Post by: Paddy on August 09, 2007, 02:39:38 PM
Dos amigos. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (our man in Iraq) holding hands and smiling with Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad. We've been had. Again. Somebody wake up Mr. Bush
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070022027&ch=8/9/2007%2011:12:00%20AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 03:45:02 PM
The bummer is that the US ousted Mossedagh and propped up the Shah for twenty years, which resulted directly in twenty years of the Ayatollah Khomeini. So I think we should give credit where credit is due: if we'd left them the hell alone forty years ago, Iran would probably be Egypt by now.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 04:15:24 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 04:19:09 PM
Ever see one of our president's with an arm around the shoulders of a foreign leader whose nation isn't quite our friend?
No. The US president sends lackeys to cozy up to bad guys, so he can keep his lily-white hands clean.
Sometimes he does it himself though:
Then there's poppa Bush and Prince Bandar. The Saudis, sponsors of wahhabism and host nation to most of the 9/11 hijackers, are of course our friends:
Then of course there's this guy:
They were particularly good friends:
And don't forget the future president Clinton, who had a similar crush on Suha Arafat:
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 05:01:16 PM
Quote
The Saudis, sponsors of wahhabism and host nation to most of the 9/11 hijackers
Host nation? What does that mean? Wasn't OBL forbidden to return to Saudi Arabia some time before 2001? If so, they are bad hosts. And how does Bandar compare to Ahmadinejad?
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 05:10:59 PM
And so forth and so on...
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 09:31:21 PM
Quote
The Saudis, sponsors of wahhabism and host nation to most of the 9/11 hijackers
Host nation? What does that mean? Wasn't OBL forbidden to return to Saudi Arabia some time before 2001? If so, they are bad hosts. And how does Bandar compare to Ahmadinejad?
Almost all of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi. Al Qaeda consisted almost entirely of Saudis. Saudis are funders of terrorism, and the royal family, including Prince Bandar, are the principal culprits. But if you insist on ignoring Bandar, that doesn't change a thing.
For your further amusement:
Jimmy Carter and Shah Pahlevi:
Carter and Arafat:
Carter and Castro:
Nixon and Mao:
Ford and Mao:
Clinton and Aristide:
etc, etc,
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 09:32:17 PM
Wow, you're right, Len, how stupid of me... And so forth and so on...
Exactly. Seeing two people side-by-side in a photo means very little. You agree with my point now.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 06:28:42 AM
Quote
Ever see one of our president's with an arm around the shoulders of a foreign leader whose nation isn't quite our friend?
Quote
Exactly. Seeing two people side-by-side in a photo means very little. You agree with my point now.
Au contraire. This is not just a 'photo op'. Maliki went to our enemy, who is actively killing Americans in Iraq, asking for 'security help'. What does that mean? He certainly knows Iran is behind much of the anti-American, anti-Sunni bloodshed in Iraq. Iran's answer was that only a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would bring peace and stability to the area. Sounds like a mob protection/extortion scheme, doesn't it?
You can bet Shi'ite Iraq has a lot more in common with Shi'ite Iran than with western 'democratization'. Maliki's cuddling up with Iran is really an 'in your face' indication of where this is going.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 06:47:32 AM
Au contraire. This is not just a 'photo op'. Maliki went to our enemy, who is actively killing Americans in Iraq...
If you believe the bogus claims of the current administration--which is especially funny when we've already fallen for virtually identical claims that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. Fool me twi--ya can't get fooled agin'.
Quote
You can bet Shi'ite Iraq has a lot more in common with Shi'ite Iran than with western 'democratization'.
Yawn. Iran is going to invade America, nuke one of our cities, yadda yadda. That there's no evidence of any of this, well... so what? The beauty of paranoia is that nobody needs evidence before going to war.
I repeat. Ahmedinejad is hardly a prince, but he's worlds better than most brutal dictators that the US props up. He's better than Khomeini by a long shot, and Khomeini was our fault. We overthrew democratically-elected Mossadegh in 1953 because he threatened BP interests in Iran, and propped up Shah Pahlevi until 1979. Although he was an American puppet, and in that sense was probably what you'd call acceptable, he was considerably worse than Ahmedinejad in his treatment of his subjects, and was comparable to the Ayatollah that followed him. It was Iranian outrage at Pahlevi's abuses that made them ripe for cultivation by religious extremists who promised to end his corruption--which they did, though they replaced it with repression of a fundamentalist religious nature.
