Humpty-Dumpty and all the King's horses by SignyM

I think we have to accept that Iraq is divided by religion and let them have three theocratic parties, which is what they want. It's unrealistic to think Iraq minus a socialist dictator would be America. At best, it will probably be Iran. Maybe even that is something worth striving for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I wonder how long they'll keep working this particular fantasy.

Who they? Which fantasy? The US working the fantasy of a united non-religious Iraqi government? Or the Iraqis working the fantasy that the US will not cut and run?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's unrealistic to think Iraq minus a socialist dictator would be America.

Really? Maybe someone should have called GWB (and Dick) and let them know that before they set out on their little endeavor. But hey, remember - the Iraqis got that purple ink on their fingers, and as we all know, that magically makes your country as American as apple pie.

Bah.

Cynically,
7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:59 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's unrealistic to think Iraq minus a socialist dictator would be America.

Why is it that only America can be America. We have spread liberty and democratic values to millions of Arabs, Africans, Europeans, Asians, Hispanics, and all that just in the United States.

Prior to 1945 no culture on earth was more ingrained against Western values then Japan. They changed, liberty, even liberty at the point of a bayonet, changes people.

Every other time in history political institutions have been imposed upon people. In our case we are imposing the people on the political institutions. Its conflict, change, ugly, dirty, hard work. But the ends justify the means.

Did you see the female Turkish figure skater? Beauty and grace from a culture whose women know neither. Change can happen.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:30 PM

FLETCH2

Americans are self selecting. They are either born under this system of government or choose to come here. That's a little different from an outsider coming into a country and saying "do this -- it works for us."

Democracy is a bloody business. To get from feudalism to a fully representative democracy in my country took three realy massive wars and countless insurrections. Even the US needed three and that's a big sacrifice. Perhaps what we're seeing is the first of the two or three serious wars Iraq needs to go through to figure out that Democracy is better than an eternity of sectarian infighting?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:03 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Iraq and countries like them , live and breath religion , its who they are, Iraq itself is the cradle of civilization, its where the 1rst known high civilzation started and religion has always been with them, not every country wants to be a democracy like America, some people just aren't built that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Prior to 1945 no culture on earth was more ingrained against Western values then Japan. They changed, liberty, even liberty at the point of a bayonet, changes people.

That's completely wrong, Hero - Do some googling, or watch the history channel sometime. Japan was very westernized prior to 1945, they even had many of the stages of a full blown European-style gov't, including a parliament and a cabinet (though used as a tool of military expansion - much like many western democracies, go figure).

It wasn't nearly as difficult to turn Japan into a Western-style democracy as it is Iraq, and I wish people who don't know better would stop using Japan as an example.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:54 PM

I was about to point that out 7%, but you beat me too it. I'll add that where Iraq's government was destroyed, The America worked with the existing administration to enact changes that were already in process before the war.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:27 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Without a doubt we’ve proven that we can replace an illiberal regime with a liberal one with stunning success. In fact, in all the places where we have done it, the success has not only brought freedom, stability and prosperity to the region in question but has positively influenced the world in general. Off the top of my head Germany, Japan and South Korea were all recreated with liberal prosperous governments at the barrel of a gun, despite the howls of academics claiming that neither society was capable of democracy. In fact, South Korea is a perfect, almost scientific, example of what nation building can accomplish right next to the North Korean “control.” So there can be no doubt that it can be done and that it has been done with stunning success.

The question still remains, though, is it worth doing? Along with proving that nation building not only works but can be very successful, we’ve also shown that it is a very difficult, very bloody and very expensive thing to do. In all previous cases, it was a bloody and long term commitment. It took circa a decade in each case. I don’t really agree that we can gage current nation building efforts with the turmoil surrounding the creation of modern democracy. Creating modern democracy was much more difficult then installing it in modern times. And that makes sense, because inventing something is certainly a much steeper curve then reinventing it after you’re familiar with all or most of its aspects. So I don’t expect that it should take more then one war to install democracy in Iraq, but I should think that it has been and will continue to be a very long road to the kind of success that we have seen in other instances and should expect from Iraq. The question is not whether it can be done, but whether we have the gumption to do it. That’s the only thing that bothers me.

