that is less one of warrior and preacher/proselytizer and more one of architect and builder?" How can America act like an imperial power in a post-imperial world? Much can be accomplished by focusing on the questions that conventional opinion ignores. And starting the discussion/debate now can help establish new terms and limits for the next president elected in 2008.
Concretely, Congress should be pushed to take legislative action to renounce the Bush doctrine of "preventive war" enunciated before he invaded Iraq. As The Nation warned in our "Open Letter to the Members of Congress" on the eve of the 2002 war resolution vote, "the decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war....It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire earth--an objective never attained by any power. ...The new policy [of preventive war] reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them...It accords the US the right to overthrow any regime--like the one in Iraq--it decided should be overthrown...It declares that the defense of the US and the world against nuclear proliferation is military force." Declaring the Bush doctrine of endless war defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future.
With the 2008 elections looming, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.
A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world – reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.
Yes, at home, all this will take time and have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring real national security.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Expressed eloquence ineluctably exuded by KVH. Your prose is the poetry of peace too many are deaf to, or distracted from by the incessant and imbecilic drumbeat of war; perpetual, poisonous war.
Posted by lewwelge at 03/18/2007 @ 7:18pm
terrorism only works as a tactic if you are easily gripped by fear
paralysing, heart stopping, pants shiting fear.
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 7:23pm
which begs the question, is there anything the hamsters aren't afraid of?
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 7:24pm
Apparently KVH, Congress hasn't read your open letter yet.
Posted by ACook at 03/18/2007 @ 7:28pm
that's only because the republicans were charged with opening it
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 7:32pm
Posted by ACook at 03/18/2007 @ 7:32pm
that's only because the republicans were charged with opening it
Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2007 @ 7:32pm
Or maybe the letter was received by a dem who got put out in Novemeber.
Posted by ACook at 03/18/2007 @ 7:34pm
that is...November...hehe
Posted by ACook at 03/18/2007 @ 7:40pm
Sorry, Ms vanden Heuvel...apparently the "Liberal Agenda" is to remain in Iraq, occupying it with an unknown contigent of troops for an unknown period of time ...
atleast according to WILL and Big Sister [youtube.com]!
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 7:50pm
"We applaud those who seek to defend the principles of a fully funded withdrawal. Yet we also understand that the new Democratic majority is struggling to find ways to force the President ‘s hand and an exit from his wrongful war. It will be a long and tortuous process---judging from the painful political calculations the House leadership is making to cobble together a compromise bill."
The quote above is the shocking part of it all.
Congress has to negotiate the bill language, like it's just another bit of legislation -- as if people aren't getting killed in Iraq every day.
It's a shame that the U.S. political establishment's "default" setting is so pro-war that Pelosi & Company actually have to overcome this default setting to move toward withdrawal, even when a war is as failed and awful as the Iraq War. Quite a shame. But let's keep up the pressure for peace.
Posted by RLawrence at 03/18/2007 @ 7:56pm
Excellent piece. I hope that a similar message might be adopted by, say, MoveOn.org and others.
I think we're in the terribly unfortunate situation now where grave damage must be suffered before critical change can occur. The question is how much more damage can we sustain at this point and still bounce back. I hope enough key voices can coalesce into the critical mass that is required to avert the worst. The time, it seems to me, is getting short.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/18/2007 @ 8:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/18/2007 @ 9:00pm
LVLIB, just to reiterate....what, in your opinion, is the Constitutional power of this Congress to end the occupation in Iraq?
Does it have any?
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 9:06pm
Sorry, Ms vanden Heuvel...apparently the "Liberal Agenda" is to remain in Iraq, occupying it with an unknown contigent of troops for an unknown period of time ...
atleast according to WILL and Big Sister [youtube.com]!
Posted by MASK 03/18/2007 @ 7:50pm
you poor little chimp. You're never ever going to understand what the liberal agenda is are you.
that's Ok, the republican party will always have a home for you.
a squalid cockroach infested home... but a home
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 9:27pm
mask In what way is Hillary "the liberal agenda"?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/18/2007 @ 9:27pm
Or maybe the letter was received by a dem who got put out in Novemeber.
Posted by ACOOK 03/18/2007 @ 7:34pm
Do you think he was laughing so hard after the hamsters handed it to him that he never campaigned?
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 9:29pm
LVLiberty Supporting a war and supporting the troops are two different things.It's unfortunate that the GOP did not support the troops and provide them with adequate outpatient care or prepare the VA for the number of casualties or provide proper equipment and now bush wants to send in wounded troops and troops who aren't rested or properly trained.Now the left has to support the troops since your side refused and is still refusing to do so.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/18/2007 @ 9:35pm
Katrina's piece, though undoubtedly eloquent, suffers from a number of logical flaws.
First, it attempts to criticize the war on terror by attacking particular ways in which it has been implemented:
This Administration has used the "war" as justification for almost anything--unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, equating dissent with disloyalty and condoning torture.
This, like many of the other claims Katrina cites in her piece, is not an argument against the mere existence of the war on terror. The only thing that it criticizes, and thus the only thing that it could possibly justify, is a modification of particular ways in which the war is being carried out. In other words, "don't do the war on terror the dumb" way would be sufficient to beat this argument.
Second, Katrina confuses necessity with sufficiency:
What too few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism-- a brutal, horrifying tactic -- is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't succeed. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world. Indeed, the failed Iraq war demonstrated anew the limits of military power.
Fighting terror requires genuine cooperation with other nations in policing and lawful and targeted intelligence work; smart diplomacy; withdrawal of support for oppressive regimes that generate hatred of the US; and real pressure to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and justice and a secure state for the Palestinians.
The only thing that Katrina has managed to establish is that military force on its own will not be sufficient to undermine networks of terrorism. That's fine; an advocate of the war on terror could still completely agree with that. In order to challenge the existence of a war on terror, she has to make the absurd leap of logic to suggest that no kind of military force is necessary. I find it particularly interesting that she throws out some examples that actually contradict her on this point; Islamists in Africa, who are probably important particularly since bin Laden has explicitly been connected to them before, are not going to be stopped with pure diplomacy, at least in part because of governments whose reliability and stability is questionable at best.
The assumption that military action will never be needed relies on the claim that changing particular facets of our domestic policy will be enough to undermine terrorist networks. She blatantly assumes that a two-state solution, and a willingness to work only with morally pure governments (of which none exist) will simply make the problem go away. Her position hinges on that assumption because if her recommendations weren't sufficient to end the meaningful terrorist threat, military force would be necessary.
Oh, also, if considering the overthrow of Saddam is equivalent to the war on terror, that war began during the Clinton Administration. Woodward's own book makes this pretty clear.
A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats.
This is mostly fluff, but even more than that, it's contradictory to Katrina's own philosophy. If she wants to promote a focus on threats to human life, it seems like terrorism would be a pretty good one to focus on, especially since it's a domain where a broader concern for life and a particular concern for the survival of the US intersect. Finally, this isn't mutually exclusive with the notion of a war on terror anyway; both can be done.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2007 @ 9:40pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/18/2007 @ 9:00pm
luvvy funding their withdraw and nothing else isn't cutting funding for the troops, or cutting support for them or putting them at greater risk.
and this resolution allows for that particular assigned mission
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 9:53pm
If she wants to promote a focus on threats to human life, it seems like terrorism would be a pretty good one to focus on, especially since it's a domain where a broader concern for life and a particular concern for the survival of the US intersect. Finally, this isn't mutually exclusive with the notion of a war on terror anyway; both can be done.
Posted by THRAWN 03/18/2007 @ 9:40pm
The survival of a piss ant little country like Israel isn't threatened by terrorism and neither is ours. The only thing that is a threat to us is the conservative belief that life is so important that all other things must be sacrificed to preserve it.
Your continued existence isn't worth the loss of my liberty. And out military cemeteries are full of Americans who understood that.
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 10:02pm
mask In what way is Hillary "the liberal agenda"?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/18/2007 @ 9:27pm
Uh, I'M....that's young WILL's opinion...not mine.
From Mr Nichols "Anti-War Democrats" article-
"Good thing Hillary's going to continue it as part of the "liberal agenda", huh, WILL?"---Posted by MASK 03/17/2007 @ 07:54am
"absolutely. Liberals have a history of successful occupations... only a liberal has a chance of pulling this thing out of the shitter ---Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 12:25pm"
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 10:11pm
The survival of a piss ant little country like Israel isn't threatened by terrorism and neither is ours.---Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2007 @ 10:02pm
Uh, WILL...you better check with your boss on that...
"So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Clinton now has Iran in her cross hairs.
During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel…."
As Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's fraudulent posture on Iran, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the continued shelling of the Gaza Strip over the past year.
Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct – even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton."
www.antiwar.com (a right-wing website if you ever heard one, huh?)
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 10:19pm
mask In what way is Hillary "the liberal agenda"?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/18/2007 @ 9:27pm
Uh, I'M....that's young WILL's opinion...not mine.
Posted by MASK 03/18/2007 @ 10:11pm
you poor little chimp. Hillary isn't the liberal agenda.
you are a duffus
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 10:21pm
The Nation is wrong - these resolutions the Democrats have been trying to get passed, have failed with not enough votes. If the resolutions had more teeth, they would have lost bigger. The reason, is there are still too many stupid Americans. Zilch equals zilch - symbolic acts of defiance are just ignored - equals zilch. The fact is, the Democrats have been kicking ass. Keep kicking ass, Democrats. They have been doing what works. I am sorry there are idiots out there who vote for fools that wont do whats right. I am sorry there are alot of Conservatives in the Democrat Party, who refuse to do what is right. But the Democrats are doing what they can, they are playing a very smart game - and if you dont want to acknowledge that - then you arent being honest. Ralph Nader lied, he told us the 2000 election wouldnt make any difference. Being dishonest is a Conservative value and Liberals ought not to embrace it. I dont think the Democrats are being controlled by Lieberman and Hillary at all. Murtha, Reid, Edwards, Kerry, and Waxman are out there right now, kicking Republicans in the ass, and we ought not to sit around, and just backbite. It isnt so easy to just stop a war, unless you stop it before it starts. Why? Because Conservative idiots live in America and cast votes, Conservative Democrats, Conservative Republicans, its too bad they vote and their votes count, but is sucks that they do.
Posted by conshame at 03/18/2007 @ 11:04pm
Where I fault the Democrats, is they arent even allowed to SAY anything positive about Iran. Every utterance about Iranian people has to be "theyre animals and we should kill them".
Democrats better get some balls fast, and tell the truth, Iranians and Americans have common interests, Iran has helped America in going after the Taliban, Iran and America had a common enemy in Iraq at different times, Iran and Al Qaida are dire enemies, the "terrorists" Iran supports in Lebannon are dire enemies of Al Qaida, Iran took hostages but we supported the Shah and shot down an Iranian commercial 747 full of Iranians. We can live in Peace. Iranians are wonderful people, Iranians have alot of culture. IF YOU CANT SAY THESE THINGS, Democrats, then George Bush will invade Iran, it wont matter if you have videotape evidence proving it was a fake Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, it wont matter, there wont be any votes for a resolution saying he cant invade, and there will be enough votes to override one if its already been passed. Once the media goes into war mode, its all over, we will have a police state, we will have terrorist attacks, we will have right wing death squads operating here in America - ALL BECAUSE you refused to say the truth. All because you "had to" go along with demonizing a group of people. All because when it came down to it, you didnt really care.
But on the other hand, I LOVED how you Democrats tore up that phony "evidence" that Iran was attacking American troops. That shhit was proven false, ridiculed, and laughed right out of town - thanks to GOOD, STRONG, PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC AMERICANS, who stood up for what is right. Hallelujah,
Posted by conshame at 03/18/2007 @ 11:18pm
Re: the article's points about the overall problem of the "war on terror":
It's also a financial problem. "WoT" funding is an open-ended, blank check commitment -- just what the defense contractors and Pentagon want, but nothing this country can afford. A trillion dollars or more going to a never ending "war" against an indefinable concept, a criminal/ guerilla tactic that can't be defeated with traditional warfare? Madness. We don't have the money even if it could work -- which it can't, by design. The "WoT" is designed t to last forever and get a lot of cronies and insiders very rich. The comparison to the Cold War is very fitting.
Posted by RLawrence at 03/19/2007 @ 12:38am
I want to hit on the one response that's been made, before moving on to RLawrence's interesting (and very telling)analysis.