We created the Ayatollah. Ahmedinejad is a huge improvement. Iran is moving in the right direction. And still "hawks" in the US want to bomb the living crap out of his country when it isn't doing anything to us. As if that won't make things worse in Iran instead of better. We effed up their country for the last fifty-some years, and we still want to tinker with their lives like they were sea monkeys on our bedroom dresser. Sigh.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 07:07:18 AM
Quote
' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'
Your guy answers with:
Quote
This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months.
He can't figure out the original statement means less than a quarter of the total killed?As far as your assertion that "we've fallen for.......claims that Iraq supported Al-Queda..." that was the intelligence at the time. It later proved to be faulty. Now the malcontents (that lost two presidential elections in a row) come along and make phony claims that we've been taken in by some great conspiracy.....Really. It's getting tiresome.
Quote
Yawn. Iran is going to invade America, nuke one of our cities, yadda yadda. That there's no evidence of any of this, well... so what? The beauty of paranoia is that nobody needs evidence before going to war.
I have no idea where this comes from; nobody here has said that. Quote
We created the Ayatollah. Ahmedinejad is a huge improvement.
Uh-huh. A state leader advocating/predicting the complete genocide of another people and the total destruction of their country is a 'huge improvement'
??Quote
Iran is moving in the right direction.
Threatening the world with nuclear weapons is moving in the 'right direction'?You make no sense at all.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 07:20:46 AM
Quote
This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months.
He can't figure out the original statement means less than a quarter of the totalkilled?
You misread. He meant 25% of the troops killed, were not killed by shiites. Most insurgents are Sunni. Shiites don't need to conduct an insurgency, since they control the government.
Quote
As far as your assertion that "we've fallen for.......claims that Iraq supported Al-Queda..." that was the intelligence at the time.
On the contrary. Everyone in the world knew better. Saddam was a secular socialist; Osama was an extreme Islamist. You can argue that some intelligence at the time supported the claim that he had WMDs, but there was no intelligence at the time supporting the claim that Saddam was connected in any way with Al Qaeda. The only such piece of "evidence" was the claim that a meeting occurred in Prague with Iraqi intelligence officers, and that claim was debunked before the invasion of Iraq.
The Iraqi driving your cab could've told you that Islamists and Hussein were enemies. My Iraqi veterinarian did know it, long before the Iraq invasion, though I pooh-poohed him at the time. The fact is that anyone who knew diddly squat about Muslims knew that.
Quote
Quote
Yawn. Iran is going to invade America, nuke one of our cities, yadda yadda. That there's no evidence of any of this, well... so what? The beauty of paranoia is that nobody needs evidence before going to war.
I have no idea where this comes from; nobody here has said that.
Then leave them alone. You've admitted they're no threat to you.
Quote
Quote
We created the Ayatollah. Ahmedinejad is a huge improvement.
Uh-huh. A state leader advocating/predicting the complete genocide of another people and the total destruction of their country is a 'huge improvement'
??Over the Ayatollah? Um, yes. If you want an Iranian president who loves Israel, you're going to have a hard time (1) finding him, and (2) keeping him alive. Iranians don't like Israel. Unless you're willing to rule Iran directly, or maybe exterminate them, they're going to have leaders who don't like Israel. Acting all shocked about it just makes one seem naive.
However, Ahmedinejad did not advocate genocide. He has stated his opinion that Israel is on the "wrong side of history," and won't last as a nation in the long run, but he has said nothing whatsoever about exterminating Jews or about actually doing something to end Israel. If Iran attacked Israel, I would support Israel responding decisively: I am a nearly-rabid supporter of Israel--just not rabid enough to start nuking countries that haven't even done anything.
We said the same about the Soviet Union, and they said the same about us. Everyone says he's on the right side of history, and his adversaries will pass from the scene. It's demagoguery, and it's pretty lowbrow stuff, but it isn't grounds for an invasion.
