Kucinich is a loon. An effing Loon, I tell you.

[SDW2001]

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5418.html

After watching this interview, I am honestly at a loss for words. Now I know, Kucinich is the ultimate in lefty thinking and many of you love that. Fine.

But really listen to what he's saying. He went on Syrian TV and called our occupation of Iraq illegal. He basically called the President a liar. He said many things that completely undermine US efforts in Iraq, efforts that have been endorsed by the majority of Congress...whether you/he happen to agree with them or not.

In my opinion this stunningly wrong. I also think he is incredibly naive and was used for what amounts to anti-American propaganda by the Syrians. He thinks he's getting a voice. In reality he's just undermining our nation. You don't go on foreign TV and criticize your country when it has 160,000 troops on the ground. You don't do it.

But beyond that, what he's saying is just lunacy. We need to engage Iran and Syria to help us figure out Iraq? You mean Iran who is fighting a proxy war...that Iran? And Syria...a known terrorist state? Also, his rhetoric about "international community" is just tired and vague.

But what really gets me is he says we owe the Iraqis "reparations." We need to "really rebuild" their country instead of letting the corrupt Haliburton make it's profits. Oh, and we need to pull all the troops and dismantle the bases. Question: How the FUCK can we "really rebuild" them if we pull everyone out and security goes to total hell? Does he actually think that would work?

I'll stop there. Again, I know certain posters love Kucinich....but what he's saying just isn't logical. And it certainly wasn't right to criticize the effort like that on Syrian TV.

[giant]

You know, you could just write a quick ruby or python script to automate the posting of links you find on drudge.

[segovius]

You know, you could just write a quick ruby or python script to automate the posting of links you find on drudge.

It wouldn't be that easy though - you'd need some functions to check for variables in case any truth or logic crept in.

I know it's Drudge and the SDW filter should be fine in that regard but what worries me is the high volume of hits Drudge takes from SDW.... when you are in the low millions then some true facts might possibly seep through so you'd really need to guard against that.

Other than that it probably is quite simple; a few variables to populate with Syria or Iran depending on conditionals and an ignore on anything tagged with Saudi, Pakistan or torture...

Hey..it just hit me.....we're so out of the loop........he is actually doing this already. :wow:

You see - that's why he's the best.....

[@_@ Artman]

I'll stop there. Again, I know certain posters love Kucinich....but what he's saying just isn't logical. And it certainly wasn't right to criticize the effort like that on Syrian TV.

Well, he's pissed you off. I'd say...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/461-mission_accomplished.jpg

:lol:

[Fellowship]

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5418.html

After watching this interview, I am honestly at a loss for words. Now I know, Kucinich is the ultimate in lefty thinking and many of you love that. Fine.

But really listen to what he's saying. He went on Syrian TV and called our occupation of Iraq illegal. He basically called the President a liar. He said many things that completely undermine US efforts in Iraq, efforts that have been endorsed by the majority of Congress...whether you/he happen to agree with them or not.

In my opinion this stunningly wrong. I also think he is incredibly naive and was used for what amounts to anti-American propaganda by the Syrians. He thinks he's getting a voice. In reality he's just undermining our nation. You don't go on foreign TV and criticize your country when it has 160,000 troops on the ground. You don't do it.

But beyond that, what he's saying is just lunacy. We need to engage Iran and Syria to help us figure out Iraq? You mean Iran who is fighting a proxy war...that Iran? And Syria...a known terrorist state? Also, his rhetoric about "international community" is just tired and vague.

But what really gets me is he says we owe the Iraqis "reparations." We need to "really rebuild" their country instead of letting the corrupt Haliburton make it's profits. Oh, and we need to pull all the troops and dismantle the bases. Question: How the FUCK can we "really rebuild" them if we pull everyone out and security goes to total hell? Does he actually think that would work?

I'll stop there. Again, I know certain posters love Kucinich....but what he's saying just isn't logical. And it certainly wasn't right to criticize the effort like that on Syrian TV.

I think I agreed with just about everything the man said. He is not afraid to say what he believes to be the truth and I find that to be a strength not something to be mocked.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

It's that Darn Liberal MEDIA...

It's that Darn Kookcinich....

It's that Darn Hillary....

It's those darn liberals...

It's those evildoers..

Ya know those Islamofascists....

It's those darn Michael Moore whackos...

and on and on and on.......

I blame all those liberals and evildoers for all the failings of the Bush admin...

That's right it is those lefties at fault..

LOL

Ohhhhh and I almost forgot... It is those darn Move on.org people too.

Did I mention Air America?

Fellows

[segovius]

SDW's rather hammy horror at the prospect of negotiating with Iran and Syria really shows how ill-informed on these matters he really is. Or how prejudiced. Or both.

The fact is that a groundswell of opinion is inexorably moving in this direction - even Blair recommended it and now he has gone numerous UK military brass say it is inevitable.

It will happen. And it will resolve the issue. It's just a question of how much death and destruction occurs before our leaders publicly admit it - exactly as happened with the IRA.

I say 'publicly' because odds are it is already happening - to think otherwise is naive. The only reason that they don't admit it is because of the knee-jerk reactions of people like SDW who do not understand the realities of the situation.

[trumptman]

I can tell the news source is biased because they called Kucinich a presidential candidate. Also Drudge is biased because linking to the video gives Kucinich more exposure than his own campaign could afford in a hundred years. He clearly wants Kucinich to be heard.

He is about as much a presidential candidate as Mary Carey, and Gary Coleman were candidates for governor of California. Their name is on a ballot and well... that is about it.

I would actually be surprised if Kucinich didn't say things more outrageous than this. How else will he get that small but motivated minority out there to send him the few dollars he manages to get?

I challenge anyone on here who defends to statements of Kucinich to actually donate to his campaign. Make his views legitimate by giving him so of your legitimately earned cash. Show that speaking the truth should be rewarded with political donations.

Nick

[Gilsch]

You know, you could just write a quick ruby or python script to automate the posting of links you find on drudge.

What makes you think he doesn't already have it? Probably V. 3 now. :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

Don't forget those damn dirty hippies.

What about the damn dirty apes?

[@_@ Artman]

What about the damn dirty apes?

http://www.rodserling.com/images/soliberty.jpg

[SDW2001]

You know, you could just write a quick ruby or python script to automate the posting of links you find on drudge.

OMG! Drudge! It's invalid! How dare I start threads from Drudge!

I think I agreed with just about everything the man said. He is not afraid to say what he believes to be the truth and I find that to be a strength not something to be mocked.

Fellows

Then with all due respect, you're off your rocker. And there are two issues anyway:

1. What he said, most of which is just utterly wrong and illogical.
2. Where he said it and who he said it to.

I can tell. ;)

Left myself open for that. :)




OK!

Awesome!



At the very least, our invasion and occupation of Iraq is of debatable legality.

I don't know about that. I'd actually say at the very most. It was unquestionably legal from the standpoint of US law. "International law" is basically meaningless in this regard. If it was followed, there would never be another war again. But whatever...the problem wasn't even the opinion. It was where he said it, why he said it, and to whom he said it.



Is that such a shockingly new allegation against this President?

No, of course not. That's really not the point. See above.


Kucinich's comments completely undermine US efforts in Iraq?

What does that even mean besides alluding to the similarly vague and dumb-witted accusation of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy?"

OK, "completely" was not a word I needed to include there. But it damages the effort on the political stage, particularly internationally. His comments will also be used as propaganda in the ME.



You have strong opinions, certainly.

Who, me? :)



But we're left scratching our heads and wondering, well, why? Argue something and back it up with reasons.

That makes little sense.

It's that Darn Liberal MEDIA...

It's that Darn Kookcinich....

It's that Darn Hillary....

It's those darn liberals...

It's those evildoers..

Ya know those Islamofascists....

It's those darn Michael Moore whackos...

and on and on and on.......

I blame all those liberals and evildoers for all the failings of the Bush admin...

That's right it is those lefties at fault..

LOL

Ohhhhh and I almost forgot... It is those darn Move on.org people too.

Did I mention Air America?

Fellows

No one in their right mind blames the failures of the Bush Administration on the above groups. I never once claimed that, certainly not in this thread of all places. The failures and mistakes the admin has made do not excuse Kucinich's comments though, or make them appropriate or make him any more fit to be President.

SDW's rather hammy horror at the prospect of negotiating with Iran and Syria really shows how ill-informed on these matters he really is. Or how prejudiced. Or both.

Pot. Kettle.