The survival of a piss ant little country like Israel isn't threatened by terrorism and neither is ours. The only thing that is a threat to us is the conservative belief that life is so important that all other things must be sacrificed to preserve it.
Your continued existence isn't worth the loss of my liberty. And out military cemeteries are full of Americans who understood that.
Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2007 @ 10:02pm
First of all, I'm assuming the last part of Will's post refers to the loss of civil liberties. Though I think both of us pretty much have to accept that some civil liberties need to be limited, I don't think that an advocate of the war on terrorism has to defend all of the excesses that this administration may have gone to. Like I said before, and never got a response to, "don't do the war on terror the dumb way."
Second, though, I want to address where the actual argument is. This is the claim, echoed later by Freiheit, that terrorism shouldn't really be a concern at all. What's interesting to start with, though, is that this contradicts both my analysis and KVH's. In claiming that we should deal with terrorism in other ways, she's implicitly conceding that terrorism needs to be dealt with. Moreover, the analytical reasons as to why terrorism is a threat are also fairly clear. It involves a form of asymmetrical warfare that, without offensive action, can be prevented only by near-perfect security measures, and its effects (particularly if terrorists get ahold of one of the many nukes floating around) could be absolutely devastating. As a significant influence in shaping the dynamics of the Middle East and indeed many other regions of the world, I particularly think that Islamist terrorism needs to be confronted.
It's also a financial problem. "WoT" funding is an open-ended, blank check commitment -- just what the defense contractors and Pentagon want, but nothing this country can afford. A trillion dollars or more going to a never ending "war" against an indefinable concept, a criminal/ guerilla tactic that can't be defeated with traditional warfare? Madness. We don't have the money even if it could work -- which it can't, by design. The "WoT" is designed t to last forever and get a lot of cronies and insiders very rich. The comparison to the Cold War is very fitting.
Posted by RLAWRENCE 03/19/2007 @ 12:38am
The main argument coming out of this seems to be that a "war on terror" is meaningless, an argument that's been made many times. Unfortunately, it's also a giant strawman. It's not like the Administration is defending "go out and destroy any source of fear," or even "hunt down any and all actors that might possibly practice terror ever." The specific purpose is to go after not a tactic, but the agents whose organizations are built around that tactic. In other words, the war on terror means going after specific organizations and organizational networks, which is as clear a goal as any. That ability to define the objectives of the war on terror also takes out all the financial analysis, because it's not a blank check when goals are defined. Moreover, even if the goals are undefined in the status quo, that's just an argument for prosecuting the war more effectively, not for abandoning it all together.
I found the Cold War analogy very interesting, because what it seems to suggest is that the US' decision to engage in the Cold War at all was based on profiteering rather than any rational motive. This, of course, presumes that we had no justification for believing that the Soviet Union was a deeply hostile power. I think it's pretty clear that history has proven this judgment false. Communism, particularly that variant promoted by the Soviet Union, was a meaningful threat on a number of levels, just as terrorism is today.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/19/2007 @ 01:05am
This was published in Ovi Magazine in 2005, (a copy was also sent to Sen. Biden and Rep. Murtha, in 2005) This should have been the negotiating factors used for a withdrawl The Inevitable will still happen only with this country's disgrace and the loss of more lives. And with the many reasons given against such a plan, why was it so hard to see, to admit that it was and still is being carried out in the form of "ethnic" cleansing? Success in Baghdad --- another delusion formed by illusions.
--------------------------------------
IRAQ –the Votes, the Tally, the War: "The Inevitable"
The Bush Administration keeps stating that "we" cannot leave Iraq: until the votes for democracy are complete; until Iraqis establish a democratic government, until Iraqi forces can protect their citizens, not until...
Well, not until we realize The Inevitable will the true Iraqi solution come forth. It's the obvious one, the one that Iraqis are in the midst of forming themselves through violence.
This "insurgency" is not going to end until the most important lines are finally drawn, --- the boundary lines, separating each "tribe" into their own ruling domains.
Mankind has always and will always fight to the end for their country, their territory, their religion, their everything....
That is a Truth of any country, any heritage. Call it nationalism, call it anything you want except an untruth.
Presently, lines already mark territories guarded by numerous militias that answer only to their own leaders.
Therefore --- The INEVITABLE --- divide Iraq into three (even countries if need be): Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. And most important, divide the wealth equally. Then and only then can true nation building take place. That should have been the goal from the beginning.
Iran will control the south no matter what. If Turkey invades the Kurdish "nation" then NATO is nothing more than a farce. Central Iran (Sunni) can then play out it's power over itself, as will the others.
If it's still not too late, perhaps it's worth diverting our efforts towards that solution.
But would the Bush Administration condone such a change in its policy, it would mean admitting a mistake --- and aren't they all infallible --- in their own words, in their own minds, it's always someone else's fault - (does "faulty intelligence" come to mind?)
"Stay the Course" has been their eternal mantra, a course mapped by lies.
Truth requires Courage, while Strength requires character, and Wisdom will ensure a lasting and true peace. Yet none of those qualities can be in effect until the curtain of lies is lifted. And that is where Courage still waits its turn.
Does the Administration have the Strength, Courage, and Wisdom to understand the future --- and not use the excuse of, "...nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined."
Republicans used that excuse in their past, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the insurgency in Iraq. It's become an idiot's answer to the very end of time.
If they only saw the Truth..... they could predict the future!
the end
Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/19/2007 @ 01:49am
A note from the 3rd world
A good part of the problem of the US's position in the world lies in its attitude, and this manifests in small details: In our country, the US Embassy is the most arrogant of foreign embassies, and personal relations with US officials are uniformly poor. I know of no person who has not complained of arrogant mistreatment when applying for a visa to visit the US, for instance. Every single one of them, while having some reason to want to visit the US, emerged from the experience with a strong animus against America. Please consider that this story is happening in every city in the world, hundreds of times a day. And this is only a tiny symptom.
The furthest extreme is that prospect of possible invasion by the US – if you have strategic minerals, (we have) some radical Muslims, (we have) or oppose US foreign policy (we do) then the madmen at the Helm of US Policy may decide to bomb us into the stone age, while middle-class American dupes cheer in the bleachers. This bottom-line to relations with the US does not encourage good-feelings towards the American state.
Even US aid is applied in an insane and arrogant way, according to the dictates of the American right – no AIDS funding if condoms are promoted and so on.
If the US wants to have any faint success in its ‘war on terror' then it might consider foreign policies and, most especially, practices that make friends instead of enemies, that promote goodwill not fear, and that negotiate from some other position than behind a pointed gun. It's kinda difficult to talk to, much less like, someone who attempts to communicate from an arrogant and threatening stance. The most common perception of the US among my countrymen is that it is the playground bully of the world, dragging everyone into destruction through its foreign and environmental policies.
The US policy machine, whether Democrat or Republican (we tend to see the distinction as pretty blurry, and the differences very slight, once the hot air blows away) seems too dumb to appreciate this point. Their war on terror, because it seeks to bully rather than convince people, can in its own nature never succeed, but will certainly have the reverse effect. The more America alienates everybody, the more people will cheer when someone hits back, and the more likely they are to enlist in anti-American causes.
Posted by mikecope at 03/19/2007 @ 04:06am
As regards the CONSPIRACY to fire US Attorneys:
"And as Senator Leahy notes, if that's the case, then you're entering criminal territory - it's called obstruction of justice, and if two or more people agree to do it, it's a criminal conspiracy."
There's that word again...CONSPIRACY.
An entire "liberal" web site (Crooks & Liars) has devoted ALL of its energy to preventing any and all discussion of any topic that includes the potential of a CONSPIRACY. It's a legal term, yet for some reason C&L is committed to a course of total censorship if the word is mentioned.
How can that be? Is this the template for things to come? We're in the midst of the grandest conspiracy ever conceived, with thousands of tentacles - yet anyone who dares speak the word is branded a fruit cake, or banned from posting.
Censorship is the greatest threat we face. The evidence of the scope of the Conspiracy is revealed in the fact that anyone who dares speak the word or provides evidence to expose the Conspiracy is silenced.
Follow the money:
http://www.the-catbird-seat.net/ACE.htm
Posted by plunger at 03/19/2007 @ 05:08am
get used to it, people...
early 09, soonest exit date, perhaps not til 10...
if we are going to try to leave without leaving a hellhole worse than before we "liberated" them.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/19/2007 @ 07:11am
Posted by MIKECOPE 03/19/2007 @ 04:06am |
where are you?
regardless, the ugly american is no new phenomenom...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/19/2007 @ 07:15am
God what a Pompous Ass!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/19/2007 @ 07:53am
'The political battle is joined in Congress as the House approaches a fateful vote on how to compel withdrawal through legislation on military appropriations. We applaud those who seek to defend the principles of a fully funded withdrawal. Yet we also understand that the new Democratic majority is struggling to find ways to force the President ‘s hand and an exit from his wrongful war. It will be a long and tortuous process---judging from the painful political calculations the House leadership is making to cobble together a compromise bill.
As the House grapples with legislative maneuvers it is worth remembering that from the start of this war four years ago, House Democrats stood tall and bravely alone. A substantial majority opposed the original war authorization and their initial skepticism has been fully confirmed by subsequent events.'
Its very simple. Democrats who don't support the occupation of Iraq should not vote to fund it. Why is it more complicated than this? Your apparent beloved "Party" is not going to be able to weasle their way out of taking responsibility for continued occupation of Iraq in the upcoming election, despite their spin...and the spin of "journalists" who seem to want to glorify their "Party" at the expense of truth.
'The sceptre, learning, physic, must; All follow this and come to dust.'
From Cymbeline, Loreena McKennitt
Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2007 @ 08:08am
First of all, I'm assuming the last part of Will's post refers to the loss of civil liberties. Though I think both of us pretty much have to accept that some civil liberties need to be limited, I don't think that an advocate of the war on terrorism has to defend all of the excesses that this administration may have gone to. Like I said before, and never got a response to, "don't do the war on terror the dumb way."
Posted by THRAWN 03/19/2007 @ 01:05am
ahhhhh no. I don't accept that some civil liberties need to be limited.
Posted by Will C. at 03/19/2007 @ 08:47am
The war on terror is fiction. There is no war on terror, only a war on free life as we know it by conservative ideologues. I hope the next president (which will be a Democrat) will declare in his/her inaugural speech that the war on terror is over...indeed, it never existed. Those that perpetuate the war on terror are now being sent "home" to live in Texas...in shame.
Posted by BlueTexan at 03/19/2007 @ 09:59am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/19/2007 @ 10:04am
Oh, get over it, RIO.
Even HILLARY is talking about leaving an "unknown" number of troops in Iraq when/if she becomes President.
You've won and continue to win.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 10:23am
I hope the next president (which will be a Democrat) will declare in his/her inaugural speech that the war on terror is over...indeed, it never existed.---Posted by BLUETEXAN 03/19/2007 @ 09:59am
BLUE, care to put ANY money on Hillary (or ANY Democrat) actually doing that?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 10:24am
3. More Troops for Iraq
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world. (Iraq Study Group Report, page 30).
It's not some "left wing, liberal" agenda. It's common sense. Where is all that "common sense" the right it always touting?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 10:30am
"President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday that House Democrats will assure failure in Iraq and waste the sacrifice of U.S. soldiers with legislation to remove troops." Posted by RIO BRAVO
And you're so partisan that you continue to believe anything and everything this administration makes up.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 10:39am
MTSPENCE....who exactly is going to pull those troops out? Bush?...no. Not even the NEXT President...
NY Times
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY WASHINGTON, March 14 -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence -- even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of "bringing the troops home."
She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
The United States' security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda," she said. "It is right in the heart of the oil region," she said. "It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."
"So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser," Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 10:47am
Posted by MASK
The election is a long way off.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 10:49am
Bush should lean on the Federal Reserve. What the fucck is inflation? Bush needs help TODAY!
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 10:24am
No, none of them have to balls or the "thatchers" to do it. (See Colbert Report for definition of "thatchers")
Maybe the only ones would be Gore or Edwards, but I doubt they'd have the conjones for that either.
Posted by BlueTexan at 03/19/2007 @ 10:50am
She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
Yeah, all that oil is definitely an interest.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 10:52am
Zero, you are saying that Democrats are apologists for failure, uh-uh. Youre just lying. Ralph Nader "the only anti-war" candidate? In 2004? What about the Green Party? What about the Green Party? What about the Green Party? They ran. They ran, an ANTI-war candidate? Didnt they, (you liar)?