I certainly think it is worth doing. I don’t think the West has the resources to take on too many nation building projects, since they are major long term commitments and I’m just not sure that we have the same chutzpah that we did back in the 40s and the 50s. But the Middle East has been a backward, (almost medieval) fragmented and tumultuous region since at least the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. If we can install a liberal regime in the Middle East it could very well start a rethinking within the Middle East of how things are done. At the very least, it is certainly worth giving a try, if we are willing to put the effort into it as a nation(s).

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:10 PM

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=ajvT4mo_6sK4&refer=europe

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Police Tied to Death Squads
BAGHDAD — A 1,500-member Iraqi police force with close ties to Shiite militia groups has emerged as a focus of investigations into suspected death squads working within the country's Interior Ministry.

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathsquad21feb21,0,66125
61.story?coll=
la-home-headlines

Quote:
Samarra Mosque, Iraq Shiite Shrine, Damaged in Attack Feb. 22 (Bloomberg)

-Iraq's Golden Mosque in Samarra, sacred to the nation's Shiites, was badly damaged in a bomb attack that may increase tensions with the Sunni community as the country tries to form a government of national unity. The wave of attacks followed an early morning bombing at the Al-Askariya "Golden Mosque" in Samarra. The strikes, involving small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortar rounds, all happened between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m., police said.

Quote:
Gunmen strike 27 Baghdad mosques, kill imams-Wednesday, February 22, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen targeted 27 Baghdad mosques and killed three Sunni imams Wednesday in the wake of a bomb attack at one of the holiest Shiite sites. The wave of attacks followed an early morning bombing at the Al-Askariya "Golden Mosque" in Samarra... Three of the mosques attacked in Baghdad were burned down, and in addition to the imams, three guards also were killed.

---------------------------------
Oh, just dandy!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:15 PM

Wow. Didn't know that was such an inflamatory remark. So, in reponse the reponses:

7%,

LOL, and well said.

Hero,

Why is it our job? We are not the nanny-state of the world. We're not on a holy mission, this isn't a crusade. Even if it were a) something we could do, and b) something worth doing, I have so many problems with it:

1. Democracy is a flawed system. It has led to some of the worst disasters in history. While I believe in the basic idea, it is one which is far from perfected. Maybe it should go through a few more rounds of testing before we enforce it on the world. As a republican, and a pretty solid believer in my party's long standing platform, and though we control the house, the senate the executive and the judiciary, I am still not happy with the result. I think the reason for this is not a) I'm not really a republican or b) They're not really republicans, though I would say that about executive, not the other branches. The problem is that the system is seriously flawed, riddled with corruption, and not particularly representative of the will of the people. Regardless of what people think of Bush, virtually NO ONE in 2000 went out and voted knowing that what they were voting for was a preset agenda to start a war in the middle east, to drasitcally increase the size and scope of the federal govt., to drastically enhance executive power, or to make torture public policy, a long with a long list of other things. None of these issues, regardless of there merits or demerits, were discussed in the 2000 campaign, though all of them had clearly been decided on. I'm not saying Al Gore wouldn't have done these things, he probably would have, because he was almost as close to Clinton as Cheney, but they weren't discussed because they weren't vote getters, a line, which in itself, shows the true flaw of democracy.

2. There is no one-size fits all solution to the problems of the world. What works in a nation full of wealth, educated, culturally western christians will not necessarily produce the same results in a muslim nation of mostly peasant. Case in point: Hamas, whom I truly despise, has won an election in palestine. Their rhetoric best exploited the situation with Israel being overly aggressive, and they won. Objectively, I firmly believe that Hamas is not the best choice for the people of Palestine. If the people of Palestine should discover this two years from now, they might have to wait another two years to get rid of Hamas. They would not, for example, be allowed to weigh in on policies which were being directly affected at the time.

3. I think if something is given to you, or forced on you, by a greater power, you're not likely to cherish it to the same degree. The constitution of the united states will be defended to the death by pretty close to every man woman and child in America, (with the exception of Bush.) But the Iraqis will not feel the same way. This democracy will always be seen as a western imposition, westernization, and perhaps a puppet regime. I don't think, even if the idea was ideal and workable, that this would be the best way to help it.