The fact is that a groundswell of opinion is inexorably moving in this direction - even Blair recommended it and now he has gone numerous UK military brass say it is inevitable.

I love how you think that using the words "groundswell" and "inexorably" makes your point any more valid. What "groundswell" and from whom is it coming?



It will happen. And it will resolve the issue. It's just a question of how much death and destruction occurs before our leaders publicly admit it - exactly as happened with the IRA.

I say 'publicly' because odds are it is already happening - to think otherwise is naive. The only reason that they don't admit it is because of the knee-jerk reactions of people like SDW who do not understand the realities of the situation.

It must be nice to believe you're the smartest guy in the room, eh seg? I certainly think that we do talk to Iran on these matters. But expanding these talks, holding them publicly, etc? I can't see how that would help at present.

Secondly, if this approach is already being taken in secret, why do Kucinich and Lefties such as yourself fault the Bush Administration for not engaging in the discussions?

[jimmac]

It's that Darn Liberal MEDIA...

It's that Darn Kookcinich....

It's that Darn Hillary....

It's those darn liberals...

It's those evildoers..

Ya know those Islamofascists....

It's those darn Michael Moore whackos...

and on and on and on.......

I blame all those liberals and evildoers for all the failings of the Bush admin...

That's right it is those lefties at fault..

LOL

Ohhhhh and I almost forgot... It is those darn Move on.org people too.

Did I mention Air America?

Fellows


That darn Tennent!

That darn Rumsfeld!

That darn Gonzales!

Gee! It seems like it's everyone's fault except Bush and Cheney!

What would happen if they start eyeballing each other for the blame?:wow::lol:


And yes those " damn dirty apes "!

[mydo]

I think I agreed with just about everything the man said. He is not afraid to say what he believes to be the truth and I find that to be a strength not something to be mocked.

Fellows

Yea me too but I do think that Kucinish is being both unrealistic and a "useful idiot" to a guy like Assad.

[giant]

OMG! Drudge! It's invalid! How dare I start threads from Drudge!
Actually, that's absolutely correct. At this point, it's less about drudge than it is about how you keep reading and getting hysterical about stuff on drudge despite the fact that it invariably turns out to be not quite what you believed, which is putting it mildly.

[trumptman]

Since Drudge is only an aggregator of news, and seldom a generator of news, isn't complaining about him an almost pure version of shooting the messenger?

Drudge linked to Breitbart who provided a pure feed of the a Kucinich interview on Syrian television. There aren't any real time polls, responses from confederates or conspirators, talking heads or spinmeisters involved.

What more do you want? Is Drudge linking to the actual first hand source now is bias?

Nick

[giant]

Since Drudge is only an aggregator of news, and seldom a generator of news, isn't complaining about him an almost pure version of shooting the messenger?
No, and no.

[Jubelum]

Kucinich is a blame-America-first typical DNC socialist. No more, no less. Fuck him.

[trumptman]

No, and no.

Well with logic like that, who can argue.

Here's your sand pail and shovel. I'm sure the other kids in the sandbox will have reasoning on a similarly high level as no...no...no.

Nick

[Fellowship]

Kucinich is a blame-America-first typical DNC socialist. No more, no less. Fuck him.


"Blame America First" is outdated BS.

Nobody is blaming the US. The whole wide world (save the neocon cheerleaders) are Blaming the Bush Admin.

Blame Bush First? You are damn right.

Blame America First = BULLSHIT.

Fellows

Jubelum you know better.

[Jubelum]

Blame America First = BULLSHIT.


Fellows... you cannot deny that there is a sect of people out there that DO blame America first, and find fault in ALL CASES to make the US the problem.

I'm sorry, but the DNC has a great list of reasons that America is the problem in the world. Our CO2. Our capitalism. Our military. Our wealth. Our SUVs. Our guns. Our Exxon. Our resistance to subverting our own laws and Constitution to that of the UN and EU. Our propensity to look out for out national interests, just like every other country in the world does.

Our "cold and heartless, compassionless" society that will not "take care" of everyone from cradle to grave. Our electorate that is suspicious of playing "mother may I" with international bodies full of dictators and thugs like Prez Tom and Hugo.

Many of the things that made this country the lone superpower in the world are lamented by the left. That's just the truth. The 1960s chickens have come home to roost, and are now the majority in Congress. Where would the US be if the 60s kids had succeeded in destroying the eeevil US Military THEN? They've been enraged at the military since their college days, and now they are running full page ads in the NYT to trash a commanding general that was unanimously confirmed. These people are no different than they were in their formative years. They simply never grew out of what their professors filled their heads with.

We've brought more advances to this planet than any country in history, we've fought wars of liberation since our founding, and our capitalist republic system has been the aspiration of billions of people. We've done more to unlock human potential than any nation in history, and then shared those advancements with the rest of the planet.

Yet there are those who simply HATE all that this country has achieved and stands for, and are hell-bent on destroying it economically and socially- many for the same reasons that the Soviets had- "it's not FAIR that everyone not be equal in the world..." Others share the same destructive goal, but for the sake of growing radical islam.

Have there been mistakes made in American history? Of course. Huge mistakes. Mistakes and evil worthy of criticism and harsh rebuke. From Native Americans to slavery to ....., ......., ......, and Iraq in some senses.

Chances are in today's world, if you see a US politician trashing the US in the media or on foreign soil, it will be a Democrat. Kerry. Carter. Clinton. McDermott. Pelosi. Murtha. Kucinich is just the latest of a long line. No one should be surprised that they get called on this...

And not to be outdone in damaging the nation, the Republicans did their part to spend us into eternity like the liberal democrats of the previous 40 years, all the while both parties were jumping on board with further eroding civil liberties and privacy.

Don't like the war, guys? Let's all quit paying our taxes. No more war. No more nanny state. No more. Smaller governments don't spend a trillion or more on a war you disagree with. But that means you have to let go of the nanny state socialist fantasy as well. ;)

[Jubelum]

http://www.rodserling.com/images/soliberty.jpg

Was that a storyboard from the end of Spaceballs? :err:

[Splinemodel]

I say 'publicly' because odds are it is already happening - to think otherwise is naive. The only reason that they don't admit it is because of the knee-jerk reactions of people like SDW who do not understand the realities of the situation.

Does anyone understand the realities of the situation? I think there are people who understand the situation as it casts onto their own beliefs and perspectives, which I suppose is as real as the human experience gets. What it seems you're saying is that there's some understanding here that's correct, and other that are not. Very black and white thinking for a moral relativist. . .

[Jubelum]

Does anyone understand the realities of the situation?

sego understands his reality of the situation, I mean, being our resident expert on all things Mideast.
Unless you are in-country, and aware of all the intel (like, uh, I dunno... PETRAEUS) then I'd say the realities of the situation are very much open to your political filter.

[Splinemodel]

"Blame America First" is outdated BS.

Nobody is blaming the US. The whole wide world (save the neocon cheerleaders) are Blaming the Bush Admin.

Blame Bush First? You are damn right.

Blame America First = BULLSHIT.


I'd venture a guess that aside from those in this world who are vehemently against our support of Israel, there aren't really that many people who are justifiably disgusted with the United States. Sure, there will be some disapproval of the fact that the US has a big, market economy and strong military, but this is merely for the same reason people disapproved of the Brits and the Romans: basic spite. This kind of spite would probably exist whether or not Bush were president. I just don't get the impression that many people, as in "the whole wide world," are that perturbed about the whole situation. I would bet that India and China are quite pleased. I'm not even certain that the majority of western european governments are more than slightly distressed with the outcome of the Bush admin.

It's valid to criticize the Bush administration, especially given their foibles of the past few years. But I just don't buy the argument that the whole world hates America or the Bush administration. I think indifference is the primary reaction, and that many more people of the world fear Islam than they do the USA. That, perhaps, is a larger reason for concern.

[segovius]

sego understands his reality of the situation, I mean, being our resident expert on all things Mideast.
Unless you are in-country, and aware of all the intel (like, uh, I dunno... PETRAEUS) then I'd say the realities of the situation are very much open to your political filter.

Lot's of people understand the realities of the situation. Even on here.

Unfortunately SDW isn't one of them. That's all I'm saying.

[Jubelum]

Lot's of people understand the realities of the situation. Even on here.

Unfortunately SDW isn't one of them. That's all I'm saying.

We must be tolerant of his reality, though, right? :)

[Akumulator]

It's ironic SDW refers to Kucinich as a loony. I read his rant before I watched the clip. The only lunatic I see in this thread is the author. There was nothing wrong or untrue with what Kucinich said.