The Democrats are about to chip Alberto "the torturer" Gonzales, chip him right the fucck off. Ralph Nader isnt helping. Ralph Nader hasnt chipped off jack shhit. Ralph Nader isnt a Henry Waxman. Ralph Nader isnt a Jack Murtha. You Naderites ARE responsible for what you did in 2000, and until you ADMIT the truth, youre just a liar, and lying is what got us into this mess, where we might not even survive. And then you backbite THE ONLY people who are chipping away at Gonzales the torturer, just lying through your dammn "part of the problem" teeth.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 10:56am
MASK First you were obsessed with Pelosi taking out the bush can't attack iran without permission attachment in their Iraq bill until you were informed that it had no legal meaning anyway and wasn't a big deal and then you dropped it.Now you're obsessed with Hillarys plan as if it is the plan that will come next.My guess is that Hillary will come up with more plans and there is no reason to assume, at this early date, that she will be the next president.There are other plans out there besides hers.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 10:56am
We can't pull out our troops until there are reasonable expectations that Iraq with not become some sort of huge Lebanon. Whoever comes in next will have to get Iraq's neighbors involved in an effort to create stability in the counrty. The boneheads in this administration refuse to negotiate with Syria and Iran, and until the US is willing to engage these two nations the situation in Iraq will not improve. (The idiotic arrogance of these fools to pretend Syria and Iran have no geniune interests in their common neighbor is irresponsible. All the nations in the region should be brought together to hammer out some sort of agreement that will work for all involved.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 11:01am
The election is a long way off.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 10:49am
And apparently, little will change when it DOES come, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 11:06am
My guess is that Hillary will come up with more plans and there is no reason to assume, at this early date, that she will be the next president.There are other plans out there besides hers.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 10:56am
S'why I'm a burgeoning Barack fan. But the odds are...she'll get the nomination, and given the Republican meltdown...likely she'll become President.
And, as with Pelosi, I think a LOT of people are going to be pretty disappointed with Madam President...and not because she's going to piss off the Right!
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 11:08am
If no one can say "Iranians are good people", out loud, and I mean withOUT being forced to follow it up with "thats why we need to kill them". Well, if you cant say that, then there is no election, because America will be dragged into Iran and lose our freedom entirely - the streets of Baghdad will be right here. All Bush has to do is push a button and a Gulf of Tonkin goes into effect. You wont stop him with videotape evidence its a fake plus Democratic unanimity on a resolution that gets vetoed. You wont stop him, and all George Bush has to do is push a button? Can you impeach him faster than he can push a button? Ok, then try saying that "Iran is the enemy of Al Qaida in every theater where they operate", try saying that. Dont like losing votes? How about losing everything?
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 11:10am
"The most common perception of the US among my countrymen is that it is the playground bully of the world, dragging everyone into destruction through its foreign and environmental policies."
Gore shoud run for president of your make-believe country, mikecope
Posted by FREIHEIT 03/19/2007 @ 09:50am
Sounds an awful lot like France...they meet all the descriptions in the clownish, pussy whinning post.
Tell those angry would visitors to stay home and then have their relatives come to visit them..case solved and they don't have to expose themselves to the evil US..(how many that do visit end up staying here anyway, I wonder)
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 11:10am
Depends on how many troops are killed in Iraq between now and then. Something tells me that the violence will continue and grow even worse. You know what they say, things must get worse before they can get better. You never know what can happen between now and then.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 11:11am
where are you?
regardless, the ugly american is no new phenomenom...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE
I am a South African artist, poet & novelist. Who are you?
Posted by mikecope at 03/19/2007 @ 11:11am
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 11:10am
CON, try to come up with something useful, huh?
Something BETWEEN Democrats to slitting their own throats by talking about how great a guy Ahmadinejad is....and being spineless wimps.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 11:12am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
(It's good to see that even at your advanced age, old man, your reflexes are still good. That knee jerks just like a twenty-one year old's.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 11:13am
Iran is the 12ft deep end of the neo-con pool, we've had our heads above water up till now.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 11:14am
MASK Can you name the Democrats who have said that ahmadinejad is a great guy?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 11:28am
MASK Can you name the Democrats who have said that ahmadinejad is a great guy?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 11:28am
(Sigh)...No, I'M, I can't because first, I didn't say that they were and second....they are NOT listening to CONSHAME's advice!
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 12:06pm
to train an iraqi military capable of maintaining order will take AT LEAST the rest of the current president's term...and if past incompetance is any indicator...
so almost two years AT THE LEAST. but then we will need to negotiate, and if such does not even get arranged until some democrat takes power, that will take at least six months to a year.
so...08, election...09 inauguration, arrangment of diplomatic conference, negotiation...
make that 2010, then for a reasonable pull out date. earliest reasonable pullout. long after the wad has been shot...
terrorist breeding ground? yeah, now...after we screwed it all up and left a power vacuum...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/19/2007 @ 12:11pm
MASK You said Democrats (that's plural) have said ahmadinejad is a nice guy.Stop the pretense of being objective.You are a right wing propagandist as anyone who reads your stuff knows.You claim that you now support Obama,but not one Obama supporter would have said what you said about ahmadinejad and Democrats.You spend most of your time putting down Democrats and even had luvvy singing your praises when you insist that progressives are socialists.You twisted what conshame said in order to claim that Democrats are praising ahmadinejad.It's as simple as that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 12:25pm
V, what you have to realize is, a lot of the posters here ARE quite young (20 somethings, even younger) who have NEVER been challenged in their political beliefs and have never tried to explain or logically debate them. Posted by MASK
Oh, so that's what you're doing! You're challenging political beliefs, logically debating them? I did not realize that's what you're doing. Stupid me, I just thought you were playing little games, splitting hairs and playing a fool. I had no idea you are a sage. Still, if you're really wise, all knowing, I would think you could comprehend that some progressives are socialists and some are not. Obviously you know much more than I or anybody else here; maybe "you" can be so kind as to explain the blatant and more subtle differences between the various movements within the Dem party (as opposed to doing nothing more than playing your little gotcha game that allows you to impersonate a reasonable, objective, intelligent, well informed individual.)
Posted by MTSPENCE05
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 12:33pm
MASK You said Democrats (that's plural) have said ahmadinejad is a nice guy.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 12:25pm
I'M.....Cut and paste (i.e. QUOTE) the post where I said that.
or don't and stick with being a liar.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 12:43pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 12:33pm
Sure, MTSP....happy to help.
After all, youngsters like you need to start working on your debating skills so that in the future you can BEGIN to learn the difference between "progressives" and socialists, and can cite IN DETAIL the difference not just keep dodging the question (something you'd find very difficult and EMBARESSING to do in a live one-on-one debate format...and not some blog postings).
So....happy to help you out. (BTW, one of the other good tricks to learn, as your friend I'M NOBODY is discovering, is to not make up things about your opponents that you can't prove!)
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 12:47pm
Mask I don't need to cut and paste your statement.It's in front of your face.Mask you need to learn how to grasp simple concepts like the difference between progressives and socialists.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 12:51pm
"A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world – reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half."
Just wanted to commend KVH on this piece. Your closing remarks were particularly eloquent, and spot on. Persons of the world with less opportunity than Americans have the right to be upset with the US. We only enter countries to support own own interests, we police the world and look down on anyone who doesnt look like ourselves. We stand by and watch while countless genocides and health crisis situations kill millions of people per year.....yet do nothing. If you would take ten percent of the military budget and move it toward humanistic causes, the people of the world might begin to respect us as they once did. All they see now is the only true superpower continually bullying the world for greed and profit. Furthermore, while we have watched countless scandals unfold during this administration the Dems have really not done anything..........the approval percentages for Bush and Cheney are basically the lowest of any sitting Pres/Vice in the history of our country. While I'm not saying that solutions to the problems of the world and our country are easy.........if they would just follow their one Christian principle.........treat others as you would like to be treated, things would be so different. Instead, they raid your civil liberties, lie about wars of choice, fire judges who disagree with policy, torture, kill, spy on US citizens, and then just spin it or lie when they get caught doing something wrong. It's time to end the war, and end the careers of several prominent Republicans and Democrats.
Posted by jpolston at 03/19/2007 @ 12:52pm
Youngsters? Yeah, I'm a younster. That right there demonstrates just how little you know.
And there are honest, straight forward debates, and there are little chicken shit debates. Anyone that knows the difference can easily recognize what kind of "debater" you are.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 12:54pm
Mask I don't need to cut and paste your statement.It's in front of your face....
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 12:51pm
Where?....Cite the post, where I said what YOU CLAIM I said, I'M.
or continue down this path of LYING.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 12:56pm
And there are honest, straight forward debates, and there are little chicken shit debates. Anyone that knows the difference can easily recognize what kind of "debater" you are.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 12:54pm
Yes, the diffrence (to you) is....a "honest, serious debate" is one on topics that YOU can easily defeat your opponent, if they're saying something outrageous and especially untrue.
a "chickenshit debate"....is one YOU don't or can't win and end up obfuscating or dodging the initial question because the answer is politically disadvantageous or embaressing.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 12:59pm
Yet another parade of innane utterances so eloquent of the typical al-amriki, born of that incurable composite of sentimental enebriation, corn-fed romanticism and blameworthy nescience. The whole lot of cheese mongers here - MASK, MAASCH, RIO, LL and a few other mongrel half-wits - are so asinine and incapable of reason that it's a wonder any of them actually hold down a job and make a living. Judging by their collective idiocy I'm apt to believe that united in their freemasonry of blindness they'd be hard-pressed to avoid starvation, maybe even death, if the Paradise up there didn't make such an effort to accommodate and encourage jackasses and their cracker-barrel philosophies, complete with all the mawkish trumpery and retailed moonshine that is so bovine and so cloyingly moronic it's a wonder the few people with eyes of their own can stand such an environment. That independent thought is on the decline in the US is quite clear. That most posters here are as well-equipped to polemicize as a gang of oxen is even more evident. Because just like the oxen, the majority of posters here, especially the Tories, feed on the same substance over and over again, digesting it and turning it into cud before tossing it back down its gullet once again and into the stomach that saw the same thing the day before and the day before that. And we all know what's on the menu for tomorrow...
Posted by chimichenga at 03/19/2007 @ 1:00pm
Something BETWEEN Democrats to slitting their own throats by talking about how great a guy Ahmadinejad is....and being spineless wimps.
Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 11:12am
There, choke on that! (Of course, you will pull your little worm on a hot plate act.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:00pm
a "chickenshit debate"....is one YOU don't or can't win and end up obfuscating or dodging the initial question because the answer is politically disadvantageous or embaressing.
Posted by MASK
Obfuscating? dodging? That sounds much more like you.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:02pm
Mask You already knew which of your posts I'm referring to which you already acknowledged the first time you responded.That's why you didn't ask me then which post because you already knew.It is you,of course,that was trying to lie your way out of this,but MTSPENCE called your bluff and showed your post.I wasn't going to since I knew you already knew.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by MIKECOPE 03/19/2007 @ 11:11am
an educator from the southeast US who has spent time in the developing world. well aware of american imperial arrogance.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/19/2007 @ 1:14pm
I wasn't going to since I knew you already knew.
Posted by I'M NOBODY
That's just him playing his little bitch game. I suppose he derives some sort of pleasure from this behavior. Why I don't know. My guess is that it provides him with some sort of twisted sense of superiority or power. Whatever the reasons may be, it's pathetic.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:18pm
Youngsters? Yeah, I'm a younster....
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 12:54pm
But your posts show your thoughts and how you view the world... you seem to despise anyone who disagrees with you and you rage at them like an 8 year old told he couldn't go to the movies..and it is here you seem "young", almost all of your "debates" contain some sort of school yard name calling or emotion tantrum equivelant.
Silly, little girli like..
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 1:19pm
MTSPENCE He responded to me the first time without me having to cut and paste his post because he knew which one I was referring to and then,2 minutes later,he couldn't remember which one.Why would he want to present himself as someone who can't remember what he says from one minute to the next?The inability to remember what you say from one minute to the next is a symptom of organic brain disease and not something that should give one a feeling of superiority.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 1:26pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Why don't you go and change your Depends, old man. And then maybe you can tell us some more fairly tales, like how you put yourself through college or how you work so much harder than anybody else--or my personal favorite: How you're so much smarter than all the schmucks without wealthy parents paying their tuition, so they got drafted to serve in Vietnam while you and your similary fortunate, "smarter" friends got to stay over here and attend college.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:33pm
Mask You already knew which of your posts I'm referring to which you already acknowledged the first time you responded.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 1:13pm
Then it should be EASY for you to QUOTE me saying "Democrats have said Ahmadinejad is a great guy"...as you CLAIM I said, shouldn't it?
