Sounds like a good idea to me. The entire adminstration should be charged with war crimes and tried at the Hague, as should the CEO's of the major media conglomerates, as well as all the fucking hedge-fund managers and wall street pigs. They're all in business together and they should all go down together. This country needs an enema, and the biggest pieces of shit are what should get flushed out first.
Presumably, it will be impossible to prosecute
Cheney, since he will have taken his secret
underground monorail, transfer to his mini-sub
back to the safety of his underground Japanese
inactive-volcano lair, protected by hundreds of
jump-suited minions.
Well said, Save Farris. Like the Oliver Stone W movie, this is headed straight for the remainder table by the simple logic that on 1/20/09, a date fabled in bumpersticker history, Bush will stop being the face in the Two Minutes' Hate in lefty circles everywhere.
Until then, they have to shout down any suggestion that Bush has been successful at the most important thing he needed to do after 9/11, because that is the most inconvenient truth of al. For once, it's a negative that's fairly easy to prove: for two decades every 2-3 years al-Qaeda attempted an attack on US soil or US properties overseas-- the first WTC bombing, the Cole, the Khobar towers, the thwarted Phillipines and Millennium plots. Every 2-3 years-- until September 11th, and nothing in the 7 years since.
Now Obama wants to reverse this and return to a criminal justice rather than a military approach-- citing the first WTC prosecution as a model. You mean, the one that indicted Khalid Sheikh Muhammad but couldn't do anything to him, leaving him free to plot the second WTC bombing? At least we know, we'll have the full respect and sympathy of the world for our fairness, when New York or Los Angeles is nuked.
"EOTW says ...And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now. Verdict: NOT GUILTY>" You're not too astute in history are you? Read the 9/11 Report Graphic adaptation....the truth is that Bin Laden, et al promised to finish the job of bringing the Twin Towers down after they failed and their leaders captured and prosecuted. They had no intention of ever attacking the U.S. again...it was simply a show of power and a promise fulfilled.
The reason they haven't attacked America again is that they don't want to attack us again. What would they gain? And besides, dude, the terrorists are not a "country" or a "state", they are a ragtag bunch of gangsters. So if we're winning the so-called war against terrorists it's because they are not a country or a state with armaments....they don't even have helmets.
By the logic of this board I declare Bill Clinton the greatest president ever because he was able to thwart the complete economic and social meltdown of America. Phew!
Bush is a loser and anyone who defends him can join the club.
"The reason they haven't attacked America again is that they don't want to attack us again. What would they gain?"
Um, exactly the same thing they gained from every other mindless, pointless, bloodthirsty attack? The very question demonstrates the fallacy of applying geopolitical logic to the actions of a religious death cult.
"Bush is a loser and anyone who defends him can join the club."
I think Bugliosi's book is an interesting thesis. A Baghdad parent whose child's legs had been blown off would agree with it.
Most Americans are strangely detached from the suffering the Iraq War has caused, all in the name of fighting the other nations who attacked us on 9/11.
If Hamad Karzai's regime falls in Afghanistan, and there is a draft, they will be detached no longer.
People like MGMAX and Walter believe the life of an innocent child from Iraq is only slightly less important than their right to write snide, meaningless posts on HE.
Anyone who tries to justify the murder of innocent Iraqi civilans is a cretin. We invaded a soverign country. The citizens of that country did what anyone else would do: they decided to defend themselves against an enemy invader. We have been killing them ever since, including thousands of CHILDREN. How many children have been killed in by an FOREIGN ARMY (not terrorists) attacking the US? ZERO. Shame on any of you who think it's cute or clever to try and justify what we are doing over there. You are not human. You are a machine whose sole purpose is the intake and distribution of propaganda. It's people like you who make me sick to be an American.
God, here we are five years later and there are still cretins, yes cretins, who imagine that all was butterflies and ice cream in Iraq before we came along.
What do you think the situation in Iraq was before we invaded? It was called the sanctions regime. What was that? It was the state of cessation of hostilities following the first Gulf War, in which we imposed sanctions against Saddam's regime. Here's the Democratic Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, on what those sanctions produced, on 60 Minutes in 1996:
Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Before the sanctions regime was put into place, of course, Saddam Hussein had free rein among "his" people to murder as he wished. The death toll of his regime in total is estimated at at least 250,000 civilians, plus another million Iraqi soldiers in the war with Iran
People who ignore all that history believe the life of an innocent child from Iraq only became meaningful once George W. Bush invaded. That is truly cretinous.