Quote
Quote
Iran is moving in the right direction.
Threatening the world with nuclear weapons is moving in the 'right direction'
?Iran has not threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. They have in fact repeatedly denied that they even want nuclear weapons--isn't it bloody hard to "threaten" someone with something you claim you don't have and aren't developing? ("I don't have a gun, but gimme yer dough or I'll shoot you.") They state that they want energy reactors, and under the non-proliferation treaty, they're entitled to that. They've even expressed willingness to accept international oversight of the whole thing.
It's possible that they're lying, of course. But your suggestion that they're preparing to get nukes with which to threaten the world (and, presumably, the US) is not only unsubstantiated, but it's an ironic repetition of the same completely false claims that we believed about Iraq a mere three years ago. Fool me twi--ya can't get fooled ag'in.
--Len.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 07:52:35 AM
Quote
Most insurgents are Sunni. Shiites don't need to conduct an insurgency, since they control the government.
Where do you get your information? I bet I know more than 90% of the people on this board about what is going on over here and I would say 75% of you are close to what the truth is.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 08:28:55 AM
Where do you get your information? I bet I know more than 90% of the people on this board about what is going on over here and I would say 75% of you are close to what the truth is.
Map of Iraq by ethnic majority: http://www.stripes.com/mideast/graphics/ethnic.html
Map of Iraq by US casualties/province: http://icasualties.org/oif/Provincemap.aspx
US deaths in Al Anbar, Salah ad-Din, Diyala, Ninawa, At-Ta'mim, Karbala and An Najaf total 2,107. Those are all Sunni regions. In the *expletive deleted*it south there were 285 fatalities. The remaining 1,097 were in Baghdad, and a case can be made that most of those were also caused by Sunni insurgents, but we already have 2/3 of fatalities concentrated in Sunni/Kurd regions, and 88% of fatalities outside Baghdad outside the *expletive deleted*it south.
--Len.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 08:31:48 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 08:38:48 AM
Just because that is where the killing is happening dosen't mean that is who is doing the killing.
You're right; by itself it isn't proof. But it's a mighty strong starting point.--Len.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 08:52:49 AM
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 08:59:56 AM
Quote
Fool me twi--ya can't get fooled ag'in.
and your agenda becomes clear. It's simply more kneejerk spittle flying Bush hatred.This Administration makes enough errors on its own....you don't have to make stuff up. It only removes any credibility you might have and makes you look foolish.
So, unless you'd care to provide cites for some of your allegations, I'd say they're bogus.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 09:15:45 AM
Len, you're making a lot of unsubstantiated assertions that are contrary to well documented statements by Ahmadenijad.
It's well documented that Ahmedinejad's statement was mistranslated from the Persian. He never advocated the killing of Jews--and if it were so well documented, I assume you would certainly substantiate it, given your statement above? You wouldn't just call it "well documented" without actually pointing to the documentation, I hope?
Quote
Add to that your claims regarding who knew what prior to the invasion...
That IS very well documented. See, for example, this piece, posted a month before the invasion.
Quote
...and your remark (twice), "Fool me twi--ya can't get fooled ag'in." and your agenda becomes clear. It's simply more kneejerk spittle flying Bush hatred.
Nice ad hominem, there. The "knee-jerk" part is certainly wrong: not only was I a staunch Bush supporter in 2, but I have the records of my purchases of tobacco and firearm stocks to prove it (all of which I still hold, BTW). I expected nuisance lawsuits against guns and tobacco to end; I expected tax cuts; and I expected a solid conservative administration without the sleaze of the hellish Clinton years.
What we got did more to complete my transition to libertarianism than anything I can imagine. Bush turned out to be a pro-illegal-immigration tax-and-spend liberal. And if it wasn't bad enough to see (D) Clinton replaced with the even-bigger-spending (R) Clinton, we have since seen the suspension of habeas corpus, the increase of police-state powers of every description, and wholesale slaughter in a nation that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11--and which took a nation that did contribute to world terrorism, and convert it into a many-fold worse contributor to world terrorism.
I "hate" Bush because I hate liberals, and I "hate" Bush because I love my liberties and rights.