But you can't....because you LIED when you claimed that and now are stuck (like so many others) by your monumental EGO from admitting you were wrong. And will likely CONTINUE to lie.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY
It's the act of us posting in response to his feigning of ignorance that gets him off. It probably gives him a sense of control.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 1:18pm
It's not about "superiority", MTSP....it's about LYING, and your bud I'M doing it and trying to get away with it.
and you abetting it, shows where you stand on the truth as well.
Re-read everything posted between him and me over the last hour and a half and YOU try to prove that I said what he CLAIMED I said.
You're a smart young fellow...should be easy for you too!
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 1:35pm
"monumental EGO"
Look who's talking.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:35pm
It's the act of us posting in response to his feigning of ignorance that gets him off. It probably gives him a sense of control.
Posted by MTSPENCE05
No more.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:36pm
The WHOLE THING....to help these guys out, including CONSHAME's original post that started this whole mess--
If no one can say "Iranians are good people", out loud, and I mean withOUT being forced to follow it up with "thats why we need to kill them". ---Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 11:10am
CON, try to come up with something useful, huh?
Something BETWEEN Democrats to slitting their own throats by talking about how great a guy Ahmadinejad is....and being spineless wimps.---Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 11:12am | ignore this person
MASK Can you name the Democrats who have said that ahmadinejad is a great guy?Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 11:28am | ignore this person
(Sigh)...No, I'M, I can't because first, I didn't say that they were and second....they are NOT listening to CONSHAME's advice!---Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 12:06pm | ignore this person
MASK You said Democrats (that's plural) have said ahmadinejad is a nice guy. (my bolds)Stop the pretense of being objective.You are a right wing propagandist as anyone who reads your stuff knows.You claim that you now support Obama,but not one Obama supporter would have said what you said about ahmadinejad and Democrats.You spend most of your time putting down Democrats and even had luvvy singing your praises when you insist that progressives are socialists.You twisted what conshame said in order to claim that Democrats are praising ahmadinejad.It's as simple as that. ---Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person
I'M.....Cut and paste (i.e. QUOTE) the post where I said that.
or don't and stick with being a liar.---Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person
Mask I don't need to cut and paste your statement.It's in front of your face.Mask you need to learn how to grasp simple concepts like the difference between progressives and socialists.---Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person
Mask You already knew which of your posts I'm referring to which you already acknowledged the first time you responded.That's why you didn't ask me then which post because you already knew.It is you,of course,that was trying to lie your way out of this,but MTSPENCE called your bluff and showed your post.I wasn't going to since I knew you already knew.---Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 1:37pm
Those who have read Orwell's 1984 may recognize that the "war on terror" is simply another name for the brand of perpetual war used to perpetuate the mentalities of nationalism and isolationism. The "war on terror," aptly named in the Orwellian fashion, is a contradiction in and of itself since it is designed to instill a permanent sense of terror in the population.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/19/2007 @ 1:43pm
Those who have read Orwell's 1984 may recognize that the "war on terror" is simply another name for the brand of perpetual war used to perpetuate the mentalities of nationalism and isolationism. The "war on terror," aptly named in the Orwellian fashion, is a contradiction in and of itself since it is designed to instill a permanent sense of terror in the population.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/19/2007 @ 1:43pm
almost all of your "debates" contain some sort of school yard name calling or emotion tantrum equivelant.
Silly, little girli like..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Silly, little girli like..
You're like what, 75? 80? You do it, too, just not nearly as well as me, old man. You like to dish it out but you can't take it.
And, yes, I do despise people like you and liar of liberty. You represent the ignorant, biased, greedy, irrational, unobjective plague that has been with human kind since the domestication of plants, animals and the establishment of sedentary life. Porcine: You wallow in your self serving ignorance. You disgust me.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:44pm
Mask MTSPENCE cut and pasted it.Why do you need me to?What a silly request.Grow up.You got caught twisting conshames words in order to post right wing propaganda and you're stuck with it.I'm not going to play your game where you say it only counts if I cut and paste your post rather than somebody else.It will be the same post either way.You're too lazy to scroll up and see your post and too lazy to look at the cut and paste MTSPENCE did and you're too lazy to look up definitions on the internet.Have you ever had a job?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 1:44pm
But your posts show your thoughts and how you view the world... you seem to despise anyone who disagrees with you and you rage at them like an 8 year old told he couldn't go to the movies..and it is here you seem "young", almost all of your "debates" contain some sort of school yard name calling or emotion tantrum equivelant.
Silly, little girli like..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/19/2007 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person
This is absolutely HILLARIOUS...coming, as it does, from someone who has taken to regularly calling everyone who disagrees with him..."kooks"
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 1:49pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY
He's much too small to admit he's wrong. That's why he has to play his little game: It make him feel "bigger". Just like being the first to post on every thread. He's compensating for something he comes up far short on.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:49pm
Why is it so important that you gain our attention, Mask. Did daddy ignore you? Was there even a daddy there for you? Did you have a lot of "daddies" that ignored you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 1:52pm
...all of your "debates" contain some sort of school yard name calling...
Silly, little girli like.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/19/2007 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person
Priceless!!
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 1:54pm
MASK Your last post shows that conshame never mentioned ahmadinejad and that conshame isn't Democrats and that you did say some Democrats say ahmadinejad is a nice guy.When asked to name these Democrats you were unable to do so.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 1:54pm
ANOTHER INTELLIGENT EMOTIONAL RANT FROM A YOUNGSTER,
Why don't you go and change your Depends, old man. And then maybe you can tell us some more fairly tales, like how you put yourself through college or how you work so much harder than anybody else--or my personal favorite: How you're so much smarter than all the schmucks without wealthy parents paying their tuition, so they got drafted to serve in Vietnam while you and your similary fortunate, "smarter" friends got to stay over here and attend college.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 1:33pm
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS SHIT, LOON?
YOU ARE A KOOK...TYPE SLOWER, THE SPINNIG PROPELLAR IS GETTING IN YOUR WAY....
1. "like how you put yourself through college or how you work so much harder than anybody else--"
I paid for part and my family paid for part...I also had a job through out college..as did almost everyone I knew in school..didn't you? Why not?
2."How you're so much smarter than all the schmucks without wealthy parents paying their tuition, so they got drafted to serve in Vietnam while you and your similary fortunate, "smarter" friends got to stay over here and attend college."
What? I had a high draft number...and my parents weren't wealthy...anyone who stayed in college received a deferment until after college...if you quit or dropped out, you were immediately reclassified 1-A
..after finishing college, you were also reclassified 1-A, eligble for draft..I finished college in '76...war was over and so was draft..
Smarter friends? We were all in the same boat in those years..there was nothing we could do...where were you in those years?
What the fuck were you reading? or smoking before you read? or did you read some one elses posts....?
..you are right on one subject...most here are smarter than you....and you prove it with every post...
Its official...you are assigned seat 1 row 2 in the kook section...you were lucky you received your hat with the propellar on top(a red one) early before we had the paperwork completed, but you are in...congrats and your future posts with be read with that in mind and with delight.
Type away...
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 1:44pm
And you are a danger because you do not even know you are a danger..its ok, others will pay for you...and your truths.
I am 54 years old or young...its not the years....
Keep posting..
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 1:59pm
The only person you're fooling, old man, is yourself (and probably rio bozo, libertyliar, et al.).
"I also had a job through out college" Yeah, maybe. You also dodged the war, huh?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:02pm
others will pay for you...and your truths
Like the others that paid for you and your friends when they served in Vietnam and y'all stayed over here, safe in college?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:04pm
Republicans fan the flames of war with Iran, and Democrats fall for the trap, try to out-fan the flames themselves. It is terrible, and you always can count on Mask for the advice 180 degrees contrary to a good idea. Mask makes me sick, hes been here forever, supporting the disaster in Iraq, masquerading as a "DLC Democrat", which is a lie. See, Republicans dont want to be associated with the Republican Party anymore.
You see, you cant even tell the truth. "Iranians are wonderful people". "Iran is the enemy of Al Qaida in every theater it operates". TELL THE TRUTH - GET SLIMED. I DONT CARE, MASK.
Americans are fed up with people like Mask, you tell the truth, and Mask twists it, just like all these deceptive, dis-honest, ANTI-American Conservative Republicans - like Mask - they twist it to their war-mongering ends and fan the flames of war with their lies.
Mask has been here forever, masquerading as "anything but a Republican", so as to curry credibility - but we know.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:04pm
Iran IS the enemy of Al Qaida, & the Taliban, in every theater they STILL operate in.
Always has been to.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:06pm
Sorry, MTSP and NOBODY, my bad....
(To paraphrase "Jim" from "Blazing Saddles")....
What did I expect? "Oh, of course you didnt say that"..."Sorry, my bad, mis-read"...."I was WRONG"'?!?!? You've got to remember that these are just simple bloggers. These are people of the Internet. The common clay of the new frontier of communications....
You know...morons.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:06pm
they twist it to their war-mongering ends and fan the flames of war with their lies
It's funny, though, they do not appear the least bit interested in doing the actual fighting. Jr, Cheney, old man--none of them wanted to fight for America when they had their chance.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:07pm
The Congress could end the war in Iraq, but basically choose the coward route.The American taxpayer is funding the war and paying for Bush's private army. We spoke at the polls but were not heard. As for the war on terror, it is just another fear control campaign headed up by the Bush administration.
Posted by Sinatra at 03/19/2007 @ 2:08pm
A new money making offer....PayPal account holders, win a crisp $100 bucks, if you can PROVE this is true...
"...that you did say some Democrats say ahmadinejad is a nice guy. "---Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 1:54pm
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:08pm
LIL, "This is absolutely HILLARIOUS...coming, as it does, from someone who has taken to regularly calling everyone who disagrees with him..."kooks"
Posted by LILLIAN 03/19/2007 @ 1:49pm "
Then I guess most of the dems call you kooks, too, as they also disagree with you, but that is not why you are kooks...it has absolutely nothing to do with disagreements..
This why you occupy a front row seat in the kook section...it has nothing to do with disagreements of others..it has to do with the looney tune thought process passed off as mainstream thought that you think you and the others in the famed kook section spew, and that your spews are the mainstream views held by the mainstream!!!...when all of us on the right as well as majority of the democrats themselves view your types in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER...kook fringe lefty, and if you have doubts, ask yourself(s),...how are the new congress dems treating you and your desires?..your ideas, your posts, thoughts ..how many read your letters in public for all the nation to see and then act on it for a national policy?
They laugh at you louder that the right...they know you are a small piece and they decide whether or not they need you on election day,,,and my guess is they have already decided you are expendable, as the dems swing to the right...since they want to be reelected...they also know that crowing things from posts of MT, ZERO, FROMBIRDSHITFORBRAINS,WILL, gets them one thing and one thing only...defeat and a ticket back home to their districts...watch this come true in 08...
God I love this site...
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 2:11pm
...all of your "debates" contain some sort of school yard name calling...
Silly, little girli like..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/19/2007 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS SHIT, LOON?
YOU ARE A KOOK...TYPE SLOWER, THE SPINNIG PROPELLAR IS GETTING IN YOUR WAY....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/19/2007 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 2:12pm
I am 54 years old or young
54? 75? There's really not too much difference, now is there, old man.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:14pm
You see, you cant even tell the truth. "Iranians are wonderful people". "Iran is the enemy of Al Qaida in every theater it operates". TELL THE TRUTH - GET SLIMED. I DONT CARE, MASK.
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:04pm
Curious...Is Ahmadinejad a "wonderful person", CONSHAME?...he IS an Iranian.
(Note to I'M NOBODY....this was phrased in the form of a "question"...if you need the definition of a "question"...try www.dictionary.com)
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:14pm
"I am 54 years old or young
54? 75? There's really not too much difference, now is there, old man.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 2:14pm "
Maybe, maybe not..but you are doing fine..
keep podting..and proving my point..you have earned your seat..
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 2:17pm
Mask is not on the same page.
THIS IS SERIOUS. Here you are, talking about what a great debater you are, offering "tips". How about, heres a tip. Just watch Mask. IF you want to have any credibility as a George Bush / Iraq War supporter - DONT admit what you really are about.