4. It's really, really, not our job. The United States is not some all powerful God. The United States is a nation with problems, serious problems. It has a horribly flailing economy, an increasingly uneducated and unproductive populous, more debt than most people can imaging, is progressively losing ground on internation trade, and has a decaying, overinflated and seriously out of date healthcare system, to say nothing of its welfare, and transit systems. Added to that, we have embarked on this christian democrat crusade which has made us hated by the world.

Not only do we not need to do this mission, we need to not do this mission.

America needs fixing. Its democracy, its infrastructure, its financial situation, and the competitive state of its population. For me, the difference between myself and democrats on this point is that I vehemently disagree with them on *HOW* we should fix it. But i think that the overwhelming majority believes that it should be fixed. I don't think we should start by selling our ports to the UAE.

Finally, and this is for anyone who doesn't get it yet, all you Bush republicans. Your guy is very close to the edge. He's not the heart of the party, he's not even in the core circle, or an occasional vistor to the center chamber. He's the fringe lunatic. Today, 55 out of 55 republicans oppose the administration on the UAE port deal. If you go to the torture issue, 46 out fo 55 oppose him. Which is shameful, I admit. But this isn't just one or two issues, this is a growing trend. Every time Bush tries a new extreme move, the opposition is stronger within the GOP than it was before. This is a growth over time. At this rate, Bush isn't going to fill out his second term, in fact, I don't at this moment expect him to last much past the 2006 elections. This is just my lone little voice in the corner trying to wake people up to the possibility that they might be following the wrong road. After today, I'm placing my bet that the GOP will be staying conservative, and not following Bush permanently down the road to neoconservative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:17 PM

Quote:
Jenny:

Iraq and countries like them , live and breath religion , its who they are

Jenny,

I think that this is less true of Iraq than other mideast countries, but this is a serious issue, and you're basically correct with the live and breath thing. I think this is true for a lot of the southern US. It can't be underestimated that to some extend what we are witnessing is a revival of the Crusades.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:28 PM

Oh... and (of course) this:

Quote:
Originally poster by Hero:

Prior to 1945 no culture on earth was more ingrained against Western values then Japan.

It's these special moments you have to savor. Makes me feel like Snyder.

OMFG Hero. Have you actually ever read any history? This is the western industrial capitalist constitutional republic of Japan we are talking about, for about 90 years prior to WWII.

Japan has been solidly a western nation since 1855. In fact, they were a capitalist industrial nation when they made the switch.

And 7% is right, culturally, Japan was more similar to the west before it was ever a western country than Iraq is today, and much more than Iran, which, BTW, is already a democracy.

Finn,

all of these countries were free beforehand, we just removed the oppressor. I think the nation building efforts were definitely successes, though, I grant you that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:28 PM

Signym,

Civil War. What fun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:22 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
OMFG Hero. Have you actually ever read any history? This is the western industrial capitalist constitutional republic of Japan we are talking about, for about 90 years prior to WWII.

Actually I have studied Japan (not just watched Shogun or The Last Samauri, but really studied). By the 20th Century Japan had adopted western economics, industry, military doctrine, and political structures. But Japanese culture did not fundamentally change until after 1945 (sure they slaughtered Tom Cruise's samauri buddies, but that was part of Japan's cultural evolution more then western influence).

Japan had a rigid feudal caste system enforced by a code of conduct more conservative and strict then the one presently favored by the Islamafascists. Like today's Islamists suicide was a noble act, beheadings were a form of justice, and there was little tolerance for any notion of social equality (the echoes of that still remain if you look hard enough).

Certain Japanese scholars, Yukichi Fukuzawa being my favorite, were enamored with western idea, but immersed in their own culture. It was that single minded military culture that allowed Japan, as a nation, to trasform itself from a backwards agrarian nation to a world power in less then 100 years (a transformation that would have been impossible in western systems who took hundreds of years to do what Japan did and for some, like Russia, who hadn't even succeeded before Japan overtook them).