Die hard supporters of this failed President and his failed policies desperately try and save face by spinning the shit out of issues, spreading disinformation, spewing party talking points and demonizing the dissenters and opposition. It's fucking pathetic.

[Jubelum]

save face by spinning the shit out of issues, spreading disinformation, spewing party talking points and demonizing the dissenters and opposition. It's fucking pathetic.

:lol:

And the left does the EXACT SAME SHIT. Do you not think that the democrats do the same thing? Really? Need me to give you examples?

This is where we are in 2007 America.

[tonton]

:lol:

And the left does the EXACT SAME SHIT. Do you not think that the democrats do the same thing? Really? Need me to give you examples?

This is where we are in 2007 America.

I'd rather have a leader who's full of shit and makes mistakes with his penis than a leader who is full of shit and makes a mistake with our military, our economy and our good name. I guess I'm crazy that way.

[Splinemodel]

Lot's of people understand the realities of the situation. Even on here.


What do you consider to be the realities of the situation? That people are dying? Is that really so intolerable? The human race isn't perfect, you know, and we must account for the fact that the optimal solutions may not be available to us. I'm certainly skeptical that peaceful accords could do much to mitigate the problem: the west doesn't appreciate being culturally usurped, and the Islamic world, well, doesn't seem to appreciate modernity.

So, it's a judgement call. There are people who, for whatever reason, are of the opinion that the west needs to embrace Islamic culture. There are people who do not share this opinion. But to consider that humanity is remotely close to the stage in development where cross-cultural exchanges will always be mutually beneficial . . . well, that's hopelessly optimisitic, bordering arrogant.

Kucinich and the dems seem to embrace the "not west" position, which is so puzzling to conservatives. It's hard to make sense of a western, socially liberal politician embracing a culture that is chiefly at odds with his belief structure, or at least the one echoed in his campaign. That's the reality of the situation.

[trumptman]

"Blame America First" is outdated BS.

Nobody is blaming the US. The whole wide world (save the neocon cheerleaders) are Blaming the Bush Admin.

Blame Bush First? You are damn right.

Blame America First = BULLSHIT.

Fellows

Jubelum you know better.

You are welcome to show how it is appropriate to blame only Bush when the Democrats in Congress voted for the war and have continued to vote for and give Bush everything a Republican Congress gave or would give.

The world, if you consider the world to be Old Europe did bash Bush to make various political plays within their own countries. However the leaders who did this within their respective countries are gone. They have been replaced by or defeated in elections by other candidates who are not trying to save their own butts and retain office by screaming bumper sticker slogans.



NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ei=5088&en=c925ab884c78bfa3&ex=1344571200&pagewanted=print)

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

I'd rather have a leader who's full of shit and makes mistakes with his penis than a leader who is full of shit and makes a mistake with our military, our economy and our good name. I guess I'm crazy that way.

You are right. I'm only imagining that Clinton used the military in Haiti, Somalia, that we spent several months dropping thousands of bombs in former Yugoslavia in an attempt to...... fix a civil war and ethnic cleansing. In fact Clinton used our military to police the world jumping into civil wars all over the place.

Also thank goodness Clinton stopped lobbing bombs at Iraq, and declared them a simple paper tiger who everyone knew had no WMD's and thus anyone who attempt to lie about this, or gain votes towards it would know better.

I think your glasses are a little rose colored and polarized.

Nick

[segovius]

What do you consider to be the realities of the situation?

Depends - I have a feeling you are speaking generally. My remark referred to the reality that the West will have to butt out or deal with Iran and/or Syria.

There is another option of course: humiliating defeat - but I am assuming that isn't under consideration.

So those are the realities I was thinking of. Of course there are many others on many levels depending on context and other things.

That people are dying? Is that really so intolerable?

To me yes. To you, obviously not. The fact of the deaths is a reality to be sure, but neither your reaction to that reality or my reaction are in themselves 'realities' but rather are conditioned perspectives.

The human race isn't perfect, you know, and we must account for the fact that the optimal solutions may not be available to us.

I would rather say that it contains imperfect elements.... unfortunately these are in positions of power.

It's ok. The human race is very young and is evolving from these imperfections - in a way they are natural. We have gone from caveman to Atilla the Hun, to Ghengis Khan, to Hitler to Saddam and now to Bush and co....

Each is a massive improvement. Soon (biological time) they will all be a bad dream. Or maybe not remembered at all which will be even better.

I'm certainly skeptical that peaceful accords could do much to mitigate the problem: the west doesn't appreciate being culturally usurped, and the Islamic world, well, doesn't seem to appreciate modernity.

I probably wouldn't try to speak for 'the West' if I were you. It's a bit too big a step....stick to arguing your points on an unimportant MB like this, we need to keep perspective.

Having said that I think we could usefully rephrase:

"Certain reactionary and right-wing xenophobic elements in the West believe they are being 'usurped' and as they are insecure individuals this provides a useful hook on which to hang their developing neuroses"

Of course it does not help that their 'leaders' are the ones who feed their neuroses but that is another story....

As for 'the Islamic World' and 'modernity' (I wonder what you think of when you say this? Nothing that exists in reality surely) perhaps you should take a trip to Abu Dhabi, Dubai or UAE and then we'll talk.

Of course what you really mean is: the Islamic world does not appreciate the current US policies as acted out in the ME.

Too right. Nor do I. Nor do many people. You don't need to be Islamic to see through the BS. It helps of course which is why there is a War on Islam - but that is really only because Islam is the 'last man standing', all other 'threats' to complete Western control have now been neutralized.

So, it's a judgement call. There are people who, for whatever reason, are of the opinion that the west needs to embrace Islamic culture.

True. Very few but they exist. I would say there are more Islamophobes afraid of this then people who want it hough.

There are people who do not share this opinion.

Yes. Millions. Millions of them are even Muslims.

So many people in fact that it makes a mockery of the idea that it is even possible.

But to consider that humanity is remotely close to the stage in development where cross-cultural exchanges will always be mutually beneficial . . . well, that's hopelessly optimisitic, bordering arrogant.

You say that because you are of the constituency that is beyond help in that regard...with an agenda even. But then you seem to regard 'cross-cultural interaction' (?) as some sort of threat.

Perhaps it is in a way. The civil rights movement was indeed a threat to dyed in the wool racists and I suppose they were right when they discussed it in those terms.

But people far more intelligent and influential than you have already launched the boat in this regard. You are too late.

Kucinich and the dems seem to embrace the "not west" position, which is so puzzling to conservatives. It's hard to make sense of a western, socially liberal politician embracing a culture that is chiefly at odds with his belief structure, or at least the one echoed in his campaign. That's the reality of the situation.

That's always the reality of the situation - that was the reality of the situation when the IRA were murdering people in London. Hard to embrace but one day it was inevitable that the two sides got together.

You see that was my point - which you seem incapable of grasping (the alternative that you actively oppose it in principle would be an insult to consider); that AT SOME POINT two opposing sides will get together.

You can be a uniter or a divider.... division always leads to conflict but at some point it always stops. Always.

I would say why not now?

Why not bring Iran and Syria in now?

Of course there are many people - and you and SDW may well be of their number - that would prefer to bomb the populace of those two places to shit BEFORE sitting round the table.

Perhaps you believe it is impossible to sit round a table and negotiate WITHOUT having 'proved your strength' - but I don't .

Why not do it now? All I've heard is foaming at the mouth and labeling it 'insane' while gibbering about 'Islamofascists'. There's no substance to it and no solutions...

One more thing: Someone I respect greatly - and who incidentally is a real Christian embodying the spirit of Christ - is the Archbishop of Canterbury's Middle East envoy Terry Waite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Waite) who you may remember was sent to Lebanon to secure the release of hostages and was kidnapped himself and held hostage for FOUR YEARS by militant Islamists.

Of anyone knows 'the reality of the situation' it is him. An expert on the Middle east who was himself a hostage for 1,763 days - the first FOUR YEARS in solitary confinement.

What does he think of the situation today? What are his views based on his experiences?

Find out here (http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL0774929020070907)

And here... (http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=September2007&file=Local_News2007090631043.xml)

"No insurgency or terrorism has been defeated by warfare or violence. My own experience shows that you can talk to those whose positions seem impossible," said Waite.

"There are some rational players in al Qaeda but it also attracts the psychotic. We need to seek an entry point."

And again:

Dialogue, not war, is the right way to tackle the extremist elements in the Islamic world, including Al Qaeda, according to Terry Waite, who successfully negotiated for the release of hostages in Libya and Iran.