I don't condone the death of any child, but obviously you do. Please do the human race a favor and either get a vasectomy, or, in the case that you are a woman, get your tubes tied. You have the thought process of a monster, and that's the last thing this world needs more of. I've been reading your comments for a while and I never say anything because frankly you bore me, but I just wanted you to know that based on your particular comments in this thread, I find you to be a real piece of shit as a person, whoever you are, wherever you live, and whatever you do for a living. Don't bother responding to me because I am done reading anything from you and I am moving on to another thread. Go fuck yourself, and fuck every generation of your ancestry, both past and future. Am I being excessive? You bet I am. That's what you deserve. Later, creep.
Again, where did anybody say everything was perfect in Iraq pre invasion? I know I didn't say that. You'll always have those little cliches to fall back on. I wonder if you ever served overseas. We've killed far more people during our Iraq invasion then were killed on 9/11. Does that make you feel better? How many more have to die for you to feel better? You're a glib, narrow minded, idiot.
"Please do the human race a favor and either get a vasectomy, or, in the case that you are a woman, get your tubes tied. You have the thought process of a monster, and that's the last thing this world needs more of."
It's always the nice liberal, somehow, who ends up showing us his inner swastika and advocating a genocidal solution to the problem of the conservative opinions he disagrees with.
If you truly care about children, you have to care about all of them. Not just the ones whose misfortunes you can blame on your enemy. That's odious.
MGMAX: Just for the sake of the thread, how many of you libs on here, so outraged at the deaths of "thousands" of Iraqi children, are also outraged by the deaths of unborn US children via legalized abortion? Just curious.
I'm anti abortion. But it's hardly the same thing. Killing an unborn child, sometimes for fair reasons (rape, incest, health dangers) is not the same as innocent women and children being slaughtered, seeing their friends and family slaughtered, and living in the middle of a chaotic war zone.
Not the same thing at all.
I'm not a liberal, not really. You really don't have to be to be against this war. Most of my conservative friends and family turned against the war years ago.
Well ,I'm not a lib or a conservative. If these people would clean up their own mess (rise up against the dictators, kill the Islamic crazies, etc.) than we wouldn't have to.
EOTW: "And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now."
There hasn't been an attack now, because it's too easy. We actually had stronger security before Bush chose to outsource it to the UAE.
"Verdict: NOT GUILTY>"
Well, yes, you could argue that he's too incompetent to know what he's doing, but it'd still be manslaughter.
"Just for the sake of the thread, how many of you libs on here, so outraged at the deaths of "thousands" of Iraqi children, are also outraged by the deaths of unborn US children via legalized abortion?"
So you're saying it's ok to kill them outside of the womb?
Farris: "Do you think his prosecution will hinder his chances at a third term?"
No, but it'll hinder the chances of a number of people in his party...
Mgmax: "Like the Oliver Stone W movie, this is headed straight for the remainder table by the simple logic that on 1/20/09, a date fabled in bumpersticker history, Bush will stop being the face in the Two Minutes' Hate in lefty circles everywhere."
It's funny that you're proud of that fact, since it really means that that will be it for him. No actual accomplishments; no progress or innovation; and there's not even any meaning behind his "work". At least his dad gave us the UNFCCC; all Shrub has got going for himself is that he's either going to be an after-thought in our country's history or a derided counterpoint toward any argument for the free market.
"For once, it's a negative that's fairly easy to prove: for two decades every 2-3 years al-Qaeda attempted an attack on US soil or US properties overseas-- the first WTC bombing, the Cole, the Khobar towers, the thwarted Phillipines and Millennium plots. Every 2-3 years-- until September 11th, and nothing in the 7 years since."
The first WTC bombing happened under his dad's watch.
The lack of incidents such as the Cole and Khobar bombings does not mean the region is any more stable than before. In fact, it's worse off, since the displacement of Iraqi refugees has created tension with neighboring countries. It's also ironic that you bring up the Philippines and Millennium plots as thwarted, since those had nothing to do with him.
"Now Obama wants to reverse this and return to a criminal justice rather than a military approach-- citing the first WTC prosecution as a model. You mean, the one that indicted Khalid Sheikh Muhammad but couldn't do anything to him, leaving him free to plot the second WTC bombing?"