It was this same cultural system that allowed them to transform their society a second time after 1945, even though that transformation diminished the rigid Japanses social structure by forcing them to adopt the forms and later the substance of liberty and western Democracy. This is what could and should happen across the Middle East. Liberty will change them, if we show them its virtues. If we shrink away, then what virtue liberty that gains a nation prosperity at the expense of honor?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:39 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero,

Why is it our job? We are not the nanny-state of the world. We're not on a holy mission, this isn't a crusade. Even if it were a) something we could do, and b) something worth doing, I have so many problems with it:

Its our job becaue when we sit back and mind our own business bad people tend to do bad things like conquer Poland and wipe out the Jews or bonb our navy bases or hijack planes and crash them into our buildings.

An isolationist policy you advocate would leave the world at the mercy of would be despots and petty dictators. It would leave those we call our friends, such as Isreal, alone and surrounded by those who seek not just to conquer them, but to wipe them from history. It would place our economic security, currently dependant on the free flow of oil at market prices in the palm of those oppose our fundamental principals. It would be an insult to the millions of people around the world who yearn for freedom.

Freedom is like a drug. Once you've sampled it, smelled it, even heard of it you want it for yourself. You want it for your children. Freedom drives men to fight. Freedom drives men to abandon all they know to go in search of it. Men will travel ten-thousand miles for the mere chance of freedom. For freedom men with nothing have challenged all powerful tyrants. For freedom men have stormed hostile beaches and burning buildings, stood alone before armies and won victories for humanity even on those occaisons, all too many throughout history, when the dream of freedom was not enough to secure victory.

In America freedom found a home. In us freedom has found her champion. We cannot, must not stand aside and abandon freedom to fight alone on a thousand battlefields around this world, for the legacy of that dishonorable course is to find that on some dark night in our time of need we find freedom has abandoned us.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:45 AM

No one's advocating isolationism.

The fact is we are not stopping the Nazis here. We are the Nazis. We're not stopping the real agression in the world which is China. We failed to defend Hong Kong, and now we're failing to defend Taiwan. On the genocide front, we failed to defend Rwanda, and now we're failing to defend Darfur. We failed to defend the jews or go to war with Germany. We in point of fact, went to war with Germany as a strategic move to block the Soviet Union, which was a good move.

We're on a blind rampage of zion. It's greed for oil power money and twisted socialist ambition. This is lunacy beyond lunacy. US intervention is best done small scale, taking out the bad guy or preventing him from advancing.

If Bush wanted my support for his action in Iraq, he had a chance. There was a moment when the Kurds captured Saddam and then handed him to us. At that moment, our chief opposition was Moqtada Al Sadr, a truly reasonable man, and one who we could have called in the next day. We could have said to Sunni, Shiia and Kurd leaders, okay, come in, you guys are Iraq, let's make a govt.

Instead Bush went ahead with his lunacy, and now it's spreading, and we have that lunacy headed for Iran. We're the expansionist evil empire. I'm not saying this to be anti-American, I'm probably more pro-American than most people here, and I'm not saying that it's always been true, I don't think it was true until we failed to give Iraq back to the Iraqis after the fall of Saddam. Why we didn't is that we want to control the outcome. We want to control it in Palestine, Iran, and on the Arabian penninsula. We've become, quite recently, the evil empire, and I'm only saying so because it's true. The emperor has no clothes. Wake up. Smell the reality. When your country is constructing concentration camps and torturing prisoners: "You're the bad guys!"

It's always a possibility you have to always be open to. It's the German's failure to identify this which prevented them from stopping themselves. Oh, and this:

The Us converted Saddam Hussein's 'Pleasure Palace,' a place where he entertained guests, international diplomats and the sort, into an 'Interrogation Center' read: Torture Chamber.

WTF?!!??????!!!!!!! But this is really true. Here's the question I have. Do you mean to tell me that Saddam Hussein did no have enough extant torture chambers, or interrogation centers, to meet our demands?

We're evil. Our govt. is just f^&king evil, at this moment. If we the people don't rise up and burn them down, then we too, are evil.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
We failed to defend Hong Kong

Hong Kong was attacked?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero

Quote:
In America freedom found a home. In us freedom has found her champion. We cannot, must not stand aside and abandon freedom to fight alone on a thousand battlefields around this world, for the legacy of that dishonorable course is to find that on some dark night in our time of need we find freedom has abandoned us.