Waite said "From my experience of talking with the so-called extremist groups and individuals like the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and Hezbollah in Lebanon, I believe we should address the reasons behind extremism."

“Don't be premature. Give dialogue a chance," he added.

Waite called for a dialogue with Al Qaeda, in the same way talks were held with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the African National Congress (ANC).

“Talking to Al Qaeda involves the question, whom we would talk to: what is Al Qaeda," said Waite. Al Qaeda has been attributed an organisational structure which it really doesn't have. "I don't think Osama bin Laden will be ready to sit and talk with George W Bush,” said Waite.

"Al Qaeda is not representative of the Islamic world. We should deal with the Islamic world in general and try to explore the root cause of the problem," he noted.

Waite was also of the mind that ransoms should never be paid for hostages, as was allegedly the case with the South Koreans held captive by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

When Bush said "you are either with us or against us" he was right. You are either on the side of dialogue, uniting, reason and longing for peace - and on the side of Terry Waite and millions like him....

Or you are on the side of disunity, force, will through strength and control, the arms business and longing for war - and on the side of all those who argue that is the only way.

Sooner or later we will all have to choose and we should think carefully - you never know until it is too late just who you will be standing next to when you have chosen your side.

[SDW2001]

Actually, that's absolutely correct. At this point, it's less about drudge than it is about how you keep reading and getting hysterical about stuff on drudge despite the fact that it invariably turns out to be not quite what you believed, which is putting it mildly.

Drudge links to mainstream news sites for the most part. I don't see the problem, other than it makes you throw up in your mouth to realize that Matt Drudge is a....<gulp> Conservative.

[SDW2001]

No, and no.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. If you have another argument, perhaps you could consider posting it? Drudge often quotes headlines of major news sites (NYT, LAT, Breitbart, Reuters, AP, WashPost, et al) directly and without edit. He will occasionally "juice up" the headline and he's certainly sensationalistic, but for the most part his headline snapshots are indicative of what the articles are about. There are exceptions, where I have read the article and thought "that really isn't what this says...the headline is just inflammatory."

But of course, it's much easier for you to perceive me as someone who doesn't READ the article and is incapable of critical thinking. It's much easier to post your drivel when you can portray your opponent as a lemming winger of sorts. Ironically, it's you...the NUTroots that all sound the same.

[jimmac]

Drudge links to mainstream news sites for the most part. I don't see the problem, other than it makes you throw up in your mouth to realize that Matt Drudge is a....<gulp> Conservative.

That's starting to carry a negative reference now days. You can thank Mr. Bush for that!;)

[@_@ Artman]

You see that was my point - which you seem incapable of grasping (the alternative that you actively oppose it in principle would be an insult to consider); that AT SOME POINT two opposing sides will get together.

You can be a uniter or a divider.... division always leads to conflict but at some point it always stops. Always.

I would say why not now?

Why not bring Iran and Syria in now?

Of course there are many people - and you and SDW may well be of their number - that would prefer to bomb the populace of those two places to shit BEFORE sitting round the table.

Perhaps you believe it is impossible to sit round a table and negotiate WITHOUT having 'proved your strength' - but I don't .

Neither should Splinemodel, SDW, et al...

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1972/1101720306_400.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1985/1101851118_400.jpg

:\

[Fellowship]

You are welcome to show how it is appropriate to blame only Bush when the Democrats in Congress voted for the war and have continued to vote for and give Bush everything a Republican Congress gave or would give.


Nick

So now we blame the democrats who allowed the war. Nick you just became lame with that statement. Mommy Daddy said I could do it....... Sooooo I blame daddy... he let me hit the cat...... I had nothing to do with it I am just a liddle baby... it was DADDY...

So It has everything to do with everybody but Bush... LOL Hell Blame the French. They caused Bush to do it...


I tell you... the Bush apologists are getting more ignorant by the day. Nick I love you but for God's sake what kind of child are you being with your logic here.

CONGRESS LET BUSH HAVE HIS WAR..... NANNYNANNYNOONY NINNY I CANT HEAR YOU THEY LET HIM HAVE HIS WAR THEY DID IT TOO LA LA...

For the record I agree congress should be held accountable just as Bush but Nick don't you agree that Bush is the one who demanded this war more than any other person? Yet it is not ok to go to the top and blame him?

I beg to differ.

It seems to me the Bush / Dick supporters are trying to save face by blaming everybody but their boys. It can't be their boys they have supported so ignorantly all these years.

It is time to face the music for the neocon cheer leaders in this country. Just admit the obvious... It is not hard for the rest of the world to see how lame you cheer leaders are with your fake arguments.

Fellows

[trumptman]

Wow... half rant, half lovefest. :)

So now we blame the democrats who allowed the war. Nick you just became lame with that statement. Mommy Daddy said I could do it....... Sooooo I blame daddy... he let me hit the cat...... I had nothing to do with it I am just a liddle baby... it was DADDY...

The most interesting thing about your quote there Fellowship it actually represents the pathology of those Democrats who voted for the war. Kerry, Edwards and Clinton have claimed they really aren't responsible for their own votes.

Why the double standard? Why do we vote a Republican out of office who voted for the war, but let the Democrat claim that Daddy Bush lied about the intelligence they didn't even go read themselves, voted to support, and still have not expressed a change in pre-emptive war as a foreign policy tool?

Clinton and Obama (perhaps Edwards but I haven't followed him as well) have both made statements supporting pre-emptive war even AFTER Iraq and if elected.

I tell you... the Bush apologists are getting more ignorant by the day. Nick I love you but for God's sake what kind of child are you being with your logic here.

CONGRESS LET BUSH HAVE HIS WAR..... NANNYNANNYNOONY NINNY I CANT HEAR YOU THEY LET HIM HAVE HIS WAR THEY DID IT TOO LA LA...


I'm being the kind of child who can see that when you say you voted to support a pre-emptive war in the past, claim you will support pre-emptive war in the future and have not stopped the man you gave consent to conduct a pre-emptive war, then you really don't represent change and instead desire to criticize only for political gain.

For the record I agree congress should be held accountable just as Bush but Nick don't you agree that Bush is the one who demanded this war more than any other person? Yet it is not ok to go to the top and blame him?

Do you honestly think that anyone who disagrees with the war doesn't blame Bush? This is a false dilemma. You can desire to blame Bush AND still desire to assign responsibility to those who voted to authorize the war. One does not preclude the other.

It seems to me the Bush / Dick supporters are trying to save face by blaming everybody but their boys. It can't be their boys they have supported so ignorantly all these years.

If you draw different conclusions from the same set of actions, it is a double standard. If you blame Bush then you blame his enablers. You do not blame one and excuse the other.

It is time to face the music for the neocon cheer leaders in this country. Just admit the obvious... It is not hard for the rest of the world to see how lame you cheer leaders are with your fake arguments.

Did the 2006 midterm elections just disappear? I'll cut you some slack Fellowship. All you have to do is find me ONE piece of legislation related to the war in Iraq or war on terror in general that was passed by Democrats and made a change from prior policy under the Republican Congress.

Find me one change that has occurred.

Nick

[Fellowship]

Wow... half rant, half lovefest. :)



Did the 2006 midterm elections just disappear? I'll cut you some slack Fellowship. All you have to do is find me ONE piece of legislation related to the war in Iraq or war on terror in general that was passed by Democrats and made a change from prior policy under the Republican Congress.

Find me one change that has occurred.

Nick

First off Nick I never like to get on to you because you are one of my favs ;) LOL

But you are right that the Democrats in congress have been a freaking joke. My main concern is what this is costing the US in all terms. Are you happy with this war in Iraq?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Speaking about lameness...

Let's drop the god-awfully asinine "mommy/daddy/nanny" line of political criticism.

Spoken from one who loves a good nanny ;) I am sorry I pick on the idea of a nanny but there is a point to be made how political leaders from both parties appeal to certain people out there in the country in a "nannylike" appeal.

The Government will take care of you...

Democrats.. We will give you your domestic entitlements

Republicans... We are the only ones who can protect you from the "strangers"

Ahhh so nice to have our parents above on the hill taking care of us as we are such children in need of a nanny state.

But hey these political leaders would never pander would they? :smokey::p

Fellows

[Jubelum]

Spoken from one who loves a good nanny ;) I am sorry I pick on the idea of a nanny but there is a point to be made how political leaders from both parties appeal to certain people out there in the country in a "nannylike" appeal.