That's kind of misleading, since they never really proved he was involved in the first bombing. But I just love that you think the legal system was the problem in the second WTC attack happening, and not Bush refusing to ignore warnings from Clinton.
"At least we know, we'll have the full respect and sympathy of the world for our fairness, when New York or Los Angeles is nuked."
Of course, the legal system was in place when Clinton was President, and he managed to stop a major attack on Los Angeles; so I'm not sure why you think assaulting innocent people will work as effectively.
"Um, exactly the same thing they gained from every other mindless, pointless, bloodthirsty attack?"
You mean sympathy for us before we invaded Iraq?
"The very question demonstrates the fallacy of applying geopolitical logic to the actions of a religious death cult."
Well, we thought the neo-cons would be logical, too, so you might have a point.
"God, here we are five years later and there are still cretins, yes cretins, who imagine that all was butterflies and ice cream in Iraq before we came along."
It was before we hired Saddam as our puppet, anyway.
"What do you think the situation in Iraq was before we invaded? It was called the sanctions regime. What was that? It was the state of cessation of hostilities following the first Gulf War, in which we imposed sanctions against Saddam's regime. Here's the Democratic Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, on what those sanctions produced, on 60 Minutes in 1996:
Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Before the sanctions regime was put into place, of course, Saddam Hussein had free rein among "his" people to murder as he wished. The death toll of his regime in total is estimated at at least 250,000 civilians, plus another million Iraqi soldiers in the war with Iran."
I'm not sure what your point is, though, since you seem to be partly on Michael Moore's side. I'm not saying sanctions were great, but how does they make the case for war? If anything, they just proved that the last war was a failure, and that it might have been better to be more diplomatic-given that Saddam actually offered that opportunity before the first Gulf War. And if you're going
to bring up what the guy did in the 80s, you seem to forget that we gave him the money and equipment and endorsement, since we didn't like Iran.
"It's always the nice liberal, somehow, who ends up showing us his inner swastika and advocating a genocidal solution to the problem of the conservative opinions he disagrees with."
So how about Coulter preaching Christian values, while
arguing the NY Times should be bombed?
D.Z., it may surprise you that I would say this, but in amidst the exaggerations (eg., that we created and armed the Soviet client Saddam Hussein, which I've disproved before) and the partisan logrolling (you manage to displace the blame for the planning of one attack and the carrying out of another so that Clinton goes scot-free and a Bush holds the bag), you have a point. There are lots of things about how Saddam was handled that could have been done differently and arguably better with perfect hindsight.
But no president gets to look at past, present and future and pick what would be best for all three. Carter inherited the Shah from all those Cold War presidents. Reagan inherited an ascendant Islam that saw us as weak like Jimmy Carter. Bush inherited a Saddam who invaded Kuwait because he knew we'd huff and puff but never retaliate. Clinton inherited the ugly cease fire and sanctions of Gulf War I. Bush II inherited a crumbling sanctions regime and an al-Qaeda who'd been taught that they could attack us with impunity. And Obama will inherit the middle east that exists today, not the one that one would design starting back in the 70s, or the 40s, or the 12th century.
This is why, frankly, I do hope Obama wins. The attitudes on display in the two active geopolitical threads are so exquisitely smug and detached from the reality of hard and frequently awful decisions that presidents and parties in power have to make that I think it is unhealthy for our democracy that one party has been allowed so complete a vacation from responsibility, most of its members voting for war one minute when they think that will be good for them, then turning around and wanting to impeach the president for selling what they bought they next. It's time for cold reality to smack the Democratic party in the face. Who knows? They might rise to the occasion and do better than Bush has, or they might bring us Carter II. But what I do know is that it's very bad for us that they can exist as the permanent sneering party, the permanent holier-than-thou party. Elect Obama, and help the Democrats grow up and get their hands dirty in the world as it really is.
Mgmax: I'm actually in agreement with you, too-on the Dems being hypocritical. They're only attacking Bush now, because they only now realized he's an idiot; but they once pretended he was competent, too. And most of them are getting re-elected on the basis that they were "misled", which is bs in itself, since there was nothing he didn't tell them that they couldn't have refuted for themselves. But yeah, we do leave a lot of foreign policy problems hanging, which is why we have to be careful, not just with how we act, but how we plan for the future.
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solution
comment #1
BurmaShave
says ...
And in Bugliosi's most shocking twist yet, it's the murder of JFK!