Oh wow Hero, are you running for office? I can imagine you standing at a podium, finger stabbing the air (no, not THAT finger... the INDEX finger) proclaiming in ringing tones. (Ringing tones are better than dial tones.)

Sorry for the humor but I'm having a hard time matching your proclamation with reality.

First of all, our initial rationalization for invading Iraq was WMD, not freedom. Fighting Al Qaida was the second rationalization. Freedom, however you define it, was the third or fourth purpose in the Administration's various shifting explanations.

It's hard to figure out how we are bringing- or even INTEND to bring - freedom (however defined) to Iraq at this point. After years of trying to strike a fire, Al Qaida appears to have finally provoked a self-sustaining internal conflict between Shias and Sunnis. Fundamentalist Iranian Shias are using Iraqi Shias a proxies to fight fundamentalist foreign (Jordanian, Saudi, Turkish, Pakistani etc) Sunnis who have taken over the previously internal Sunni insurgency.

There are several possible resolutions to this:

(1) Either fundamentalist Shias or Sunnis win, gaining significant oil resources for their own anti-American, anti-Western campaigns.

(2) Both factions continue to bleed each other for the forseeable future, locking everyone out of the oil fields - even the Iraqis themselves. Other nations might "officially" be drawn in, leading to a Mideast-wide conflict.

(3) We break Iraq into three and kick out all external parties, enforcing the boundaries between them.

Up until last week I thought option (3) was possible. Now I think that option (3) was dead a year ago. I hadn't fully appreciated how deeply the native Sunni insurgency had been taken over by Al Qaida. Although numerically small, the foreign fighters apparently have terrific funding. (Wonder where they get THAT from? UAE? Saudi Arabia? Syria?) Nowhere do I see "freedom" for Iraqis as an even remote possibility. They have been blessed- or cursed- with oil fields that have made them a target for every larger power from Britain to the USA to Iran to Al Qaida. I think we now can see why Bush Sr never "finished the job".

EDITED TO ADD: I'd be curious to hear other possible scenarios for this mess. Does anyone see a ray of hope?

BTW- The Demographics of Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Islam
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

These people can use some freedom too:

Quote:
Those who are kidnapped by Kony's army live a life of horror. While reporting this story, we met Alice, a 19-year-old girl who recently managed to escape after eight years in captivity. She told me blood chilling stories of events no child deserves to witness. She spoke of how the group she was in was made to kill a child who tried to escape by biting him to death, of how she was made to cut up and cook the body of a village chief killed by the rebels and forced to eat the meat from his body, and of how she was raped and eventually had a child from the man who defiled her. She showed us the physical scars of her time as a child soldier -- bullet holes on her leg and shrapnel wounds on her chest.

www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:41 AM

Signym,

My favorite was (no offense) women's rights. I know some people care about this issue, but there has yet to be a war over the right to not wear a burka yet.

Other choice statements from our president "Osama Bin Laden doesn't know the joy of Hannuhkah" or something like that. It topped the "In the Russian language, there isn't even a word for freedom."

I think breaking Iraq into three fundementalist theocracies that hate America is probably the best option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:21 PM

DT:
I wasn't particularly clear last time, but I'd like an answer if possible:
What do you mean we failed to defend Hong Kong?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:37 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
DT:
I wasn't particularly clear last time, but I'd like an answer if possible:
What do you mean we failed to defend Hong Kong?

Why, because it's all our fault, of course. We should have left Iraq alone, because we're not the world police, but we should have stopped the various genocides in Africa because we should be the world police. It's wrong to wiretap people making phone calls to Al Qaeda operatives overseas, but OK to stop a legitimate business from operating here just because their homebase is in an Arab country. Democracy is a fraud and a failure, and something else undefined is a better system. If a tree falls in the forest it's undoubtedly because George Bush himself ordered it cut down just to crush a baby deer. We're evil, EVIL, don't you hear?

Sorry, Citizen. Sometimes the massive U.S. bashing that goes on here just gets a bit too much for me. You'd think these people could at least keep their rants internally consistant.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Why, because it's all our fault, of course. We should have left Iraq alone, because we're not the world police, but we should have stopped the various genocides in Africa because we should be the world police. It's wrong to wiretap people making phone calls to Al Qaeda operatives overseas, but OK to stop a legitimate business from operating here just because their homebase is in an Arab country. Democracy is a fraud and a failure, and something else undefined is a better system. If a tree falls in the forest it's undoubtedly because George Bush himself ordered it cut down just to crush a baby deer. We're evil, EVIL, don't you hear?