The Government will take care of you...

Democrats.. We will give you your domestic entitlements

Republicans... We are the only ones who can protect you from the "strangers"

Ahhh so nice to have our parents above on the hill taking care of us as we are such children in need of a nanny state.


100% correct.

[Fellowship]

No, it's inflammatory and stupid.

Enough.

Shawn what is wrong? You don't sound your normal cheerful self?

Fellows

[Jubelum]

No, it's inflammatory and stupid.


or, as can easily be seen, uh "TRUE."

[Fellowship]

Long week and trying to do work in advance so I could go to Penn State this weekend.

:) <--- here we go.
Good luck man,, You know we are pulling for you.

Fellows

[trumptman]

First off Nick I never like to get on to you because you are one of my favs ;) LOL

But you are right that the Democrats in congress have been a freaking joke. My main concern is what this is costing the US in all terms. Are you happy with this war in Iraq?

Fellows

I go both ways on this Fellowship. If we are going to be the police for the world, then we had to go into Iraq. If we are going to simply be another member of the international community and not be responsible for the world-at-large via Pax Americana, then that is what we should pursue.

You'll notice my sig. It is quite telling of this view. It is why I note that Clinton and Democrats are really no different. Clinton intervened in many different countries, many because of civil wars much like people are decrying us being involved with in Iraq.

For me, there is no middle ground. Also I have not heard anyone who is a true Democratic nominee for president claim they would move us away from Pax Americana and let the world fend for itself. This is why they can demand we would remove troops, but use qualifiers to keep them there. They end up no different than Bush in that regard.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I go both ways on this Fellowship. If we are going to be the police for the world, then we had to go into Iraq.

Er... stopping you right there.

—No-one asked you to be the world police.
—No-one wanted you to be the world police.
—If you really wanted to be the world police then you wouldn't have started with Iraq—you'd have finished the job in Afghanistan and then gone to Saudi Arabia.

[trumptman]

I agree that we don't have to be the world police. However to ignore the isolationism in America's past and declare that they were not forced away from it by the various world wars is just ignorance of history. America was content to simply supply Europe for their fights until a certain country decided to bomb a certain harbor.

The U.S. role since then has been world cop mostly because of NATO and the U.N. The role was easily endorsed at first because it provided balance to the Soviet bloc. Finally we can't ignore things like the Marshall Plan which gave the United States the responsibility for basically rebuilding Europe in hopes of ending the starvation and recession there, and hopefully put an end to the chronic wars on that continent.

There are plenty in the United States who do not desire us to continue this role however my point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say be the police for the world and then complain that certain actions are not consented to by rogue elements or even complain about exercise of authority. My view is that if the United States is willing to give up authority and action, then complaints about responsibility must fall on deaf ears

Nick

[jimmac]

Well here's an interesting look at the situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/911.poll/index.html


" Poll: Few Americans think U.S. is winning war on terror "


From the article :

" Six years after the worst terror attacks on U.S. soil, three in 10 Americans believe the United States and its allies are winning the global war on terror -- one of the main justifications cited by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. "

;)

[Jubelum]

CNN link #412. Added to wistful glee at perceived American weakness for purely political reasons.
America is losing! Rah! Rah! And nanny nanny boo boo Bush sucks too!

And we just had a discussion about how there are some that LOVE bad news about the US effort because of their own political goals.

Choice.

[SDW2001]

Neither should Splinemodel, SDW, et al...

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1972/1101720306_400.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1985/1101851118_400.jpg

:\

Yeah, 'cause those were the same situations. Jesus.

Er... stopping you right there.

—No-one asked you to be the world police.
—No-one wanted you to be the world police.
—If you really wanted to be the world police then you wouldn't have started with Iraq—you'd have finished the job in Afghanistan and then gone to Saudi Arabia.

1. Actually, we get asked all the time.
2. Actually, many do...as soon as they have a problem with the bully at the end of the block.
3. I don't know what that means.

Well here's an interesting look at the situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/911.poll/index.html


" Poll: Few Americans think U.S. is winning war on terror "


From the article :

" Six years after the worst terror attacks on U.S. soil, three in 10 Americans believe the United States and its allies are winning the global war on terror -- one of the main justifications cited by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. "

;)

:lol: I love that last sentence! Its so...BALANCED! You know, you're great at posting these opinion polls that supposedly reinforce your opinion, as if they mean anything at all.

Let me tell you something I've learned. People tend to be REALLY CRAPPY at assessing how things are going at the moment. Be it the WOT, the economy, education, what have you. They never seem to know what they've had until they've lost it. So we have these polls. The Iraqis want us out, they think XYZ, our economy sucks, right track/wrong track, job approval, etc. It's all CRAP, because it's based on nothing but how people are feeling. And making large decisions based on the fleeting feelings of the masses is just plain stupid.

[Jubelum]

Let me tell you something I've learned. People tend to be REALLY CRAPPY at assessing how things are going at the moment. Be it the WOT, the economy, education, what have you. They never seem to know what they've had until they've lost it. So we have these polls. The Iraqis want us out, they think XYZ, our economy sucks, right track/wrong track, job approval, etc. It's all CRAP, because it's based on nothing but how people are feeling. And making large decisions based on the fleeting feelings of the masses is just plain stupid.

From a sociological perspective, this is a documented phenomenon. People hear what they hear in the media and from their social networks and literally report the same feelings so as not to be "uninformed" or "incorrect" when their opinion or experience conflicts with what the opinion-makers (read:MSM) are pushing. Those folks, minus FNC, have been talking the economy, the war, Bush, the GWOT, global warming, health care, and the whole playlist of the nightly news into a crisis mentality. Their "crises" are the DNCs vote-getting "crises." How often do you hear the word "crisis" come out of a conservative's mouth? Only concerning illegal immigration and terrorism, by and large. I don't have the rest of the night to type out every liberal "crisis" that we are being told we need to look to the federal government to "fix" with higher taxes and less freedom.

I mean, who the hell wants to be called "unenlightened" by the arrogant assholes in PO because they dare to question the dogma? Oh, the FEAR! It's not that you disagree, it's that you are not as smart as us. :lol: Incredible in practice. Enlightened people understand human nature and predator mentality. The modern left understands neither, or at least pretends not to for political expediency.

Polls really do not mean shit anymore. Really. The noise machine from both sides has so distorted and polarized things that you rarely, very rarely, get to actual opinions. And the more polarized the country is, the less accurate these polls become.

[midwinter]

The noise machine from both sides has so distorted and polarized things that you rarely, very rarely, get to actual opinions.

Radio 4 did a lovely piece on Verdi this morning.

[tonton]

So now I understand completely what SDW is saying in this thread.

Even if Kucinich is arguably right about everything he said, and even if his ideas about dialogue with Iran and Syria have been floated by even the Republicans, and even though everyone knows all of this already, the fact that he said it where he said it and to whom, and at what time, makes him "effing loony" and "traitorous". Got it.

Traitors are those who keep making "effing" excuses for this administration.

Saying "Bush fucked up" is NOT anti-American, nor does it give aid and comfort to the enemy. It gives us a chance to make a correction.

[Jubelum]

Saying "Bush fucked up" is NOT anti-American, nor does it give aid and comfort to the enemy. It gives us a chance to make a correction.

Cozying up to Lil Bashar is aid and comfort. Sorry.

Talking about Chimpy is not anti-American. Trashing our troops in the field is. *coughMurthaMcDermottKerryReidLantosPelosicough*

[tonton]

Cozying up to Lil Bashar is aid and comfort. Sorry.

Talking about Chimpy is not anti-American. Trashing our troops in the field is. *coughMurthaMcDermottKerryReidLantosPelosicough*

Nobody is "trashing our troops" except those who commit crimes. Please show me one example of "troop trashing" that isn't related to terrible misbehavior, directed at those doing the misbehaving, or the culture that allows such misbehaviour (that should by right be addressed immediately and never tolerated again). Didn't we learn anything at all from "little gook babies!"?

[tonton]

Cozying up to Lil Bashar is aid and comfort. Sorry.

I disagree. Taking responsibility for a mistake is not "cozying up". by far the greatest amount of "aid and comfort" for the enemy comes from the inept management of the war. When we say "we're not going to stand for this failure any more" we are not aiding them. We are actually doing something that should give them cause for concern.

[@_@ Artman]

Cozying up to Lil Bashar is aid and comfort. Sorry.