Quote
This Administration makes enough errors on its own....you don't have to make stuff up. It only removes any credibility you might have and makes you look foolish.
Yawn. For someone who recently used the word "substantiation" in a sentence, you're not doing too well.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 09:22:18 AM
But wouldn't it also make sense if you are Shia and want to kill Sunni's you would go to the Sunni neighborhoods?
Possibly, but sectarian violence is usually directed first at the local minorities. In this case, the Shiites are focusing much of their energy on killing Sunnis living in the south before running north to find more victims. And vice-versa in the north.
Quote
And since Iran is Shia wouldn't it make sense for them to back Maliki who is Shia?
Definitely: I'd expect Maliki to be friendly to Iran and vice versa. But that's not a crime; indeed, it's to be expected. How can we say we are for the pacification of the Middle East if we're mad whenever folks there make friends with each other?
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 09:36:22 AM
Quote
It's well documented that Ahmedinejad's statement was mistranslated from the Persian.
which I assume is yet another 'conspiracy'? World wide this time, simply to further the evil plans of Bush.
Quote
Nice ad hominem, there. The "knee-jerk" part is certainly wrong: not only was I a staunch Bush supporter in 2, but I have the records of my purchases of tobacco and firearm stocks to prove it (all of which I still hold, BTW). I expected nuisance lawsuits against guns and tobacco to end; I expected tax cuts; and I expected a solid conservative administration without the sleaze of the hellish Clinton years.
What we got did more to complete my transition to libertarianism than anything I can imagine. Bush turned out to be a pro-illegal-immigration tax-and-spend liberal. And if it wasn't bad enough to see (D) Clinton replaced with the even-bigger-spending (R) Clinton, we have since seen the suspension of habeas corpus, the increase of police-state powers of every description, and wholesale slaughter in a nation that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11--and which took a nation that did contribute to world terrorism, and convert it into a many-fold worse contributor to world terrorism.
I "hate" Bush because I hate liberals, and I "hate" Bush because I love my liberties and rights.
What we got did more to complete my transition to libertarianism than anything I can imagine. Bush turned out to be a pro-illegal-immigration tax-and-spend liberal. And if it wasn't bad enough to see (D) Clinton replaced with the even-bigger-spending (R) Clinton, we have since seen the suspension of habeas corpus, the increase of police-state powers of every description, and wholesale slaughter in a nation that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11--and which took a nation that did contribute to world terrorism, and convert it into a many-fold worse contributor to world terrorism.
I "hate" Bush because I hate liberals, and I "hate" Bush because I love my liberties and rights.
And that diatribe (which has nothing at to do with Iraq or Ahmadinejad) pretty much proves my point. You're pissed because you're disappointed and think Bush cost you money. Well, a lot of us previous Bush supporters( I not only voted for him twice, I actively worked his campaign in 2000) are disappointed. Get over it. GWB will be in office until January 20, 2009. Suck it up.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 09:43:05 AM
I have you at a slight disadvantage Len due to the fact that I get to see on a daily basis various reports of what is going on over here. Hopefully someone will see fit to let these reports become public knowledge in September when Gen Petraeus briefs.
You do speak some truth, but right now the only thing we do know is that our biggest ally over here is the Kurds. If the rest of the country would decide to get along like they do it would be a rather peaceful country and I could come home.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:02:30 AM
which I assume is yet another 'conspiracy'?
You need to shut down your ad-hominem machine and give it a rest. You're overworking it.
Quote
And that diatribe (which has nothing at to do with Iraq or Ahmadinejad) pretty much proves my point.
I demonstrates that you're full of beans when you try to paint me as a "liberal Bush hater," which would be nothing more than an ad hominem even if it were true.
Quote
You're pissed because you're disappointed and think Bush cost you money.
Yeah, "suspended habeas corpus" equals "cost me money."
Anyway, I find it deliciously funny when "conservatives" defend Bush's tax-n-spend liberalism because he's "their guy." Nothing says "no principles" like defending your side for doing what you condemn when the other side does it.
Quote
Well, a lot of us previous Bush supporters( I not only voted for him twice, I actively worked his campaign in 2000) are disappointed. Get over it. GWB will be in office until January 20, 2009. Suck it up.