Sorry, Citizen. Sometimes the massive U.S. bashing that goes on here just gets a bit too much for me. You'd think these people could at least keep their rants internally consistant.

What you are doing, Geezer, is not presenting the full argument in order to make the side you don't like look like a pack of hypocrites. This isn't even my argument on the issue, but I'll break down what you're doing so it's nice and clear to everyone.

You take:
We should have left Iraq alone, because we aren't the world police. If, in fact we were the world police, there would be a hell of a lot better places to start, like Darfur, where they need it most. We should have gone there instead.

And turn it into:
We should have left Iraq alone, because we're not the world police, but we should have stopped the various genocides in Africa because we should be the world police.

Basically, you take "cops should stop a murderer before a petty thief" and turn it into "no crime is worse than any other," as if the two things were equal.

Then you proceed to muddy the wiretapping issue (ala your Fox news talking points) and the Dubai deal. If he was just wiretapping overseas calls that were suspicious, why didn't he get a warrant posthumously like you are allowed to do under FISA law that are always granted? Answer: He wasn't just wiretapping overseas calls, and wasn't just wiretapping Al-Q, and that my friend violates the 4th amendment. As to the Dubai deal, the issue isn't necessarily that a foreign company controls the ports, it's which company and country it is. The UAE controls that company, and its human rights record is atrocious, not to mention that 2 of the 19 hijackers that GWB can't seem to stop mentioning came from there. Either 9/11 and human rights matter to the admin. or they don't; and if they don't, he needs to quit making Iraq sound like a huge picnic for human rights.

Then, as if that wasn't enough for you, you go ahead and say this little gem:
Democracy is a fraud and a failure, and something else undefined is a better system.

Democracy itself isn't a fraud and a failure; imposing democracy by force, manipulating an election, and watching a country that we should have known better than to invade fall into civil war is a goddamn failure. Is there a better system? How about listening to your smartest advisors (Powell, Shinseki -sp?-) when they tell you how to go in there instead of a bunch of simpering yes-men (or, better yet, why not listen to the vast majority of historians and mid-east scholars who predicted how this whole thing was gonna turn out before GWB went in there).

I don't ever bash the U.S. I bash stupid people, and there were at least 58 million of them in 2004. Thankfully, I think some are finally getting some sense.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why, because it's all our fault, of course... We're evil, EVIL, don't you hear?

And from the other thread:

Quote:
So you're saying all Muslims are terrorists and are not to be trusted? How enlightened of you.

The nice thing about Geezer is that you can always count on him to put words in other people's mouths. Not that I'm saying he's intellectually and rhetorically dishonest or anything. I'm sure he truly thinks he's making a point.

tee hee

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:04 PM

Citzen,

This is the sort of statement that I take as a partisan picking-a-fight, and I've learned to avoid them.

Here's the simple:

1. Britain leased the territory from the emperor for 99 years.

2. Afterwords, China fell, being slowly conquered by the soviet union, as an occupied territory then called "the soviet socialist republic of china."

3. After the Korean war, the new communist china split from the soviets. The process was slow, but before 1950, it would be more honest to call them one country, after 1960 or so, they were two. In between it was less clear.

4. Then Mao went about conquering all of the former imperial possessions, now independent or occupied.

5. The lease ended and britain withdrew, even though the party that it had leased from no longer existed.

6. Hong Kong took the position that they were now independent. Legally, they were correct. Technically speaking, Hong Kong at that moment became imperial china, and since there was nothing else left of it, they were independent.

7. China made it clear that they would invade. They moved in troops. No one opposed them because of the sheer numbers, but not because of popular support for the idea.

The logic that said Hong Kong should be chinese went like this: You agressive societ communists have conquered almost all of a former empire, so now you can have one of the few parts you haven't conquered yet, for free.

This is the logic the Nazis used to claim austria, czechoslovakia and poland. We united everything charlemagne had into one country, now we get the rest for free.