Talking about Chimpy is not anti-American. Trashing our troops in the field is. *coughMurthaMcDermottKerryReidLantosPelosicough*

You understand too that he also went there to view the care of the 1.5 million refugees from Iraq who streamed over Syria's borders (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/09-02-2007/0004655337&EDATE=SUN+Sep+02+2007,+11:27+PM).

Kucinich said the fact that Syria, a nation of just 20 million people, has both welcomed and is providing free health care and education to the million and a half Iraqi refugees is evidence of Syria's vital role in the region. "The international community must recognize and appreciate that Syria has at its own great cost provided a lifeboat to millions who suffer from the humanitarian crisis which the war in Iraq has created."

But skip over that. Nothing to see here, move along...

How many Iraqi refugees have been allowed into the U.S.?

Approximately 7,000 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/)

The United States will soon begin admitting a bigger trickle of the more than 2 million refugees who have fled Iraq, acknowledging for the first time the country may never be safe for some who have helped the U.S. there.

After months of agonizing delays and withering criticism from advocacy groups and lawmakers, the Bush administration has finalized new guidelines to screen Iraqi refugees, including those seeking asylum because helping the Americans has put them at huge risk.

The 2 million-plus people — the fastest growing refugee population in the world — have left Iraq, but Washington has balked at allowing them into the United States for security reasons.

No, Syria has not been the bastion of peace and human rights. But neither was China or Russia in the 70's and 80's respectfully. One of the truly great qualities of leadership is to face the opposing leaders across a table and iron out differences. But first you have to have credibility if that is your goal. Bush and this administration doesn't have the "prestige anymore to be a negotiator (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da91e5ce-615e-11dc-bf25-0000779fd2ac.html).

[segovius]

No, Syria has not been the bastion of peace and human rights. But neither was China or Russia in the 70's and 80's respectfully.

There are more human rights there than in the States of many US allies. You could go downtown Damascus any day of the week, go to a Christian Church, head to a bar afterwards for a few G&Ts, check out some (non-hijab wearing) babes and party till dawn in your establishment of choice.

Try that in Saudi or Pakistan and it won't just be the 300 lashes in public you'll be worrying about.

Btw: Syria is fighting the same extremists the US claims to be - of course the US will never give any credit to this because they are 'evildoers' but it revolves just the same.

[Jubelum]

Free Republic called. It wants one of its members back.
Go on now! Goooo on.

You know nothing. Nothing at all. :p

[@_@ Artman]

There are more human rights there than in the States of many US allies. You could go downtown Damascus any day of the week, go to a Christian Church, head to a bar afterwards for a few G&Ts, check out some (non-hijab wearing) babes and party till dawn in your establishment of choice.

Try that in Saudi or Pakistan and it won't just be the 300 lashes in public you'll be worrying about.

Btw: Syria is fighting the same extremists the US claims to be - of course the US will never give any credit to this because they are 'evildoers' but it revolves just the same.

Thanks for the "report on the ground" or "embedded party animal" observation :D. People need to travel more, read more and just understand that people on average in many countries are doing just what we do, barring a few religious or power mad nut-jobs of course.

Kucinich really got no positive press from this meeting. None that I could find. :rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

When we say "we're not going to stand for this failure any more" we are not aiding them. We are actually doing something that should give them cause for concern.

:lol: You can't be serious. NEWS FLASH- your side is advocating WITHDRAWAL- that is a wet dream for the insurgents who want to turn Iraq into a land of sectarian warlords. Concern? CONCERN? They''re dancing in the streets every time a Democrat gets in front of a camera with another "terrorizing women and children in the dead of night" comment or PelosiReidMurthaWexler pontification. Cause for CONCERN? ROTFLMFAO. Cause to celebrate. :devil:

I'll say again- the "enlightened" Democrats just do not understand the predator mentality.

Like Mookie Al Sadr is saying to the guys "oh my gosh- they are going to leave- just like we want them to... oh, no... please, please... we're concerned because you are doing exactly what we have been praying for. "

It's like Parallel Universe time. I know we need to ricochet the conversation, what with OBL's talking points sounding just like the far left Democratic Leadership (minus that dislike of taxes thing)

[trumptman]

It's not even close. What are you talking about?

I'm always perplexed that people can make broad pronouncements like that 1) because treason is such a difficult crime to prove and purposefully has such a high standard of proof that you have to know only the most extraordinary acts can be considered treason 2) because it's an odious form of political criticism to accuse your opponents of treason especially in light of the necessarily cynical motives behind it. I say necessarily because as the first point illustrates, you can't possibly believe what you're saying has even the remotest possibility of truthfulness.



Free Republic called. It wants one of its members back.

Go on now! Goooo on.

So you are saying you wouldn't prosecute the case out of fear of not getting a conviction. That is fine but it doesn't mean he can't call it aid and comfort. There is more to life than the law. Some of us even have degrees that are NOT law in the law but in other human endeavors.

Strange but true, I know.

Also the KosKids called... they want to know where you took the ad-lib forms for their anti-semetic comment generator.

[Jubelum]

Oh to be inside the head of a Freeper.

Are you really personally comitted to being in Iraq for the next 20-30 years or however long it takes, knowing full well that the chance of any sort of "success" at this point is extremely attenuated? Fortunately, you don't get to make those kinds of decisions to expend our nation's resources all by yourself. We have a party in Congress that recognizes the reality of our situation-- which you are either incompetently blind to or just cynically playing political games with whatever talking points that help make the Iraq pill easier for you to swallow.


Freeper? FYI- I don't visit FR, but if that makes your intellectual dismissal easier then by all means, be my guest. The "you read X" is far beneath your capabilities, Shawn.

I've got no interest in being in Iraq in 5 years, if that long. Look back through my posts and you'll recall my disapproval of many aspects of the iraq situation. I've said over and over that the iraqis need to step up and meet the deadlines. It is time for this war to end- with a US victory rather than a political defeat. I'm sorry there is no "instant gratification" here, I know that is often how the left side of the isle works.

Your beloved "party in Congress" is doing NOTHING of substance (as usual), preferring the symbolism of grilling a decorated officer and letting the CodePinkos do the media work. OBL is 100% correct- the Dems have no spine. At all. What is holding you guys back from defunding, cutting off the troops, and bringing it all to an end if there is such widespread public support? Huh? It's like "where's the beef" all over again. You guys accuse Bush of chest-thumping, well, the Ds talk a big game on ending the war, let's see some actions that back it all up. I mean, actions besides slumber parties and "betrayus" ads.

[@_@ Artman]

Oh to be inside the head of a Freeper.

Are you really personally comitted to being in Iraq for the next 20-30 years or however long it takes, knowing full well that the chance of any sort of "success" at this point is extremely attenuated? Fortunately, you don't get to make those kinds of decisions to expend our nation's resources all by yourself. We have a party in Congress that recognizes the reality of our situation-- which you are either incompetently blind to or just cynically playing political games with whatever talking points that help make the Iraq pill easier for you to swallow.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/democrats-spot-a-backbone.jpg

Jubelum is right on the Iraq thing. The Democrats have no backbone at all regarding Iraq, there are Republicans who have gone to Iraq numerous times and they have decided that they were wrong in supporting it, too. Go both ways, not only Democrats though. Honestly they're all fools. They are not seeing (or showing us) the real picture. Neither are all the top presidential candidates, ignorant to the fact that we will never leave Afghanistan, Iraq and more than likely Iran.

Will the U.S. ever leave Iraq? Official policy promises an eventual departure, while warning of the dire consequences of a "premature" withdrawal. But while Washington equivocates, facts on the ground tell another story. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, and author Chalmers Johnson, are discovering that military bases in Iraq are being consolidated from over a hundred to a handful of "megabases" with lavish amenities. Much of what is taking place is obscured by denials and quibbles over the definition of "permanent." The Bases Are Loaded covers a wide range of topics. Gary Hart, James Goldsborough, Nadia Keilani, Raed Jarrar, Bruce Finley Kam Zarrabi and Mark Rudd all add their observations about the extent and purpose of the bases in Iraq.


The Bases Are Loaded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQHeo-CMQyc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fheathlander%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F 2007%2F09%2F12%2Fthe%2Dbases%2Dare%2Dloaded%2F)

The only prediction I can make with clarity now after watching this report is that we will stay in Iraq solely for the reason that we have permanent military bases in Iraq (and Afghanistan, though the Pentagon omits many of them from their reports). To protect the sole reason we are there for: Oil.

The only recourse to change this fact is if we lose, surrender, pack our bags and go home.

No one can argue this so far. No one can. Because it's the truth.

