or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kucinich is a loon. An effing Loon, I tell you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kucinich is a loon. An effing Loon, I tell you. - Page 3

post #81 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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." ?



Quote:
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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #82 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
post #83 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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

I don't mean everyone run for the nearest border and keep going until they reach the boardwalk at Ocean City, Maryland. But we do need to make plans to immediately withdraw from Iraq. We can argue about the specifics (timetables, withdrawal stages, etc), but I don't think you're quite on board with the consensus that we need to leave relatively soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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

Go for it.
post #84 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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.

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."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #85 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
post #86 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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"!



post #87 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

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:

Quote:
...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.
post #88 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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/pb...1039/OPINION03
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #89 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #90 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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


Quote:
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
Groundhog Day in Middle East
How Can the Dollar Collapse in Iran?
Iran to Stop Accepting Dollars for Oil

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.
post #91 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #92 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #93 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

One word: Russia

Spasiba!

For you all, take a peek at this

"Who Has the Oil" map which reapportions every country based on the size of their oil reserves.*

From the Environmental Action website.

Quote:
We've created a "Cost of Oil Counter," 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...

* 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!
post #94 of 97
Wait... why aren't we still talking about how much of a fucking lunatic Kucinich is? Wasn't that the point of this thread?
post #95 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Spasiba!

For you all, take a peek at this

"Who Has the Oil" map 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
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #96 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

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 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.
post #97 of 97
And don't forget the base destroyed by Blackout.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kucinich is a loon. An effing Loon, I tell you.