Democrats - if you tell the truth - sure, the "Mask"s of the world are GOING TO LIE about what you said. If you say "Stop the disaster in Iraq", Mask and his co-horts who have actual jobs in the media as (opposed to blogging on the Nation under the pretense they arent Republicans) are going to twist what you said. The networks will carry the Republican lies.
So, yeah, you try and reverse the demonization of the Iranian people, you try to stop the drumbeat to a disastrous war, MASK AND HIS LIARS will change what you said. I dont know, maybe theyll say that what you said is "Osama is good", who cares. Democrats - you want to save America, you got to begin with telling the truth. You cant do anything in an environment where you cant even talk about it.
"The Iranians are wonderful people and we should not bomb them".
"Iran has always been the enemy of Al Qaida, the Taliban, as well as other enemies of America. We can live in peace".
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:18pm
since they want to be reelected
Poor old man. You really believe you're right simply because you belong the vast herd. I bet you would actually think you're smarter, a better writer if more people bought a book you wrote than something that didn't "appeal" to the mainstream. What topped the box office this past weekend? Does that mean it's a "good" movie?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:19pm
LIL,
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS SHIT, LOON?
YOU ARE A KOOK...TYPE SLOWER, THE SPINNIG PROPELLAR IS GETTING IN YOUR WAY....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/19/2007 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person
These are not insults or name calling..these are facts. Sad, but true, and if you stop and THINK about it, you may see the light...
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 2:19pm
Democrats should simply tell the truth, let the Masks lie about what you said, while their credibility is eroding more and more.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:19pm
keep podting..and proving my point..you have earned your seat..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
And you proved my point when you chose to dodge the war, old man. Grab a seat in the coward section. You're a hypocrite. All that big talk is nothing more than smoke. People that work hard don't brag about it; they just do it.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:22pm
These are not insults or name calling..these are facts
See, it's all different when "he's" doing it.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:23pm
You know, I've been hanging around this site for some time and lately, I've been wondering just who it is that John Maasch reminds me of. At first I thought "George Jefferson"...you know...thinks he's a big shot, new money, loves to throw it around, but still can't understand why everybody still thinks he's a jerk.
And then, just now, it hit me...John is an obvious bigot (politically), hasn't had a genuine independant thought in years, listens to the rantings of the right and thinks they make total sense, hates everything to do with the government, especially the IRS, equates Democrats with sociallists, thinks everyone with a liberal thought is an idiot, believes that 'everybody in middle America' thinks the way he does, makes idiotic statements that would embarrass any rational person, and makes up stupid names for those who disagree with him.
So, change "kooks" to "meatheads" and voila...John is obviously Archie Bunker!!
Fits perfectly, doesn't it.
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 2:24pm
MT,
"You really believe you're right simply because you belong the vast herd.'
I am from the libertaian side of the equation and am not in any herd, although I believe more think in my direction than not, but admittedly, it is my belief based on my personal experience and conversations as I travel, and if many disagree, so be it,...I believe I am right until I am proved wrong...so far, everything posted here by the kook section proves to me that I am right...others not in the kook section, have changed my approach, beliefs and positons on a variety of situations...the kook section is incapable of this..its that simple..
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 2:24pm
Mask Stop whining and your childish insults are just that.Your original post on this subject was a statement and not a question so you childish thing about looking up the definition of question was nonsensical.You got caught.Get over it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 2:26pm
I cant speak for Mask, but he would probably NOT EVEN agree that George Bush is hell-bent to drop bombs on Iranians using whatever phony provocation will work.
Although Mask probably DOES agree that George Bush SHOULD drop bombs on Iranians using whatever phony provocation will work.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:26pm
The opinion of a hypocrite, coward, liar has no value for me. I'd much rather be a "kook".
it is my belief based on my personal experience and conversations as I travel
Wearing blinders the whole time, too.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:28pm
Mask First you say that conshame and other Democrats said ahdmadinejad was a nice guy and now you're asking him if that's the case since you now admit he never said that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 2:28pm
George Bush wants to bomb Iranian people, he is determined to do so, and is known to lie to get what he wants.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:29pm
Ahmadinejad has failed Iranians with his promises, and seeks to fan the flames of war with America to escape accountability.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:30pm
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:26pm
CS, your powers of mental telepathy (the ability to tell what another person is thinking, based on no evidence) is under-whelming...but...
none of that tirade answered my question.
Do you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a "wonderful person"?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:31pm
"And you proved my point when you chose to dodge the war, old man. Grab a seat in the coward section. You're a hypocrite. All that big talk is nothing more than smoke. People that work hard don't brag about it; they just do it.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 2:22pm
Nothing was proved, working hard is working hard, whether you tell someone or not....the results will be the proof...as far as dodge the war..nonsense...I went to college as I had planned since I was 8 years old...and even at that age, our house didn't trust the democrats of that era nor the republicans, but my parents were on the right side of the equation...and as such, were in the minority..
on another point, to attend school is not a vice or failure of character, rather, education should be encouraged..I am sorry you didn't receive one, but in those days choices were rather limited..school or you were gone in the army...since my father was military for years, and threatened me with a firing squad should I not go into military if drafted, before or after college, I fail to see your statement as any thing other than pap...emotional ignorant kook pap.
Keep posting...you are doing fine...right down the line.
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 2:31pm
Because he "is sure" he will win.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:31pm
Lujnch time........outta here, wasted enough time this AM.
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 2:32pm
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:30pm
Ahhh...sorry I missed it "in transit".
Great....so he's NOT a "wonderful person". So there ARE Iranians who are not "wondeful people", hmm?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:32pm
Ahmadinejad is a person who lives in a nation where there are 70 million people.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:32pm
Mask First you say that conshame and other Democrats said ahdmadinejad was a nice guy ...
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 2:28pm
Quote me saying that or continue lying.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:33pm
I believe I have just pointed out a moment ago what my view of Ahmadinejad is.
Bush: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Ahmadinejad: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Bush is a TERRIBLE person.
Youre logical, there you have it.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:33pm
70,000,000 people live in Iran, a nation that hates Al Qaida almost to the person.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:34pm
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:32pm
And so, everybody BUT him, is a "wonderful person"?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:35pm
Repetition is the only appropriate response after this point.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:36pm
Bush: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Ahmadinejad: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Bush is a TERRIBLE person.
Youre logical, there you have it.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:36pm
Repetition is the only appropriate response after this point.
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:37pm
Mask How many times do you have to re read your statement before you remember it?Paste it up on your computer screen.May I suggest that you take Ginkgo and Ginseng.They're wonderful for the memory.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 2:42pm
Bush: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Ahmadinejad: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Bush is a TERRIBLE person.
Youre logical, there you have it.
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:33pm
Wait a minute CONS....didn't you leave out a line?
Bush: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Ahmadinejad: wants to fan flames of war to escape accountability
Bush is a TERRIBLE person.
Ahmadinejad is a TERRIBLE person.
Youre logical, there you have it.
Odd you missed that?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:45pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 2:42pm |
I'M, you're a liar. Atleast learn to enjoy it. (not sure how a person who tells deliberate falsehoods, in an almost BUSH-like manner, can...but maybe you'll figure it out!)
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 2:47pm
Republicans who want any credibility will just disown George Bush in a second. "Is Bush horrible?". "Yes".
Posted by conshame at 03/19/2007 @ 2:55pm
Mask luvvy doesn't like me sticking the anti America label back in his face and you don't like having your habit of twisting peoples words thrown back into your face.Maybe you two ought to stop doing what you do so you don't have to concern yourselves with having this stuff thrown back in your faces.Isn't that a nice and simple solution?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 2:58pm
Ahmadinejad is a person who lives in a nation where there are 70 million people.
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person
What about the Shah of Iran? Do you remember him?
You might have a taste if you saw House of Sand and Fog.
Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2007 @ 2:58pm
While I find many of you here, including my most targeted antagonists, droll and entertaining (especially when submitting, by dint of asinine commentary, to a stint in the pillory here in this virtual parlor where the rest of us can let fly the tomatoes), I must say this latest volley is intolerable rubbish and should be taken elsewhere. While I'm as guilty as the next guy who yields to his itching vanities and lets every species of distemper issue forth here, these puerile exchanges due in fact belong on the playground (which is located conveniently in MASK's backyard). If you want to load up and smack around a few of the humbuggers here present, go right ahead, but please do it with at least a trace of coherence and logic (and if not possible, at least be creative), instead of the ungainly and ill-crafted epithets and lamentations that succeed in nothing but spawning an even more imbecilic and more feral progeny of mush.
Sure, there is plenty to inspire verbal skirmish here and no doubt a bottomless well of glass-jawed onagers to visit blows upon for their insistence on chasing sticks disguised as carrots and calling recipes for fascism American Pie, but let's not reduce the diction here to that which a rube like RIO employs when telling a tasteless joke about Mexicans to his co-workers in the break room of the Wal-Mart where he cleans toilets for a living. Enough with the blank cartridges here. Keep your powder dry and use it wisely. Too many here today have horrible aim which they then only exacerbate, in hopes of increasing their accuracy and meager effectiveness, with the lobbing of half-ass bombs of an even cruder make...
Posted by chimichenga at 03/19/2007 @ 2:58pm
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 2:55pm
Stand by for a shock to your Manicheanism...but...
I TOO think Bush is horrible. Also think Ahmadinejad is horrible. But noted the ODDITY of the fact that in your little logical discourse you STOPPED at saying that (and didn't say it in the above post).
Probably because of your religious zealotry, that gives a critical eye to some, but full-blown epithetic assault on anybody to the Right of Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.
Back to the original point you were making (and cause of I'M NOBODY's spiral into dishonesty)....
NO Democrat is going to stand up and start talking about how "wonderful the Iranian people are"...end of story. What do you expect? EVERY ONE of them from Hillary to Obama to Edwards has left military options "on the table" as far as Iran goes (as would Gore, and everybody knows it).
Just as nobody (Dem or evvvvilllll Repub) would talk about how "wonderful the Serbian people are", before the Kosovo War...or how "wonderful the non-Darfurian Sudanese are" before we landed there and started taking pot-shots at the Sudanese militias.
Your suggestion is silly....hence my first response which was for you to work on something SERIOUS.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 3:21pm
(which is located conveniently in MASK's backyard).
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/19/2007 @ 2:58pm
He knows this because he read it in the New Testament!
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 3:22pm
Mask I can still see your original statement so denying you said it is a tad silly.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 3:32pm
So Mask, you engaged (once again) in your little game of twisting something somebody said into something that he NEVER said and you got caught at it (once again).
And now that I'M caught you...you're calling him a "liar"?!?!
Really Mask, your habit of doing that fixes the 'dishonest' label firmly around you own neck...no matter how hard you try to pin it on someone else.
Seems to me I'M hit the nail directly on the head when he said that, if you don't like having it thrown back in your face, maybe you should consider just not doing it any more.
hehe!
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 3:36pm
Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 3:22pm | ignore this person
I know this because you seem to be able to perceive the world as well as a kid at recess hurling dirtbombs from atop the jungle gym, gaping at the airplanes that cruise high above every now and then. Then there's the guidelines by which you see and judge that seem grossly similiar to the rules of a boardgame.
But you should know better than to egg-on some of the more boorish merchants of hogwash here...
Posted by chimichenga at 03/19/2007 @ 3:37pm
Mask Because your original statement wasn't,technically,proper English you can claim you never said it.It's easy to see what you meant to say,but technically,you're okay.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 3:38pm
on another point, to attend school is not a vice or failure of character, rather, education should be encouraged..I am sorry you didn't receive one, but in those days choices were rather limited..school or you were gone in the army...since my father was military for years, and threatened me with a firing squad should I not go into military if drafted, before or after college, I fail to see your statement as any thing other than pap...emotional ignorant kook pap.
Keep posting...you are doing fine...right down the line.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Oh, it's even clearer now. You don't want to pay taxes, you don't want to serve in the military (even when those without the benefit of a deferment had to)--you just want a free ride on everything, huh?
And rather than address the war dodging straight on you want to shift attention away from it with your little bs about getting an education. More empty platitudes. Gee, old man, I had no idea an education is important. Thanks for letting me know about that. No, you had a choice: Go to school and dodge the war, or do your "duty" as an American (you, afterall, are the one spewing all of this libertarian red, white and blue bs). You lacked the nads to go to Vietnam. You're one of those that are always looking out for #1.