[Jubelum]

Go both ways, not only Democrats though. Honestly they're all fools. They are not seeing (or showing us) the real picture. Neither are all the top presidential candidates, ignorant to the fact that we will never leave Afghanistan, Iraq and more than likely Iran.

Spot on.

[@_@ Artman]

Spot on.

"Democrats are the party of no ideas; Republicans are the party of bad ideas. The only thing worse than Republicans and Democrats ... is when they work together!" -Lewis Black

:lol:

[Nightcrawler]

I don't know about that. I'd actually say at the very most. It was unquestionably legal from the standpoint of US law. "International law" is basically meaningless in this regard. If it was followed, there would never be another war again. But whatever...the problem wasn't even the opinion. [b] It was where he said it, why he said it, and to whom he said it.

According to US-law any war that the congress authorises or declares is legal, since there are no limitations to the US' souvereignity to lead wars as long as the congress agrees.

But there is an international law trying to reduce the occurrences of war, and the US is liable to that international law like all UN-members.

According to that international law war is only legal for the purpose of selfdefense from direct attacks and from imminent dangers.

The use of force is also allowed within the body of the security-council in order to maintain peace and security.

The Bush-administration although already authorised by Congress to use force, made the deliberate attempt to gain international legality for the planned invasion by trying to convince the UN.

In front of the UN, Powell made the case that Saddam Hussein violated the UN-resolutions put in place against Iraq by not cooperating fully with the UN-inspectors, and secretely maintained an active WMD-program developing nukes, chemical and biological weapons, and thus justifying the US as a member of the SC to enforce militarily the resolutions, which would make the invasion legal.

There are a few problems with that argumentation:

1. Individual members of the SC don't have the right to unilaterally use force to enforce resolutions. Only the SC can decide if force should be applied.

2. The decision that Iraq was or was not in compliance with resolutions can't be made by individual members of the SC, but only by the organizations tasked with the controlling of Iraq, ie. the IAEA and UNMOVIC. In fact neither organization found that Iraq was not in compliance, and stated shortly before the invasion that it would take months to verify Iraq's compliance one way or the other.

3. The resolutions have no passage aiming at regime-change. Even if IAEA and UNMOVIC had concluded that Iraq was in violation and the SC ordered that force should be applied to enforce the resolutions, there is no rationale or justification based on the resolutions to conduct a regime-change.

That's why the UNSC did not authorise a military intervention, and that's why the US formed its own coalition of the willing to do the job outside of the UNSC.

The US tried to justify their unilateral action on the basis of selfdefense in face of imminent danger, but since that could not be explained rationally, the US-administration invented a new category, preemptive selfdefense, against a danger that will probably come to fruit in the future, citing the claim that Iraq and Al-Qaeeda cooperate, and therefore the danger would be there that WMD's espescially nukes could be given by Iraq to Al-Qaeeda in order to smuggle them to the US and to use them in a terror-attack...


a claim, the US-administration knew was wrong before the invasion, but was so convenient to instrumentalise in the post-9/11-world.

Therefore the invasion was internationally illegal the whole way through.

In fact the invasion's goal of regime-change was made in 1998 under Clinton and the decision to remodel the middle-east according to US' strategic and ressource-interests was made in 1990 and 1975, and this whole project served only to establish permanent US-military bases in Iraq, in order to have a secondary guaranteed access to oil-fields in the ME, as well as to have leverage against Russia and China.

Now that the US and the coalition of the willing have illegaly invaded a souvereign state for the purpose of regime-change, getting access to fossile ressources and installing permanent military bases, why doesn't the world form another alliance to throw out the US and its allies out of Iraq, just like the world did it when Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait?

Nightcrawler

[Jubelum]

How on earth can you believe any sort of success- however that's measured- is still possible?


OK, smart guy- GIVE ME A SOLUTION. You have a shitload of criticisms for the right, for anyone attached to the current situation (I mean, besides the Dems who voted for the war as well)... so fine, it's now ShawnWorld, and you can do whatever you wants. Tell us all how YOU are going to solve the problem moving forward. I'm excited to hear what real solutions you have.


you and your fellow war apologists don't make the political situation any easier. You're complicit in all of this

:lol: apologists? complicit? you're confused, and willfully so. Go back and read my posts, Shawn. Just because I do not agree with your little POV does not mean that I do agree with BushCo and the endless-war crowd. I expect deeper, non-2D thinking from you. As far as being complicit- uh, Democrats voted FOR the war, FOR PATRIOT, and continue to fund both. That is what we call complicit- having the power to change the status quo and not doing anything but political theatrics with sleep-overs and officer-trashing.

[Jubelum]

Rep Wexler has a bit of a spine- I'd love to see the polls if the Democrats would ALL sound like this. It'd be 1994 all over again. The American people LOVE things like this, especially when thrown at a four star theater general who made the mistake of reporting good news that is bad for an American political party.

Wexler: I vehemently opposed the surge when the president announced that last winter and instead I call for troops be withdrawn. In your testimony today you claim that the surge is working and you need more time. With all respect General, among unbiased nonpartisan expert consensus is far. The surge has failed based on most parameters. In truth, war related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we’ve been talking today. Cherry picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth.

And please understand Gen. P., I do not question your credibility. You are a true patriot. I admire your service to our nation, but I do question your facts. And it is my patriotic duty to represent my constituents and ask you. question you about your argument that the surge in troops be expended until next summer, especially when your testimony stating that the dramatic reduction in sectarian death is opposite from the National intelligence estimate the Government accounting office and several other non-biased non- partisan reports.

I am skeptical General, more importantly the American people are skeptical because four years ago very credible people while in uniform and not in uniform came before this Congress and sold us a bill of goods that turned out to be false. And that’s why we went to war based on false pretense to begin with.

This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April twenty eighth nineteen sixty seven from General William Westmoreland, when he told the American people–America was making progress in Vietnam.

General you say we’re making progress in Iraq but the Iraqi parliament simply left Baghdad and shut down operations last month. You say were making progress but the nonpartisan GAO office concluded that the Iraqi government has failed to meet a fifteen of the eighteen political economic and security benchmarks that Congress mandated. You say we’re making top progress? War related deaths have doubled. An ABC/BBC poll recently said that seventy percent of Iraqis say the surge has worsened their lives. Iraqis say the surge is not working.

I will conclude my comments General and give you a chance to respond but there’s one more thing if I may. We’ve heard a lot today about America’s credibility. President Bush recently stated we should not have withdrawn our troops in Vietnam because of the great damage to America’s credibility. General, there are fifty eight thousand one hundred ninety five names etched into the Vietnam war Memorial. Twenty years from now when we build the Iraq war memorial on the National Mall, how many more men and women will have been sacrificed to protect our so called credibility? How many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave?

Wow, this guy is really playing to his base. MoveOn and the CodePink girls must be having a massive collective orgasm hearing this. Many of you here as well. As far as Schmexler- I like the CYA placating of "yeah patriot, yeah yeah" and the outright lie that the surge has failed. Even Wexler's fellow Dems are starting to say that it is having an effect. So is the military on the ground.

Also Bobby, good CodePinko points for bringin up Vietnam- that's always a winner of a talking point.

Oh, and "I'm not questioning your credibility, but you are full of shit" :lol:

[Jubelum]

We leave.

Oh, OK. That's nice. I'm sure Iran will welcome the news that Prez Shawn has let the vacuum emerge... so will Al Sadr and whatever Syrians care to jump in. Most excellent- a total breakdown of ALL stability! Brilliant!

We should not have gone, but now we are where we are, and should not leave in a way that will get a whole lot of of allies killed en masse, and make our dead and wounded vain losses.

Have you thought through, for real, the consequences of "just leave." ?



Comparing Democrats to OBL and to insurgents "dancing in the streets" isn't much of a difference, Jube

Do I need to review all of the common talking points that the two have in common? Oh please say yes. Please. :p

[@_@ Artman]

Rep Wexler has a bit of a spine- I'd love to see the polls if the Democrats would ALL sound like this.

And if he/they mentioned the permanent U.S. Military bases, the half-billion dollar, shiny, new, furnished swimming pool, shopping mall, food court of an U.S. Embassy we are building in Iraq too.

No?

Then another spineless, lying politician. :grumble:

[Jubelum]

And if he/they mentioned the permanent U.S. Military bases, the half-billion dollar, shiny, new, furnished swimming pool, shopping mall, food court of an U.S. Embassy we are building in Iraq too.

No?