Posted by BurmaShave
at June 18, 2008 3:02 PM
comment #2
MilkMan
says ...
Sounds like a good idea to me. The entire adminstration should be charged with war crimes and tried at the Hague, as should the CEO's of the major media conglomerates, as well as all the fucking hedge-fund managers and wall street pigs. They're all in business together and they should all go down together. This country needs an enema, and the biggest pieces of shit are what should get flushed out first.
Posted by MilkMan
at June 18, 2008 3:21 PM
comment #3
thevisceral
says ...
Bush gave Russert that last roast beef sandwich.
Posted by thevisceral
at June 18, 2008 3:48 PM
comment #4
EOTW
says ...
And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now. Verdict: NOT GUILTY>
Posted by EOTW
at June 18, 2008 5:16 PM
comment #5
Mjs
says ...
"And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now. Verdict: NOT GUILTY>"
You're a fucking idiot.
Posted by Mjs
at June 18, 2008 7:59 PM
comment #6
Walter Sobchak
says ...
You are a fucking idiot, EOTW... look around... there have been dozens and dozens of terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11.... open your eyes!
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at June 18, 2008 9:26 PM
comment #7
Mjs
says ...
Walter,
Please show me in my post where I said there had been dozens of attacks in this country.
I'm waiting.
Posted by Mjs
at June 18, 2008 10:04 PM
comment #8
MAGGA
says ...
"And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now. Verdict: NOT GUILTY>"
Uhu... That's like saying you're not guilty of murder if all the numerous victims were possibly a threat to your family.
Posted by MAGGA
at June 19, 2008 12:55 AM
comment #9
Mjs
says ...
Yep, we killed 'em (and a bunch of innocents) before they could attack us. Cause we knew they were going to, with all those WMD's they had.
Walter, you're just a moron, and that's some of the flimsiest, most asinine logic I've ever heard.
Posted by Mjs
at June 19, 2008 1:24 AM
comment #10
swordandpen
says ...
"And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now. Verdict: NOT GUILTY"
A large meteor hasn't fallen out of the sky and struck Earth. George Bush must have prevented that!
Posted by swordandpen
at June 19, 2008 3:41 AM
comment #11
SaveFarris
says ...
Do you think his prosecution will hinder his chances at a third term?
Posted by SaveFarris
at June 19, 2008 5:17 AM
comment #12
moviemaniac2002
says ...
Presumably, it will be impossible to prosecute
Cheney, since he will have taken his secret
underground monorail, transfer to his mini-sub
back to the safety of his underground Japanese
inactive-volcano lair, protected by hundreds of
jump-suited minions.
Posted by moviemaniac2002
at June 19, 2008 5:45 AM
comment #13
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
Well said, Save Farris. Like the Oliver Stone W movie, this is headed straight for the remainder table by the simple logic that on 1/20/09, a date fabled in bumpersticker history, Bush will stop being the face in the Two Minutes' Hate in lefty circles everywhere.
Until then, they have to shout down any suggestion that Bush has been successful at the most important thing he needed to do after 9/11, because that is the most inconvenient truth of al. For once, it's a negative that's fairly easy to prove: for two decades every 2-3 years al-Qaeda attempted an attack on US soil or US properties overseas-- the first WTC bombing, the Cole, the Khobar towers, the thwarted Phillipines and Millennium plots. Every 2-3 years-- until September 11th, and nothing in the 7 years since.
Now Obama wants to reverse this and return to a criminal justice rather than a military approach-- citing the first WTC prosecution as a model. You mean, the one that indicted Khalid Sheikh Muhammad but couldn't do anything to him, leaving him free to plot the second WTC bombing? At least we know, we'll have the full respect and sympathy of the world for our fairness, when New York or Los Angeles is nuked.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 19, 2008 5:48 AM
comment #14
Chicago48
says ...
"EOTW says ...And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now. Verdict: NOT GUILTY>" You're not too astute in history are you? Read the 9/11 Report Graphic adaptation....the truth is that Bin Laden, et al promised to finish the job of bringing the Twin Towers down after they failed and their leaders captured and prosecuted. They had no intention of ever attacking the U.S. again...it was simply a show of power and a promise fulfilled.
The reason they haven't attacked America again is that they don't want to attack us again. What would they gain? And besides, dude, the terrorists are not a "country" or a "state", they are a ragtag bunch of gangsters. So if we're winning the so-called war against terrorists it's because they are not a country or a state with armaments....they don't even have helmets.