A kook you like to call me? When have I ever advocated anything "radical"? Consistently I have pointed out the need for equilibrium amongst the competing interests within the country. I have not said anything like all private property should be confiscated; I have only insisted that labor should have power sufficient to counter that of ownership, management. What have you offered besides self serving denials? We've tried your way. Read a decent history book and you'll discover how that worked out.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 4:13pm
Another thing, old man: You made a point of saying you didn't go to medical school even though you can from a family of physicians, as if you're some sort of rebel; but when your father tells you not to go into the military you use it as an excuse to dodge the war. You can't have it both ways, old man.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 4:17pm
Mask Because your original statement wasn't,technically,proper English you can claim you never said it.It's easy to see what you meant to say,but technically,you're okay.
Posted by I'M NOBODY
No, he didn't say it. He merely "insinuated it". Which is worse? You can either go out to the plate and swing the bat or stay in the dugout and whisper rumors.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 4:22pm
Please, Ms. Vanden Heuvel, get the Democratic party leaders talking like this. You could ensure a Republican president for the next 20 years. Here's a gem:
What too few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism-- a brutal, horrifying tactic -- is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't succeed. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world.
That's lovely. So by your reasoning, Ms. Vanden Heuvel, we should not have attacked Afghanistan. We should have cooperated with their government, essentially the Taliban, to work for a better world (holding hands maybe? you weren't specific on the details). Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? Before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, that place was Grand Central Station for the world's Islamic terrorists. Clinton tried to pressure the Taliban; it didn't work. However, I don't believe Kum Ba Ya was sung at any point during that period. Maybe, Ms. Vanden Heuvel, this would have changed things (provided, of course, everybody held hands).
Posted by utcareful at 03/19/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/19/2007 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person
RIO, there's a clean-up in aisle 11.
Posted by chimichenga at 03/19/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by LILLIAN 03/19/2007 @ 3:36pm
LIL, as our resident expert on "quoting people"....$100 smackeroos for you (via PayPal) if you can show where I SAID (as I'M CLAIMS) that
"Democrats are calling Ahmadinejad a wonderful person"
Scan the full thread or just my post where I laid it out....1 big Ben Franklin if you can prove his point...oh and don't use "a combination of many posts over the year or so I've been around here."---Posted by LILLIAN 12/08/2006 @ 10:39am --BLOG
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 5:02pm
I'M....you buddy MTSP....just called you a LIAR
"No, he didn't say it. He merely "insinuated it"...."Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 4:22pm
You said I SAID it, not "insinuated it", didn't you?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2007 @ 5:03pm
Keep it up, Mask, and people will begin calling you Toesing. I know you think it's clever, cute, superior of you to play such little games, but it only reflects on you.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 5:09pm
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 11:10am
CON, try to come up with something useful, huh?
Something BETWEEN Democrats to slitting their own throats by talking about how great a guy Ahmadinejad is....and being spineless wimps.
Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 11:12am | ignore this person ************************************** Mask-Because you destroyed the English language you can,technically,argue that you didn't say what this obviously implies.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2007 @ 5:15pm
Well Mask, since you're our resident expert on 'twisting people's words into things they never said', let's review for you...
...you said this...
Posted by CONSHAME 03/19/2007 @ 11:10am
CON, try to come up with something useful, huh?
Something BETWEEN Democrats to slitting their own throats by talking about how great a guy Ahmadinejad is....and being spineless wimps.
Posted by MASK 03/19/2007 @ 11:12am | ignore this person
So, I'll make you the exact same offer Mask...$100...if you can show us all where Conshame said "...Democrats to (are) slitting their own throats by talking about how great a guy Ahmadinejad is..."
If you can't show us, then that makes YOU the liar, doesn't it.
hehe!
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 5:18pm
"Gee, old man, I had no idea an education is important. '
Painfully obvious.
Were you in Viet Nam? or did you read about it in school?
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 5:23pm
Posted by LILLIAN
Just ignore him. It's the attention that he craves, that he must have. It's a classic no father figure in his life syndrome.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 5:24pm
And rather than address the war dodging straight on you want to shift attention away from it with your little bs about getting an education. More empty platitudes. Gee, old man, I had no idea an education is important. Thanks for letting me know about that. No, you had a choice: Go to school and dodge the war, or do your "duty" as an American (you, afterall, are the one spewing all of this libertarian red, white and blue bs). You lacked the nads to go to Vietnam. You're one of those that are always looking out for #1.
I was much, much too young for Vietnam. I did, however, do my time in the navy.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 5:26pm
Another thing, old man: You made a point of saying you didn't go to medical school even though you can from a family of physicians, as if you're some sort of rebel; but when your father tells you not to go into the military you use it as an excuse to dodge the war. You can't have it both ways, old man.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/19/2007 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person
MT, (and I'M and Conshame), Mask does this all the time. And every time he gets caught at it, he obfuscates, becomes deliberately obtuse, and starts calling whoever caught him a liar...in a desperate attempt to hang that label on somebody else...never really understanding that his penchant for doing this has pretty much branded the 'liar' moniker directly on his own forehead.
You know MT, I'M, et al, you have joined a very large and growing chorus of the posters here at The Nation who have called Mask on his use of this dishonest tactic. The other day I posted comments from some dozen of them...from wingnuts like CPT and Leave Liberty, to no-nonsense middle-roaders like New Dawn, to far-lefters like Darla...all calling Mask on his penchant for falsely putting words into their mouths.
Mask just pretended like the fact that everyone has noticed he is so dishonest was a 'good thing'.
Posted by Lillian at 03/19/2007 @ 5:31pm
Posted by LILLIAN
That's the way males without a man to act as a father figure end up. They are without spines.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 5:34pm
I would be willing to wager the "man" is a snitch, too.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/19/2007 @ 5:35pm
"Silly, little girli like.. "
Now that was funny.
"I went to college as I had planned since I was 8 years old."
Yea. Fuck those poor folks who didn't plan to go, with the money they didn't have to go with. Like alot of the volunteers they started with. Dumbasses.
Posted by Malcontent at 03/19/2007 @ 10:25pm
I see mask has learned to play his "disengenuous game" from the other side of the coin. Calling others on improper use of quotes.
Very good. Who said you can't teach republican dogs new tricks.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 03/19/2007 @ 10:27pm
Took a dozen posts...but finally got it...hehe
"you can,technically,argue that you didn't say what this obviously implies."----Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 5:15pm
Posted by Mask at 03/20/2007 @ 09:18am
Took a dozen posts...but finally got it...hehe
"you can,technically,argue that you didn't say what this obviously implies."----Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 5:15pm
Posted by MASK
That's it, keep trying to get daddy's attention. No matter what it takes, get daddy to look at you.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/20/2007 @ 09:21am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/20/2007 @ 09:21am
Don't know which pisses you off more, MTSP...
1. YOU saying that I'M NOBODY was lying when he said I said something, and you said, "no he just insinuated it".
2. I'M NOBODY finally admitting that "technically, yes"...he lied.
or 3. That I was right all along about I'M NOBODY lying.
hehe.
Posted by Mask at 03/20/2007 @ 10:00am
MASK Why did it take you two dozen posts to finally get it?Why did you lie in the first place?Tell your friend luvvy that none of his quotes back up your claim about Democrats and ahmadinejad.Humanizing someone is essential if you're going to deal with them.You can't deal effectively with someone unless you see who they really are.You two need to improve on your basic reading comprehension skills.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 10:10am
Mask I did not say I lied,technically or otherwise.I was poking fun at you and your butchering of the English language.Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 10:13am
Mask, once again, after another of these little 'messes' you've created with your dishonest tactic of placing into other people's mouths, words they never said...and then defending it by calling someone else a liar...
...in the end, you just come off looking sadly pathetic...
...again!!!!
hehe!
Posted by Lillian at 03/20/2007 @ 10:27am
Mask I did not say I lied,technically or otherwise.I was poking fun at you and your butchering of the English language.Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/20/2007 @ 10:13am
Yes, you did....let's look--
"MASK You said Democrats (that's plural) have said ahmadinejad is a nice guy."---Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 12:25pm
"you can,technically,argue that you didn't say what this obviously implies."----Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2007 @ 5:15pm
So I DIDN'T say what you said I said...uh..."technically"..did I?
Posted by Mask at 03/20/2007 @ 10:31am
Posted by LILLIAN 03/20/2007 @ 10:27am
Oh, dear, LILLIAN....you really need to stay out of fights about "quoting" people, don't you???
"Not those words exactly Thrawn. More a combination of many posts over the year or so I've been around here."---Posted by LILLIAN 12/08/2006 @ 10:39am --BLOG | Posted 12/08/2006 @ 12:01am Only a Rainbow Will Win--Katrina vanden Heuvel
hehe
Posted by Mask at 03/20/2007 @ 10:32am
If you would take ten percent of the military budget and move it toward humanistic causes, the people of the world might begin to respect us as they once did. All they see now is the only true superpower continually bullying the world for greed and profit.
Now there's an extraordinary leap of faith that costs the poster zero accountability and has little historical affirmation of its effectiveness.
As if fighting alongside the Mujahadeen to expel the Russians from Afghanistan in the 80's, to removing a Samali warlord who was pillaging UN food drops, to bombing the piss out of the Serbians on behalf of Albanian Muslims did us ANY good with the Islamic nut-jobs that we're dealing with now.
And what "greed" are you referring to? What exactly have we taken or are in the process of taking?
Posted by Sliver at 03/20/2007 @ 10:35am
Daddy's still not looking at you, Mask. Maybe you should try jumping up and down, holding your breath.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/20/2007 @ 10:49am
Mask We now know why you can't go online and look up the definitions of "progressive" and "socialist" and understand them and why luvvy can't understand the teachings of Jesus.I'm sure your area would have classes to teach adults basic reading comprehension skills and you may wish to attend one.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/20/2007 @ 10:52am
Oh, dear, LILLIAN....you really need to stay out of fights about "quoting" people, don't you???
Posted by MASK 03/20/2007 @ 10:32am | ignore this person
Hey Mask, remember when you tried to do this same thing to Sam Graham-Felsen a couple of weeks ago...and HE called you on it also? That was REALLY funny!! HAHAHAHAHA!!
Just in case you forgot...and since you're dredging up old posts...here's a nice little reminder of the attention people are giving you...(hehe!!)
Hey Mask...since you saw fit to dredge up some old post...I found some old posts too...check these out...(Like I said...everyone has noticed.)
As to this being a post by Ari Berman about Joe Liebermann and the Ct senate race.... agreed. So why did you turn it into an attack against the Lamont campaign's alleged incompetences ?
Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/16/2006 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person
-
Mask -
You are (again) mischaracterizing things.
Posted by HMAN23 08/17/2006 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person
-
Mask, congrats on devising that false choice.
my point is that the two choices have absolutely nothing in common.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/30/2006 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person
-
Damn, dude, your habit of putting words people didn't say into their mouths and then trying to call them on what they didn't say... is repugnant.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person
-
Then you started accusing me of equating the two and comparing which was "worse". I did no such thing. but you didm, and continue to do so, while trying to put your own words in my mouth.
You are a very dishonest debating adversary.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 3:51pm | ignore this person
-
Your credibility working its way down the drain.
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/05/2006 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person
-
Show where I have said they are "Totally non-partisan"
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/05/2006 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person
-
Here is the TRUTH.
You are the most DIHONEST poster here. You take the title hands down. And you probably laugh about it....to yourself and think it is clever.
Your never ending circular logic, loaded questions, consistent misrepresentation are without a doubt UN-precedented. EVEN here.
You are not content to do that once, not twice, but every single time.
You ALWAYS incorrectly attribute statements made by one poster or another and you do this ceaselessly.
If one poster says A....you "brilliantly" counter with their words and reinterpert as if they said B. The poster says no i said A....but you continue as if they said B and form other conjectures based on B. All the while they are trying in a futile attempt to say that "NO i said A"
Let me simplfy...for you edification.....you are a con man, a fake, a charloton, a liar and a fraud.
But somehow, in your wierd mind you think you are making a point...well nope, you are not...the point is that you are intellectually dishonest. simple
But what makes it worse...and yes it gets worse...is that you are CONSISTENTLY intellectually dishonest. EVEN when corrected several times.
I am not talking about taking soemthing out of context...that happens with everyone here, however what makes you different is that you keep repeating the lie over and over again.
So i chose not engage you; that often in your silly MASK games.
Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 9:41pm | ignore this person
-
I could post a LOT more Mask...but you get the idea.
Posted by LILLIAN 03/01/2007 @ 11:25pm | ignore this person
Posted by Lillian at 03/20/2007 @ 12:51pm
And Mask, do you remember what you said after I noted how everyone has noticed your habit of mischaracterizing what other people say??