That's pretty much a non sequitur. Did I say he wouldn't be in office until then? If "suck it up" means "accept the reality" that this guy's crimes will continue until 1/09 and will never be punished, I already have that covered. But if it means that I should just sigh and decide that his crimes aren't so bad, well: how would you have responded to that same advice during the Clinton years?
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:08:10 AM
Nothing wrong with friendship of Maliki and Iran, but at the sametime when Maliki turns a blind eye to the border crossings of Shia to and from Iran to receive training and materials then there is a problem.
You're introducing charges that are certainly not proven. A bit like saying, "I don't mind that you drive an SUV--but at the same time when you run over puppies and old ladies with it, then there is a problem."
Quote
I have you at a slight disadvantage Len due to the fact that I get to see on a daily basis various reports of what is going on over here. Hopefully someone will see fit to let these reports become public knowledge in September when Gen Petraeus briefs.
That's certainly an edge. But you can't accuse someone of crimes that you know super-secret proof of, that the rest of us can't know. You can either prove your case, or you're sorta stuck. Otherwise I can bring up my super-secret satellite evidence that you torture kittens. I can't produce the proof, because it's classified--but you should be ashamed of yourself, and folks who pass you on the street should take my advice and spit on your shoe.
Quote
You do speak some truth, but right now the only thing we do know is that our biggest ally over here is the Kurds. If the rest of the country would decide to get along like they do it would be a rather peaceful country and I could come home.
Give the Kurds some time. If we don't give them a measure of autonomy, they're likely to suffer at the hands of the others, and blame us. But if we do give them autonomy, they'll come into conflict with Turkey over the repression of their Kurdish minority, and the US will have diplomatic issues with Turkey. So, of course, we won't do it--and the Kurds will rightly blame us for keeping them down.
--Len.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 10:17:42 AM
Quote
That's certainly an edge. But you can't accuse someone of crimes that you know super-secret proof of, that the rest of us can't know. You can either prove your case, or you're sorta stuck. Otherwise I can bring up my super-secret satellite evidence that you torture kittens. I can't produce the proof, because it's classified--but you should be ashamed of yourself, and folks who pass you on the street should take my advice and spit on your shoe.
And do tell what should I be ashamed of?
And who says things have not been proven? You or the talking heads. Just because the public doesn't know everything that is going on doesn't mean there isn't proof. You yourself would have to admit that 80% of the American public believes what they are told to believe or really don't care.
And as for spitting on my shoe. What are you going to call for next, calling us baby killers when we come home like happened to the Vietnam Vets?
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:23:41 AM
Quote
That's certainly an edge. But you can't accuse someone of crimes that you know super-secret proof of, that the rest of us can't know. You can either prove your case, or you're sorta stuck. Otherwise I can bring up my super-secret satellite evidence that you torture kittens. I can't produce the proof, because it's classified--but you should be ashamed of yourself, and folks who pass you on the street should take my advice and spit on your shoe.
And do tell what should I be ashamed of?
Read it again: you should be ashamed of yourself for torturing all those kittens. I realize I haven't proven that you do that, but that's only because the proof is classified. When it's allowed to come out, boy will you be publicly embarrassed!
Quote
And who says things have not been proven? You or the talking heads. Just because the public doesn't know everything that is going on doesn't mean there isn't proof.
If you're allowed to claim proof that I'm not allowed to see, then I'm allowed to call you a kitten torturer. If you can't show the proof, then you're in the same fix as if you don't have it at all. That's the whole point of my kitten parable above.
However, several specific cases have actually been exposed when administration has claimed that this or that came from Iran, and the claim was proven false.
Quote
You yourself would have to admit that 80% of the American public believes what they are told to believe or really don't care.
Absolutely. That's exactly how we got into this mess in the first place--and it's why over two-thirds of the populace still believes Saddam had WMDs AND was in league with Al Qaeda. For the record, I believed both. The first wakeup call was Bush claiming it was never about WMDs; I spent personal credibility defending his false claims, and it was a kick in the teeth for him to go and disavow them completely.
Quote
And as for spitting on my shoe. What are you going to call for next, calling us baby killers when we come home like happened to the Vietnam Vets?