Posted by Chicago48
at June 19, 2008 7:03 AM
comment #15
Krazy Eyes
says ...
By the logic of this board I declare Bill Clinton the greatest president ever because he was able to thwart the complete economic and social meltdown of America. Phew!
Bush is a loser and anyone who defends him can join the club.
Posted by Krazy Eyes
at June 19, 2008 7:40 AM
comment #16
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
"The reason they haven't attacked America again is that they don't want to attack us again. What would they gain?"
Um, exactly the same thing they gained from every other mindless, pointless, bloodthirsty attack? The very question demonstrates the fallacy of applying geopolitical logic to the actions of a religious death cult.
"Bush is a loser and anyone who defends him can join the club."
Well reasoned, sir.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 19, 2008 8:12 AM
comment #17
Mjs
says ...
MGmax,
It worries me that you seem to believe your own bullshit.
Posted by Mjs
at June 19, 2008 9:32 AM
comment #18
Arizona Joe
says ...
I think Bugliosi's book is an interesting thesis. A Baghdad parent whose child's legs had been blown off would agree with it.
Most Americans are strangely detached from the suffering the Iraq War has caused, all in the name of fighting the other nations who attacked us on 9/11.
If Hamad Karzai's regime falls in Afghanistan, and there is a draft, they will be detached no longer.
Oh yeah, "Where's Osama bin Laden?"
Posted by Arizona Joe
at June 19, 2008 11:13 AM
comment #19
Mjs
says ...
Well said, Arizona Joe.
People like MGMAX and Walter believe the life of an innocent child from Iraq is only slightly less important than their right to write snide, meaningless posts on HE.
Posted by Mjs
at June 19, 2008 12:23 PM
comment #20
MilkMan
says ...
Anyone who tries to justify the murder of innocent Iraqi civilans is a cretin. We invaded a soverign country. The citizens of that country did what anyone else would do: they decided to defend themselves against an enemy invader. We have been killing them ever since, including thousands of CHILDREN. How many children have been killed in by an FOREIGN ARMY (not terrorists) attacking the US? ZERO. Shame on any of you who think it's cute or clever to try and justify what we are doing over there. You are not human. You are a machine whose sole purpose is the intake and distribution of propaganda. It's people like you who make me sick to be an American.
Posted by MilkMan
at June 19, 2008 12:26 PM
comment #21
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
God, here we are five years later and there are still cretins, yes cretins, who imagine that all was butterflies and ice cream in Iraq before we came along.
What do you think the situation in Iraq was before we invaded? It was called the sanctions regime. What was that? It was the state of cessation of hostilities following the first Gulf War, in which we imposed sanctions against Saddam's regime. Here's the Democratic Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, on what those sanctions produced, on 60 Minutes in 1996:
Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Before the sanctions regime was put into place, of course, Saddam Hussein had free rein among "his" people to murder as he wished. The death toll of his regime in total is estimated at at least 250,000 civilians, plus another million Iraqi soldiers in the war with Iran
People who ignore all that history believe the life of an innocent child from Iraq only became meaningful once George W. Bush invaded. That is truly cretinous.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 19, 2008 2:01 PM
comment #22
MilkMan
says ...
I don't condone the death of any child, but obviously you do. Please do the human race a favor and either get a vasectomy, or, in the case that you are a woman, get your tubes tied. You have the thought process of a monster, and that's the last thing this world needs more of. I've been reading your comments for a while and I never say anything because frankly you bore me, but I just wanted you to know that based on your particular comments in this thread, I find you to be a real piece of shit as a person, whoever you are, wherever you live, and whatever you do for a living. Don't bother responding to me because I am done reading anything from you and I am moving on to another thread. Go fuck yourself, and fuck every generation of your ancestry, both past and future. Am I being excessive? You bet I am. That's what you deserve. Later, creep.
Posted by MilkMan
at June 19, 2008 2:16 PM
comment #23
Mjs
says ...
Milkman,
You are a bad ass.
MGMAX,
Again, where did anybody say everything was perfect in Iraq pre invasion? I know I didn't say that. You'll always have those little cliches to fall back on. I wonder if you ever served overseas. We've killed far more people during our Iraq invasion then were killed on 9/11. Does that make you feel better? How many more have to die for you to feel better? You're a glib, narrow minded, idiot.