Let's take a look...
But again....from now on, when Sam Graham-Felsen discusses the "youth vote"....I'll merely quote him.
that should be good enough...plus it'll make sooooo much harder for you to say that I'm "mischaracterizing" what somebody says....but posting EXACTLY what they said.
Posted by MASK 03/02/2007 @ 09:32am | ignore this person
And yet here you are, once again, doing EXACTLY what you said you weren't going to do anymore...to the surprise of absolutely no one.
Like I said...pathetic.
(hehe!!)
Posted by Lillian at 03/20/2007 @ 12:59pm
Amen and Bravo, Katrina, The short-sightedness of the Bush/Conservative crowd is astounding. Being the biggest bully on the block is not leadership in an ever more complex world. We must abandon this "might makes right" approach that Bush and his Vulcans have espoused. The worst thing that they did by going to war, virtually unilaterally, is that they undermined what little legitimacy the UN has. By not allowing the inspection process to proceed to its exhausted end they rendered, unecessarily,the UN to a helpless bystander when it should have been the leader in solving this and all disputes. We will never attain world peace until the entire world unites against hoodlums like Sadaam Hussein whenever they rear their ugly heads. This "go it alone", "cowboy" mentality of Bush and his kind has no place in the 21st century.
Posted by bad_daddy at 03/20/2007 @ 4:17pm
An article by Ann Scott Tyson in The Wahington Post March 19 reprinted in Antiwar.com quotes General Pace, Chairman, JCS to a House panel on preparedness "...Afghanistan, Iran,Iraq,Syria, Lebanon,Yemen,Somalia,Sudan,Venezuela,Colombia,Philipines, Malaysia,Indonesia,North Korea,Pakistan .." There's " no dearth of challenges out there for our armed forces." The willilngness of the military to "deal" with all these countries is truly breathtaking. It's not just the neocons in the Bush administration that are a danger to the world, it's the U.S, military itself.
Posted by Russ Bates at 03/20/2007 @ 4:29pm
Katrina always has it right. I feel like I/we are being strangled being strangled by the Democrats inaction and the continued obstruction by the Republicans. Today, we hear that Rove et al. are not going to be under oath when in front of the Senate subcommittee. . . and I could scream ahhhhhhhhhhh. When are our politicians going to DO SOMETHING? I don't think we can wait much longer.
Posted by pas100 at 03/20/2007 @ 4:44pm
this is an excellent overview and commentary. At the end of this week, we will be featuring a roundtable about the fourth anniversary of the war on http://electronicIraq.net
Posted by Zinjabeelah at 03/20/2007 @ 5:58pm
While I applaud the feeling and logic behind KVH's message, there's something she leaves out. The "permanent war economy" we now have, with its growing aspects of imperialism and fascism, was not the result of policy decisions related to national security. Rather, fictions about national security have been invented and sold to the public since about 1945 to justify a permanent war economy, an idea that was developed and implemented before WWII was even over by military and industrial leaders. The past 60 years in this country is the story of how all considerations of domestic and foreign policy have systematically been subordinated to the desire for power and profit on the part of military and industrial leaders and how the legislature has systematically been corrupted so as to support the plan with ever-increasing "defense" budgets. I recommend reading Bruce Catton's "The War Lords of Washington", Fred Cook's "The Warfare State", Seymour Melman's "The Permanent War Economy", and Jeffrey St. Clair's "Grand Theft Pentagon", for the whole story. The so-called "war on terror" is just the latest government PR campaign designed to drum up support for and justify repressive measures against anyone who might want to interfere with the ceaseless flow of cash from our pockets to the coffers of Halliburton, KBR, General Dynamics, Boeing, Blackwater, and the rest of them. The issue as I see it is how to stop the warfare state and restore democracy in the U.S.A.
Posted by Goat at 03/20/2007 @ 6:28pm
As if fighting alongside the Mujahadeen to expel the Russians from Afghanistan in the 80's,
another lie. US forces did not fight alongside afghan or other guerillas against the soviets. what conspicuous bullshit from this poster. as usual.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/20/2007 @ 6:38pm
Dear Katerina Foxy Lady:
Your are right as usual. But I would suggest that we stop wasting time with the corporate conservative controlled Democrats and defect en masse to the Green Party, the largest, international and fastest growing third party that includes ALL our progressive values. We can still vote for Kucinich, Waters, Lee and the rest of the progressive Dems, but it's time for progressives to get together and stop being taken for granted. In fact, Kucinich and other leaders should lead in joining the Greens instead of attracting progressives to the moribund Democratic party. We can't afford to wait in hopes that progressives will take the rein of the Democratic Party. With 90% of all campaign bribes coming from corporations, there is little chance of change.
Posted by ezeflyer at 03/20/2007 @ 6:51pm
US forces did not fight alongside afghan or other guerillas against the soviets. what conspicuous bullshit from this poster. as usual.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/20/2007 @ 6:38pm
Really? Arms sales, logistics, special forces. Wouldn't you classify that as being rather involved?
Posted by Sliver at 03/20/2007 @ 6:55pm
So...I feel like there's been a lot of name-calling, and very little response to some of the most important substantive issues in question. Look, in order for Katrina's argument, or many of the other arguments made since then, to make any sense, you have to presume that military readiness and/or action is never justified, and that diplomatic measures with no military leverage behind them can magically solve whatever situations that exist.
I think this is absurd. First and foremost, diplomacy will never be adequate against terrorist groups, not only because they will not be persuaded by diplomatic language or token policy gestures, but also because the particular policies that would be needed to take all of the wind out of terrorist sails (like perpetually abandoing Israel) are untenable even if they would be sufficient. Second, proactive measures are necessary to respond to terrorism because the alternative requires an absolutely impenetrable defensive system. Not only is that actually far more conducive to the rights violations that people like Will are concerned about, but it's also impossible. As long as one person manages to get through, and they will, the system fails.
More broadly, it seems pretty clear that military readiness as a policy is absolutely justified, and I'll again use the case of the Cold War as an example. First, many nations, such as the Soviet Union, give a great deal of weight to the balance of power. Stalin, for example, believed that he could bully Western nations after the war because the "correlation of forces" would make fulfilling their treaty obligations unnecessary. Military readiness thus helps to facilitate a good negotiating position, particularly with powers against whom we need it the most. In fact, if Katrina really believes that efficacious negotiation is important, she would be obliged to support this point as well. Second, though, military readiness can also be extremely important because there are states for whom diplomatic measures will simply be insufficient to guarantee efficacy. Of course, this doesn't mean that military force should be anything but a last resort, but rather that it needs to be something that the state can resort to should it need to do so. It also needs to be able to prevent a power like the Soviet Union from being able to threaten it by proactively and admittedly establishing nearby forward bases from which to launch attacks and work to destabilize the country.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/20/2007 @ 9:15pm
Really? Arms sales, logistics, special forces. Wouldn't you classify that as being rather involved?
Posted by SLIVER 03/20/2007 @ 6:55pm | ignore this person
special forces? prove it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/20/2007 @ 9:47pm
Posted by THRAWN 03/20/2007 @ 9:15pm | ignore this person
mixing it up rather promiscuously, on one hand terror on the other the soviet union. that is dishonest. terror is best handled with negotiations, see england and the northern ireland issue. the soviet thing is over. you got nothing despite your high falutin' tone.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/20/2007 @ 9:50pm
Sliv, you continue to overplay your hand. f"ighting alongside" is not arms sales and logistics. in your hands language turns to shit.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/20/2007 @ 9:55pm
mixing it up rather promiscuously, on one hand terror on the other the soviet union. that is dishonest. terror is best handled with negotiations, see england and the northern ireland issue. the soviet thing is over. you got nothing despite your high falutin' tone.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/20/2007 @ 9:50pm
The post wasn't simply engaging Katrina's post, as the intro to it should have made clear:
Look, in order for Katrina's argument, or many of the other arguments made since then, to make any sense, you have to presume that military readiness and/or action is never justified, and that diplomatic measures with no military leverage behind them can magically solve whatever situations that exist.
In othet words, the purpose of my post was both to challenge Katrina's argument, and to challenge broader arguments that have been made since then about US military power, especially in terms of the Cold War.
Moreover, I think the analogy you're drawing to Northern Ireland is very interesting, though I think there are a couple of big differences between that case and the current terrorist threat that we're concerned with. First, the current threat is religiously-driven, while the Northern Ireland terrorism was not. Though there was certainly a difference of religious denominations, the overarching problem was a question of political sovereignty, and the belief that their people were being oppressed by England. Religious terrorism is far harder to challenge, especially when it is well-entrenched. Second, the kind of diplomatic measures that would be needed to meet the demands of terrorists would require a complete withdrawal from the Middle East, including completely removal of support from Israel, which is plainly unacceptable. Third, terrorists in Northern Ireland never had even the slightest chance of getting nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, which definitively could not be said of those in Northern Ireland. These differences, along with many more, make the two situations very different from one another.
In addition, your point about the Soviet Union is a little strange. At the height of its power, the Soviet Union had virtually every strategic analyst in the United States terrified, and had bases with supporting populations in countries across the globe. Now, the Soviet Union is nothing but a remnant of its shattered self. Do you think their foreign policy would have been less aggressive if we had a weaker negotiating position? Do you really believe that a comparative advantage in nuclear and conventional firepower did not strengthen the US' bargaining capability, at the very least? That power had a great deal to do with the Soviet Union's subsequent demise, unless you think that its convenient collapse within 11 years of Reagan's buildup was something that was just obviously inevitable after 80 years of great-power status.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/20/2007 @ 11:01pm
Dear Katerina:
Your are right as usual. But I would suggest that we stop wasting time with the corporate conservative controlled Democrats and defect en masse to the Green Party, the largest, international and fastest growing third party that includes ALL our progressive values. We can still vote for Kucinich, Waters, Lee and the rest of the progressive Dems, but it's time for progressives to get together and stop being taken for granted. In fact, Kucinich and other leaders should lead in joining the Greens instead of attracting progressives to the moribund Democratic party. We can't afford to wait in hopes that progressives will take the rein of the Democratic Party. With 90% of all campaign bribes coming from corporations, there is little chance of change.
Posted by ezeflyer at 03/20/2007 @ 11:31pm
Posted by THRAWN 03/20/2007 @ 11:01pm | ignore this person
you are mistaken. the mid east terrorists are not primarily driven by religion, despite the fact that they are muslims. it is power that they are after, whether it is to overthrow repressive corrupt regimes such as Saudi, which is Bin Laden's goal, or the fact that their fate is still being decided by old colonialist powers, such as the US, and new ones such as Israel.
your understanding of the end of the cold war is similarly limited. very few historians cling to the propaganda that Reagan's arms build up ended the cold war. no, my friend, the cold war was brought to an end by negotiations.
your point that we need to be as warlike as possible in order to have a better negotiating position is equally absurd, as many futile wars have proved.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 07:58am
one sign of negotiations is that in the beginning each side wants everything. yes the arabs want the western powers out of their region, where they have been meddling and worse since the slow demise of the Ottoman empire, but in negotiations each side must give up some of their demands.Israel has made peace with Egypt and some other neighbors. it is that which we need to build upon, not this constant saber rattling, which you seem to support.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 08:02am
First, the current threat is religiously-driven, while the Northern Ireland terrorism was not. Though there was certainly a difference of religious denominations, the overarching problem was a question of political sovereignty, and the belief that their people were being oppressed by England.
this is exactly my point about the mid east.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 09:27am
the current threat is religiously-driven,
it is not. radical islamists are not out to convert the west, they are out to make their own societies more islamic. it is they who are feeling squeezed by western culture, which they feel is being shoved down their throat. it is not a religious dispute per se. neither is the Sunni Shia conflict in Iraq.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 12:32pm
So, instead of quoting your responses, I'm just going to group them into two areas: terrorism and the Cold War.
First, terrorism. I think your position ultimately suffers from some serious flaws, one of which you seem to almost concede. When you say that Middle Eastern terrorists resent having their destinies "controlled" by countries like the U.S. and Israel, you invite the corollary question, namely "what would the US have to do to avoid this?" From even your own analysis, along with the facts as they appear to be, the US would effectively have to withdraw from the Middle East and stop giving support to Israel. So long as Israel exists, it will no doubt affect the destiny of other countries in the region, particularly since most of bin Laden's group are vehemently opposed to Israel's existence in the first place. Though some of Israel's neighboring countries are not, these are some of the same powers that bin Laden wants to overthrow in the first place. This is a problem for your position, because dissolving Israel as a state is not an option.