I'm not talking about your military service. I'm talking about all the kittens you've tortured. The proof is in your classified dossier in an underground vault at an undisclosed location.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 10:42:37 AM
Quote
Quote
You're pissed because you're disappointed and think Bush cost you money.
Yeah, "suspended habeas corpus" equals "cost me money." rolleyes
No, you saidYou're pissed because you're disappointed and think Bush cost you money.
Yeah, "suspended habeas corpus" equals "cost me money." rolleyes
Quote
not only was I a staunch Bush supporter in 2, but I have the records of my purchases of tobacco and firearm stocks to prove it (all of which I still hold, BTW). I expected nuisance lawsuits against guns and tobacco to end; I expected tax cuts;
which cost you money. Again, a glib, disingenuous answer does not make for credibility. Stick with the substance of the discussion. Quote
Anyway, I find it deliciously funny when "conservatives" defend Bush's tax-n-spend liberalism because he's "their guy." Nothing says "no principles" like defending your side for doing what you condemn when the other side does it.
That's really hilarious. If you're referring to me, I'm hardly 'conservative' (by the current Rush/Hannity definition, anyway). And Bush and neos aren't 'tax-n-spend', they're 'borrow-n-spend' . And he's definitely not "my guy". If I were calling the shots, we'd begin withdrawing from Iraq tomorrow morning. "Embolden" the "evildoers" be damned. This country has plenty of firepower to defend ourselves, or retaliate wherever and whenever necessary. Then you refer to Bush as a "criminal". That may be your opinion, but the last time I checked he had not been prosecuted and convicted. That's the kind of rhetoric coming from the whacko left. It's unrealistic and unproductive and makes you sound fringy.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 10:45:42 AM
Quote
If you're allowed to claim proof that I'm not allowed to see, then I'm allowed to call you a kitten torturer. If you can't show the proof, then you're in the same fix as if you don't have it at all. That's the whole point of my kitten parable above.
And the inverse of that circular logic is that an unproven allegation is fact until proven otherwise (ie., "Bush is a criminal")See how it works? You just say it and it's true.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:50:34 AM
Quote
Anyway, I find it deliciously funny when "conservatives" defend Bush's tax-n-spend liberalism because he's "their guy." Nothing says "no principles" like defending your side for doing what you condemn when the other side does it.
That's really hilarious. If you're referring to me, I'm hardly 'conservative' (by the current Rush/Hannity definition, anyway). And Bush and neos aren't 'tax-n-spend', they're 'borrow-n-spend' . And he's definitely not "my guy". If I were calling the shots, we'd begin withdrawing from Iraq tomorrow morning. "Embolden" the "evildoers" be damned. This country has plenty of firepower to defend ourselves, or retaliate wherever and whenever necessary.
Then what are we arguing about?
Quote
Then you refer to Bush as a "criminal". That may be your opinion, but the last time I checked he had not been prosecuted and convicted. That's the kind of rhetoric coming from the whacko left. It's unrealistic and unproductive and makes you sound fringy.
That's as may be, but suspending habeas corpus--and not temporarily, but in a law with no sunset date--is worse than anything that provoked the shooting at Lexington and Concord. Permanent suspension of our most fundamental right, not to be detained without a clear accounting of the charges and an opportunity to defend ourselves? You can argue that Bush has committed war crimes, etc, but the MCA was probably his most heinous act. It alone is grounds for impeachment, arrest, and being fed to giant Iranian goat-eating cockroaches.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 10:54:17 AM
See how it works? You just say it and it's true.
You and I are on exactly the same page. Simply asserting something doesn't make it true; so if one can't produce the evidence, one basically must shut up. In the case of Bush, however, the MCA is a crime for which Bush has publicly taken credit. The only question that needs debate is whether the permanent suspension of habeas corpus is a crime.
There, I admit, I'm somewhat hampered: anyone who thinks it's OK for the government to arrest people without charges, and hold them incommunicado indefinitely, just isn't on the same planet. A mind convinced of that position is completely inscrutable to me. I'm as much at a loss where to begin as I would be if I met someone who insisted that rape was OK.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 11:14:07 AM
)There are some sharp differences with regard to the War in Iraq, and I'm in the minority.