Posted by Mjs
at June 19, 2008 2:32 PM
comment #24
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
"Please do the human race a favor and either get a vasectomy, or, in the case that you are a woman, get your tubes tied. You have the thought process of a monster, and that's the last thing this world needs more of."
It's always the nice liberal, somehow, who ends up showing us his inner swastika and advocating a genocidal solution to the problem of the conservative opinions he disagrees with.
If you truly care about children, you have to care about all of them. Not just the ones whose misfortunes you can blame on your enemy. That's odious.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 19, 2008 2:33 PM
comment #25
EOTW
says ...
MGMAX: Just for the sake of the thread, how many of you libs on here, so outraged at the deaths of "thousands" of Iraqi children, are also outraged by the deaths of unborn US children via legalized abortion? Just curious.
Posted by EOTW
at June 19, 2008 5:21 PM
comment #26
Mjs
says ...
I'm anti abortion. But it's hardly the same thing. Killing an unborn child, sometimes for fair reasons (rape, incest, health dangers) is not the same as innocent women and children being slaughtered, seeing their friends and family slaughtered, and living in the middle of a chaotic war zone.
Not the same thing at all.
I'm not a liberal, not really. You really don't have to be to be against this war. Most of my conservative friends and family turned against the war years ago.
Posted by Mjs
at June 19, 2008 5:29 PM
comment #27
EOTW
says ...
Well ,I'm not a lib or a conservative. If these people would clean up their own mess (rise up against the dictators, kill the Islamic crazies, etc.) than we wouldn't have to.
Posted by EOTW
at June 19, 2008 6:43 PM
comment #28
Mjs
says ...
EOTW,
You make me sad. And that is the last of this thread that Ill read. Far too depressing.
Posted by Mjs
at June 19, 2008 8:38 PM
comment #29
D.Z.
says ...
EOTW: "And there hasn't been an attack on this country going on 7 years now."
There hasn't been an attack now, because it's too easy. We actually had stronger security before Bush chose to outsource it to the UAE.
"Verdict: NOT GUILTY>"
Well, yes, you could argue that he's too incompetent to know what he's doing, but it'd still be manslaughter.
"Just for the sake of the thread, how many of you libs on here, so outraged at the deaths of "thousands" of Iraqi children, are also outraged by the deaths of unborn US children via legalized abortion?"
So you're saying it's ok to kill them outside of the womb?
Farris: "Do you think his prosecution will hinder his chances at a third term?"
No, but it'll hinder the chances of a number of people in his party...
Mgmax: "Like the Oliver Stone W movie, this is headed straight for the remainder table by the simple logic that on 1/20/09, a date fabled in bumpersticker history, Bush will stop being the face in the Two Minutes' Hate in lefty circles everywhere."
It's funny that you're proud of that fact, since it really means that that will be it for him. No actual accomplishments; no progress or innovation; and there's not even any meaning behind his "work". At least his dad gave us the UNFCCC; all Shrub has got going for himself is that he's either going to be an after-thought in our country's history or a derided counterpoint toward any argument for the free market.
"For once, it's a negative that's fairly easy to prove: for two decades every 2-3 years al-Qaeda attempted an attack on US soil or US properties overseas-- the first WTC bombing, the Cole, the Khobar towers, the thwarted Phillipines and Millennium plots. Every 2-3 years-- until September 11th, and nothing in the 7 years since."
The first WTC bombing happened under his dad's watch.
The lack of incidents such as the Cole and Khobar bombings does not mean the region is any more stable than before. In fact, it's worse off, since the displacement of Iraqi refugees has created tension with neighboring countries. It's also ironic that you bring up the Philippines and Millennium plots as thwarted, since those had nothing to do with him.
"Now Obama wants to reverse this and return to a criminal justice rather than a military approach-- citing the first WTC prosecution as a model. You mean, the one that indicted Khalid Sheikh Muhammad but couldn't do anything to him, leaving him free to plot the second WTC bombing?"
That's kind of misleading, since they never really proved he was involved in the first bombing. But I just love that you think the legal system was the problem in the second WTC attack happening, and not Bush refusing to ignore warnings from Clinton.
"At least we know, we'll have the full respect and sympathy of the world for our fairness, when New York or Los Angeles is nuked."
Of course, the legal system was in place when Clinton was President, and he managed to stop a major attack on Los Angeles; so I'm not sure why you think assaulting innocent people will work as effectively.