Moreover, how in the world do we negotiate with bin Laden? Since it's clearly impossible to, say, sit down at a table with him and hash out terms, what you're defending would basically require a kind of unilateral withdrawal, the kind that is only likely to embolden terrorist groups rather than mollify them.
Finally, the idea that Middle Eastern terrorists aren't religiously motivated doesn't really make sense. The overwhelming amount of their objection to Western presence is religiously-based to begin with, and I think their objection to our presence in Saudi Arabia is a fantastic example of this. It's also the basis for their desire to overthrow these corrupt regimes, and the notion that allows them to think of the Middle East as some kind of unified entity to begin with.
Second, your perspective on the Cold War is really strange. As I pointed out before and never really got a response to, it makes no sense to believe that the Soviet Union was a power feared by virtually all strategic analysts for decades, but suddenly, completely coincidentally, after Reagan's buildup in the 80's, this power that had endured for 80 years just went away. I'm not denying that negotiations also mattered in terms of preventing war and stuff like that; what I'm saying is that the arms buildup greatly affected not only the Soviet Union's need to match our arms buildup (which really hurt them economically), but it also gave us a strong upper hand in negotiations, which you also never respond to. The idea that somehow, negotiations divorced from any comparison of military power ended the Cold War and destroyed the Soviet Union is plainly absurd.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/21/2007 @ 1:15pm
Thrawn, you are a reasonable discussion partner, one of the few from the other side of the aisle. I will address your points, not now but later today.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 2:01pm
Thrawn, you are a reasonable discussion partner, one of the few from the other side of the aisle. I will address your points, not now but later today.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/21/2007 @ 2:01pm
Thank you, and you are as well. I look forward to the discussion later on.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/21/2007 @ 4:57pm
ok Thrawn, here goes.
Moreover, how in the world do we negotiate with bin Laden? Since it's clearly impossible to, say, sit down at a table with him and hash out terms, what you're defending would basically require a kind of unilateral withdrawal, the kind that is only likely to embolden terrorist groups rather than mollify them.
unilateral withdrawal, as you put it, is exactly what we did after 9/11 when we withdrew the troops from Saudi. this, not the existence of Israel was Osama's casus belli. that's one down. Osama could have been negotiated with.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 09:32am
the flaw in your argument is that it is a question of all or nothing. in negotiations no one gets all or nothing. in the mid east it is not a question of withdrawing from the region and giving up support for israel, but rather an evenhanded approach, which is what is necessary to regain the trust of the arabs. in concrete terms, I call attention to the war that israel visited upon Lebanon recently. the US position was that we wanted a cease fire but not until israel kicked some serious butt. a corrupt position, and not just in the eyes of the arabs.
the fact is that terror is a technique, and that those called terrorists are invariably political actors with a political agenda. though they may have things in common, that they are muslims, they are by no means monolithic, and have to be addressed individually.
"The overwhelming amount of their objection to Western presence is religiously-based to begin with, and I think their objection to our presence in Saudi Arabia is a fantastic example of this."
this is false. Osama wants to overthrow the Saudi regime not because of their religion, but because they are a repressive regime.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 09:43am
one brief one on the cold war. with mitual assured destruction, it does not matter if one side has an advantage.
the assertion that the arms race engaged by Reagan caused the collapse of the soviets is a myth. it is the arms negotiations that drastically lowered the temperature of the cold war.
much of the soviets' collapse was due to internal causes, a progressive leader in Gorby, satellites in the Warsaw pact getting restless and throwing off the yoke, is what caused the wall to fall.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 09:47am
Liberals must declare that the battle of 9/11 was a resounding victory for the 19 al qaida hijackers and a monumental defeat for the US which compares to the battles of Thermopylae and Masada which were also defeats of great military powers by small military forces. Furthermore, the Republicans and the Bush administration must bear the responsibility of the staggering defeat of the battle of 9/11 and the subsequent defeat in Iraq. They will try to deflect their responsibility to Democrats just as they did with Cuba which was "lost" to communism during the Eisenhower administration. The losses of the battle of 9/11 and the Iraq war must be declared as Republican Party responsibility.
Posted by predator at 03/22/2007 @ 11:15am
the 9/11 attack might better be described as a commando action, rather than a battle.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 12:41pm
ok Thrawn, here goes.
Moreover, how in the world do we negotiate with bin Laden? Since it's clearly impossible to, say, sit down at a table with him and hash out terms, what you're defending would basically require a kind of unilateral withdrawal, the kind that is only likely to embolden terrorist groups rather than mollify them.
unilateral withdrawal, as you put it, is exactly what we did after 9/11 when we withdrew the troops from Saudi. this, not the existence of Israel was Osama's casus belli. that's one down. Osama could have been negotiated with.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/22/2007 @ 09:32am
I think there are some serious flaws in this, though. First of all, the very idea that Osama could somehow be negotiated with seems a little out there, for three main reasons. One, if he had any interest in negotiations, he would have done so already; those would have been much preferable for him then being attacked in Afghanistan. Two, even before that, had he been interested in negotiation, he would never have continued bombing civilian targets without issuing any kind of clear terms. Although he has certainly given a list of grievances, he's definitely made no promises that he would make concessions once we fulfilled some of his aims, which is what negotiation definitionally requires. Third, even if he'd be willing to back off when we met his terms, those terms are unacceptable. Your claim that he has no desire to see Israel destroyed is false, not only because he strives to promote a "united Muslim identity" that Israel unambiguously interferes with, but also because any US support of Israel is an indication of US influence in the region, something that he absolutely opposes. There's no world in which Osama's attacks would stop even if we utterly abandoned Israel, and even if that would be the case, it would be absurd for us to consider doing so.
In fact, I gave you an argument that you never responded to, which was that withdrawing from the region emboldens terrorism rather than subduing it because it sends the message that continued terrorist methods can work. No matter how the US tried to dress it up, the crystal-clear message that al Qaeda would receive is that their acts of terrorism can succeed, and this is unacceptable, if only because of the drastic consequences that would have towards other powers in the region and wherever al Qaeda has cells.
Note also that we withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia before we went after Iraq, which means that that was going to be a significant move to satisfy bin Laden, we would have gotten some indication of that.
the flaw in your argument is that it is a question of all or nothing. in negotiations no one gets all or nothing. in the mid east it is not a question of withdrawing from the region and giving up support for israel, but rather an evenhanded approach, which is what is necessary to regain the trust of the arabs. in concrete terms, I call attention to the war that israel visited upon Lebanon recently. the US position was that we wanted a cease fire but not until israel kicked some serious butt. a corrupt position, and not just in the eyes of the arabs.
the fact is that terror is a technique, and that those called terrorists are invariably political actors with a political agenda. though they may have things in common, that they are muslims, they are by no means monolithic, and have to be addressed individually.
"The overwhelming amount of their objection to Western presence is religiously-based to begin with, and I think their objection to our presence in Saudi Arabia is a fantastic example of this."
this is false. Osama wants to overthrow the Saudi regime not because of their religion, but because they are a repressive regime.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/22/2007 @ 09:43am
I've already addressed most of the negotiation analysis, so I just want to talk briefly about Saudi Arabia. bin Laden has made clear on numerous occasions that his objection to US presence in Saudi Arabia is that it defiles holy ground. This has been explicit. Moreover, it's unclear what his political objection would be, especially since his attacks were never coupled with threats against the Saudi government. Finally, the fact that he wants the Saudi government removed certainly doesn't deny that he had religious motives for wanting the US out.
Your response to his motivations being religious is simply that terror groups aren't monolithic. This is true, though it is also true that terrorist groups tend to be religious extremists of some kind, and I think bin Laden has given pretty good reason to believe that his group is motivated by similar concerns. If he wants political goals rather than religious ones, he's done a pretty poor job of communicating them to us, which must make him a pretty lousy terrorist.
one brief one on the cold war. with mitual assured destruction, it does not matter if one side has an advantage.
the assertion that the arms race engaged by Reagan caused the collapse of the soviets is a myth. it is the arms negotiations that drastically lowered the temperature of the cold war.
much of the soviets' collapse was due to internal causes, a progressive leader in Gorby, satellites in the Warsaw pact getting restless and throwing off the yoke, is what caused the wall to fall.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/22/2007 @ 09:47am
You're correct to some extent about mutually assured destruction, but your link between that and the end of the Cold War isn't too great. It is unambiguous historical fact that once Reagan escalated arms production, the Soviets did as well, no doubt due in part to their concerns about a possible missile defense system. Regardless of whether you think the system would work, since its efficacy is indeed dubious, the perception that it might coupled with the arms buildup had a huge influence on Soviet military spending.
Moreover, I think you miss a couple of key things. First, the tide was already starting to turn when Gorbachev was put into office, so it seems dubious to suggest that he was a major cause of the trend. Second, this begs the question as to why the Soviets would suddenly be interested in putting a reformer-type leader in office to begin with, when there had been no interest in real reform up to this point. It also begs the question as to why these republics suddenly started getting restless right then. Third, though arms negotiations may have helped calm the Cold War down, they by no means were effective in actually containing Soviet expenditures on arms; evidence clearly indicates that they were building far more than was alloted to them under the arms control agreements.
Ultimately, your Cold War analysis seems highly question-begging and fallacious. Though you're right that actions Gorbachev put helped to end the Soviet Union, and that republics started pulling away, you're never able to adequately answer why they started doing so right around the same time that Reagan had been in office for a few years, after they had seemingly coped just fine for well over half a century until then.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/22/2007 @ 10:33pm
Thrawn, almost too many falsehoods in your post. I'll work backwards. there were many periods of small thaws throughout the cold war, and many times the opportunities were lost by the US.read a reliable history of the cold war, which can be traced to the end of WW1, when the uS sent troops into russia to fight the reds.
I am unconvinced as are most historians. it was the arm control negotiations that paved the way for the end of the cold war.they precede Reagan, as well as including him.the effect of a possible missile defense system is laughable. that thing never worked, not then, not now, many billions later. you don't think the soviets knew that? any five year old reading a US newspaper knows that.
now to Osama. I never said he didn't want Israel eliminated, merely that this was definitely not his casus belli. and castigating him for not wanting to negotiate, that's nonsense. he had nothing to offer except the cessation of terror, ergo he had to do the terror. Osama uses the religious sentiments but they are not his primary motive.
it is by no means unclear what his political motivations in Saudi are. the troops did not just defile Mecca and Medina, they also served to prop up the regime, which is Osama's real target.
you also commit the absurd error of conflating the invasion of Iraq with Osama.
this embolding jazz is just a propaganda lie. the terrorists are plenty emboldened. our failure to stop terror attacks, incompetence mostly, does more to embolden the terrorists, as does the unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 07:53am
why they started doing so right around the same time that Reagan had been in office for a few years, after they had seemingly coped just fine for well over half a century until then.
this is nonsense and ignorant nonsense at that. I merely have to point to the polish solidarity movement, which was a huge factor in the collapse of the soviet union.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 08:14am
which must make him a pretty lousy terrorist.
yeah right. a commando raid in the heart of the financial world's center, as well as the pentagon.3,000 of our dead at a cost of 19 of theirs. no the opposite is true. Osama is the world's most successful terrorist, not least because he has avoided capture for all these years.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 08:22am
mikecope, I share you opinion about US embassies by experience and I'm an American. In 1984 I went to the Council of the then USSR for a visa and afterwards mentioned to my then girl friend that it was strange. She said "if you thinks that the USSR embassy is strange wait until you to go to an American Embassy and you'll know what strange is". Some years later I went to the American embassy in Kingston, Jamaica and it made my experience at the USSR seems like Disney World.Kingston is a busy place and the Embassy staff there takes great delight in pushing them around from the Jamaican private security guards to the embassy staff who just simply told me that they weren't going to do their job and just walk away.
Posted by predator at 03/23/2007 @ 08:47am
Thrawn, this phrase US pull out of mid east is most misleading. we have no troops to pull out, excepting Iraq, of course. it is rather an adjustment in our political stance that is necessary. our right wing gov't, whose days are numbered, should rethink its unquestioning support for israel's right wing gov't and inhumane policies.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 11:19am
Thrawn, as I think about it, your discussion is really only apple polishing for Reagan. come off it. take a wider view, inform yourself, and above all come to the realization that the whole world does not revolve around the US' asshole.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 2:06pm
let me just say that I bear no hostility towards you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 5:46pm