Bush did not grant himself power to suspend habeas corpus; that was done by and with the consent of Congress. The problem here is complete lack of congressional oversight and restraint. Everybody's too busy playing politics going into the next election. The proverbial pox on both their houses IMO.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 11:20:58 AM
You may have made some assumptions that aren't true. There are very few hardcore 'bushbots' around here; unlike THR (or the last time I was there; it's been many months). OTOH, there are almost no liberals (I can think of one or two, and even they are quite reasonable, although they piss me off from time to time )
)I apologize if I'm quick to jump to conclusions. I must say that THR was much more tolerant of my ilk than FR, though. (At least up until I was banned.)
Quote
There are some sharp differences with regard to the War in Iraq, and I'm in the minority.
That might have something to do with my confusion: at first I was arguing with Fistful, I think. And then a few others piled on. I sorta assumed they were all coming from the same direction.
Quote
Bush did not grant himself power to suspend habeas corpus; that was done by and with the consent of Congress. The problem here is complete lack of congressional oversight and restraint. Everybody's too busy playing politics going into the next election. The proverbial pox on both their houses IMO.
Oh, I agree completely. Bush is not alone in my bad list. It's long since time to surround DC and make everyone come out with their hands up.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 11:35:41 AM
Quote
We've been had. Again. Somebody wake up Mr. Bush
rather than against these two clowns. The point was, it's inevitable that these two would cuddle up and spoon with each other. The Shi'ite is thicker than blood, especially American blood. Like most Americans, I'm baffled and frustrated with this conflict that goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, does not serve our national security and costs us hundreds of billions $$. (not to mention American deaths and crippling injuries).
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 11:42:47 AM
Also notice in my opening post, my criticism was leveled against the President
rather than against these two clowns. The point was, it's inevitable that these two would cuddle up and spoon with each other. The Shi'ite is thicker than blood, especially American blood. Like most Americans, I'm baffled and frustrated with this conflict that goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, does not serve our national security and costs us hundreds of billions $$. (not to mention American deaths and crippling injuries).
Quote
We've been had. Again. Somebody wake up Mr. Bush
rather than against these two clowns. The point was, it's inevitable that these two would cuddle up and spoon with each other. The Shi'ite is thicker than blood, especially American blood. Like most Americans, I'm baffled and frustrated with this conflict that goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, does not serve our national security and costs us hundreds of billions $$. (not to mention American deaths and crippling injuries).
I agree with almost all of that, but I think Maliki wanting good relations with Iran is only natural. It's a reasonably powerful neighbor you'd rather get along with than not, all things equal.
Nor do I think it would be productive to start another "regime change" bandwagon, this time targeting Iran. Maliki is no great shakes, but as I said, he's about the best you could expect from Iran as things stand today. After our history with the Shah, and backing Iraq in its war against Iran, etc., it's a wonder we're dealing with someone that much better than another Ayatollah. Sticking our mitts into their government again will not move them in the direction of a modern secular democracy, but leaving them alone militarily and trading freely is likely to do so.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 10, 2007, 03:30:45 PM
Of course, I'd beef up defenses under times of threat; things like keeping track of everybody coming into this country and tossing them out when their visas (or equivalent) expire. I'd have a strong Border Patrol on the southern borders and deport anyone entering illegally. City cops would also be allowed to ask for proof of immigration/alien status and detain anybody here illegally for deportation.
I'd eliminate bilingual education and ballots. Governments would only do business in English (with some limited exceptions). I'd eliminate free medical care for illegals. 'Anchor babies' would no longer automatically be citizens if their parents are here illegally.
And on and on. But I'm not in charge so we get what we got.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 10, 2007, 03:47:48 PM
But as for me torturing kittens it wasn't torture it was waterboarding. Plus when I
But to be serious I guess for the most part we both see where each other is coming from and will have to agree to disagree.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 09:40:13 PM
But to be serious I guess for the most part we both see where each other is coming from and will have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough. But there's a fundamental inequality about the fact that, though we disagree, I'm still forced to fund the next invasion even if I'm dead against it and believe the case for it is bogus.
--Len.