"Um, exactly the same thing they gained from every other mindless, pointless, bloodthirsty attack?"
You mean sympathy for us before we invaded Iraq?
"The very question demonstrates the fallacy of applying geopolitical logic to the actions of a religious death cult."
Well, we thought the neo-cons would be logical, too, so you might have a point.
"God, here we are five years later and there are still cretins, yes cretins, who imagine that all was butterflies and ice cream in Iraq before we came along."
It was before we hired Saddam as our puppet, anyway.
"What do you think the situation in Iraq was before we invaded? It was called the sanctions regime. What was that? It was the state of cessation of hostilities following the first Gulf War, in which we imposed sanctions against Saddam's regime. Here's the Democratic Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, on what those sanctions produced, on 60 Minutes in 1996:
Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Before the sanctions regime was put into place, of course, Saddam Hussein had free rein among "his" people to murder as he wished. The death toll of his regime in total is estimated at at least 250,000 civilians, plus another million Iraqi soldiers in the war with Iran."
I'm not sure what your point is, though, since you seem to be partly on Michael Moore's side. I'm not saying sanctions were great, but how does they make the case for war? If anything, they just proved that the last war was a failure, and that it might have been better to be more diplomatic-given that Saddam actually offered that opportunity before the first Gulf War. And if you're going
to bring up what the guy did in the 80s, you seem to forget that we gave him the money and equipment and endorsement, since we didn't like Iran.
"It's always the nice liberal, somehow, who ends up showing us his inner swastika and advocating a genocidal solution to the problem of the conservative opinions he disagrees with."
So how about Coulter preaching Christian values, while
arguing the NY Times should be bombed?
Posted by D.Z.
at June 19, 2008 10:18 PM
comment #30
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
D.Z., it may surprise you that I would say this, but in amidst the exaggerations (eg., that we created and armed the Soviet client Saddam Hussein, which I've disproved before) and the partisan logrolling (you manage to displace the blame for the planning of one attack and the carrying out of another so that Clinton goes scot-free and a Bush holds the bag), you have a point. There are lots of things about how Saddam was handled that could have been done differently and arguably better with perfect hindsight.
But no president gets to look at past, present and future and pick what would be best for all three. Carter inherited the Shah from all those Cold War presidents. Reagan inherited an ascendant Islam that saw us as weak like Jimmy Carter. Bush inherited a Saddam who invaded Kuwait because he knew we'd huff and puff but never retaliate. Clinton inherited the ugly cease fire and sanctions of Gulf War I. Bush II inherited a crumbling sanctions regime and an al-Qaeda who'd been taught that they could attack us with impunity. And Obama will inherit the middle east that exists today, not the one that one would design starting back in the 70s, or the 40s, or the 12th century.
This is why, frankly, I do hope Obama wins. The attitudes on display in the two active geopolitical threads are so exquisitely smug and detached from the reality of hard and frequently awful decisions that presidents and parties in power have to make that I think it is unhealthy for our democracy that one party has been allowed so complete a vacation from responsibility, most of its members voting for war one minute when they think that will be good for them, then turning around and wanting to impeach the president for selling what they bought they next. It's time for cold reality to smack the Democratic party in the face. Who knows? They might rise to the occasion and do better than Bush has, or they might bring us Carter II. But what I do know is that it's very bad for us that they can exist as the permanent sneering party, the permanent holier-than-thou party. Elect Obama, and help the Democrats grow up and get their hands dirty in the world as it really is.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 20, 2008 7:37 AM
comment #31
mjn
says ...
Although you have a confused way of supporting a candidate, I'm sure Obama still appreciates your vote.
Posted by mjn
at June 20, 2008 1:47 PM
comment #32
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
You said "confused" when you meant "willfully perverse."
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 20, 2008 2:09 PM
comment #33
D.Z.
says ...
Mgmax: I'm actually in agreement with you, too-on the Dems being hypocritical. They're only attacking Bush now, because they only now realized he's an idiot; but they once pretended he was competent, too. And most of them are getting re-elected on the basis that they were "misled", which is bs in itself, since there was nothing he didn't tell them that they couldn't have refuted for themselves. But yeah, we do leave a lot of foreign policy problems hanging, which is why we have to be careful, not just with how we act, but how we plan for the future.
Posted by D.Z.
at June 20, 2008 4:52 PM
comment #34
jany
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solution
Posted by jany
at April 22, 2011 7:45 AM