Then another spineless, lying politician. :grumble:

Wow... a food court! I can't wait to take the kids. Luuuuuu-cy... get the kids in the Edsel, we're going to the REAL "Mall of the Americas"!

Kudos for pointing out what so many are missing- we are never fully leaving Iraq. Not as long as there is a drop of the black stuff under foot. (Or until Exxon finally lets us have that patent for the car that runs on water)

The middle east someday will look just like the pacific rim- Okinawa, Guam, et al - it's the strategic end of "force projection." :rolleyes:

[tonton]

Like Mookie Al Sadr is saying to the guys "oh my gosh- they are going to leave- just like we want them to... oh, no... please, please... we're concerned because you are doing exactly what we have been praying for. "

So even though leaving may be the right thing to do, we shouldn't leave because that's what some of them want us to do? So we should stay to spite them and not let them "win", meaning get what they want? You know, insane people think like that.

[@_@ Artman]

Wow... a food court! I can't wait to take the kids. Luuuuuu-cy... get the kids in the Edsel, we're going to the REAL "Mall of the Americas"!

http://www.pcwjunkies.com/images/pcw/trips/ttm/ttm_7.jpg

:err:

[tonton]

According to US-law any war that the congress authorises or declares is legal, since there are no limitations to the US' souvereignity to lead wars as long as the congress agrees.

But there is an international law trying to reduce the occurrences of war, and the US is liable to that international law like all UN-members.

I don't get these two paragraphs. They are contradictory. If US is bound by international law, as they are under Article VI:

...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Then as you claim, "any war that the congress authorises or declares" is NOT legal if it goes against international treaties to which the US is a signatory. There ARE limitations.

But I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post.

[Flounder]

So even though leaving may be the right thing to do, we shouldn't leave because that's what some of them want us to do? So we should stay to spite them and not let them "win", meaning get what they want? You know, insane people think like that.

You know, it's pretty similar to the logic of the irrational escalation of committment editorial midwinter linked to in the other thread that's raging right now.

In fact, I like it so much that I'll post it here.


http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070912/OPINION03/709120368/1039/OPINION03

[Jubelum]

So even though leaving may be the right thing to do, we shouldn't leave because that's what some of them want us to do? So we should stay to spite them and not let them "win", meaning get what they want? You know, insane people think like that.

There are going to be a lot of dead Iraqis if we ditch. Hundreds of thousands for years and years.
There are going to be more dead Americans if we stay. Possibly thousands more.
Neither one of those things is OK with me. Not one bit. We've already pinned the blame on Bush.

What we do now will have an effect for generations in the region, probably the world. An Iranian/Syrian hegemony, put in place by a premature American withdrawal, will surely damage the West for generations. They'll turn off the spigot, or bring us to our knees with it. Too bad we cannot go get our own oil here stateside because of many of the same people who want the withdrawal. Like it or not, our planet runs on oil, and lots of it. Future wars will almost totally be fought for resources, not ideology.

This particular war was not a war for oil. This was a war for the economic hegemony of the American dollar.

[@_@ Artman]

This particular war was not a war for oil. This was a war for the economic hegemony of the American dollar.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Petro - Dollar hegemony though. This just in...


Analysis: Iran moves to ditch U.S. dollar (http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2007/09/10/analysis_iran_moves_to_ditch_us_dollar/6990/)

Faced with U.S. economic sanctions and a weak dollar, Tehran is demanding foreign energy companies do business in yen and euros, despite increasingly desperate need for investment.

In a deal announced last week, Japan’s Nippon Oil agreed to buy oil from Iran using yen instead of the traditional U.S. dollars. The agreement comes after years of Iranian efforts to shift its petroleum exports away from dollars and toward yen and euros.

With refineries in need of investment and vast natural gas deposits in need of foreign companies for development, Iran is trying every avenue to extricate itself from U.S. sanctions.

“In general, a key motivation is the U.S. informal sanctions pressure that the Treasury, and Undersecretary Levey in particular, put on banks not to do financial transactions with Iran. And increasingly designating banks with ties to certain Iranian entities as unable to perform the U-turn transactions for dollar-denominated transactions,” according to David Kirsch, the manager for market intelligence at the international energy consultancy PFC Energy.

U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey has been in charge of coordinating U.S. sanctions against Iran since 2004. In recent months the U.S. Treasury has increased pressure on foreign banks not to deal with Iran, including so-called U-turn transactions, which “allow U.S. banks to process payments involving Iran that begin and end with a non-Iranian foreign bank,” according to the U.S. Treasury.

Shifting to euros and yen allows Iran some relief.

“Overall it does lower some of their exposure to this successful yet informal pressure from the U.S.,” Kirsch said.

This is exactly what Iraq (with a q) did before we invaded them. Venezuela tried it too, then Chavez had an attempted coup. Interesting. If people open their eyes they would see that the 2 primary reasons for the Iraq invasion were Petro - Dollar hegemony and Peak Oil.

Need more? Click here!

Iran in the Crosshairs (http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/133)
Groundhog Day in Middle East (http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/133)
How Can the Dollar Collapse in Iran? (http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/252)
Iran to Stop Accepting Dollars for Oil (http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/581/)

I can't imagine that Iran doesn't realize that this move will result in us attacking them. I wonder what they have up their sleeve. Or maybe they are trying to be martyrs.

[segovius]

I can't imagine that Iran doesn't realize that this move will result in us attacking them. I wonder what they have up their sleeve.

One word: Russia

[Nightcrawler]

I don't get these two paragraphs. They are contradictory. If US is bound by international law, as they are under Article VI:



Then as you claim, "any war that the congress authorises or declares" is NOT legal if it goes against international treaties to which the US is a signatory. There ARE limitations.


I have also thought similarly, but then I read somewhere, that while in theory international treaties signed become supreme law of the land, in practice they need to be ratified by both houses and I think that was not the case with the UN-charter.

Nightcrawler

[@_@ Artman]

One word: Russia

:D Spasiba!

For you all, take a peek at this

"Who Has the Oil" map (http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/archives/map%20of%20who%20has%20the%20oil.jpg) which reapportions every country based on the size of their oil reserves.*

From the Environmental Action website.

We've created a "Cost of Oil Counter," (http://www.environmental-action.org/energy.asp?id2=23189) which keeps an annual running tally of oil consumed, money spent and global warming pollution generated.

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...:smokey:

* Canada is woefully mis-estimated with there tar sands. At a high enough cost, Canada, I believe, has one of, if not the highest, reserves in the world. The high price makes the tar sands accessible. But the tar sands are such an environmental disaster to mine that I think their use will be curbed at some point.

Attack Canada! :lol:

[Akumulator]

Wait... why aren't we still talking about how much of a fucking lunatic Kucinich is? Wasn't that the point of this thread?

[Nightcrawler]

:D Spasiba!

For you all, take a peek at this

"Who Has the Oil" map (http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/archives/map%20of%20who%20has%20the%20oil.jpg) which reapportions every country based on the size of their oil reserves.*



LOL, that's a brilliant map, and it shows a clear correlation between these countries and US-military-bases around the globe.

Just compare that map with this map, that shows which countries host US-soldiers, which have military-bases, and with which the US is negotiating to build bases in, and which have none: http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg

The sheer amount of US-military bases around the globe even surprised me. That begs question which other states have military-bases outside their own borders?

I think Germany, France and Britain might have a few outside their borders, espescially those jointly used under the Nato-alliance, but apart from these mostly US-supervised european bases, who else has military bases outside its own borders?

Nightcrawler

[@_@ Artman]

LOL, that's a brilliant map, and it shows a clear correlation between these countries and US-military-bases around the globe.

Just compare that map with this map, that shows which countries host US-soldiers, which have military-bases, and with which the US is negotiating to build bases in, and which have none: http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg

The sheer amount of US-military bases around the globe even surprised me. That begs question which other states have military-bases outside their own borders?

I think Germany, France and Britain might have a few outside their borders, espescially those jointly used under the Nato-alliance, but apart from these mostly US-supervised european bases, who else has military bases outside its own borders?

Nightcrawler

In that video report I linked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQHeo-CMQyc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fheathlander%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F 2007%2F09%2F12%2Fthe%2Dbases%2Dare%2Dloaded%2F) they mention that the Defense Department/Pentagon omit names of many military bases (some permanent) for "security reasons". Granted, that is a good excuse, but there is actually many bases in Afghanistan and Iraq (and other countries) that won't be revealed by the Military.

[Outsider]

And don't forget the base destroyed by Blackout (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aVrJNvEhj40).