At the time the Nazis invaded Austria, popular support for the German govt. in Austria was at 2%. That's 1/2 of our 4% support for the Saudi Govt., the least popular foreign regime to Americans. The Autrians considered opposing, but when they saw the size of the german army they realized that it was utterly hopeless.

This is the situation Taiwan finds itself in right now. Taiwan, like Hong Kong, is and has always been our ally. Taiwan is also not historically part of China. In fact, it has only been fully part of china for 8 years while it was occupied by china in WWII. That's like saying France is a legitimate part of Germany. There's one other note. A few hundred years ago, taiwan was conquered by a chinese general who ruled for a few years, I don't think it was very many. But since, after the conquest, he then refused to take orders from the emperor, it was more like william of normandy, and not like being chinese. Technically, I think Taiwan has spent more time as an occupied territory of Japan than of China, though it hasn't been either for long.

The 'job' of the US is to protect the US and it's allies, not the rights of sunnis to be represented equally in a majority shiia state. I can see where Iraq is to some extent britain's responsibility. But it wasn't ours. It is now. Taiwan is our responsibility, and the proper thing to do, the only sane thing to do was to militarily oppose china. China isn't going war, don't worry about that. But a show of strength was in order. America showed weakness, and so is weak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:11 PM

I'm plenty consistant enough, and if I contradict myself very well, I contradict myself. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You follow which ever way your Beloved Leader point you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:14 PM

7%,

Thanks for the support, I was much too angry to make a rational deconstruction. I think I'm going to start adopting the whole Sheeple concept. But it has to be on both sides. There are an awful lot of left wing sheeple also. But Beloved Leader say something and it's gospel. These guys thought 1984 was a citizen's handbook.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm replying specifically to Geezer, because Geezer is my special project.

Quote:
Sometimes the massive U.S. bashing that goes on here just gets a bit too much for me.

... Massive "USA bashing"... Believe it or not, I have nothing against the USA. I have a lot against the weasely, lying, greedy, corrupt sociopathic Bush & Co Admin who screwed the pooch in Iraq, bankrupted the USA, and set the whole world against us.

Geezer, Geezer, Geezer... when will you learn to make the distinction? Bush is not the USA. Amazingly, NO President is the USA. Halliburton is not the USA. Wow. Cosmic thought if you can encompass it, isn't it?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- I didn't see your response. Sorry for stepping on your toes!

I came to realize in the Illusion of Freedom thread that some people deal with captivity by constructing their fearless leaders as benign father-figures. The thought that their fearless leaders might actually be blood-sucking aliens is just too much to be borne. I fear such is the case with Geezer.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:25 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
What you are doing, Geezer, is not presenting the full argument in order to make the side you don't like look like a pack of hypocrites. This isn't even my argument on the issue, but I'll break down what you're doing so it's nice and clear to everyone.

Actually, Geezer is absolutely right. Legitimate criticism and disagreement is one thing, but that’s not what often accompanies the anti-Bush and Anti-American arguments. Much of the time, at least on this board, those positions are defined by fanatical rhetoric and posturing, and fanatics aren’t known for being internally consistent in their arguments.

Take Dreamtream for instance, who makes the absurd statement that “[[]w[]]e’re evil,” and that we should “rise up and burn [[]our government[]] down.” That kind of neo-Nazi anarchist nonsense is idiotic. That’s not opposition or legitimate criticism. It’s the ramblings of a fruitcake, and nothing he says can be taken seriously anymore.

Part of his reasoning for this anarchist crap is that “We failed to defend Hong Kong.” Now no one can be sure what that means, but one imagines that he’s talking about the British honoring the 100 year treaty with China that returned Hong Kong to Chinese rule. Even if one disagreed with the British in that instance, what should we have done? Should we have attacked Britain, our strongest and most ardent ally? Or China our strongest and most powerful enemy? Either way, we risk a war with potentially hundreds of millions of casualties. But we’re “evil” for invading Hussein's Iraq, instead of Britain or China, I guess.

That’s just one example of the lunacy that has come to define the anti-Bush and anti-American arguments. I tried to point this stuff out in another thread, that this kind of bombastic and often nonsensical rhetoric does nothing but leech away your credibility. If you disagree with Bush’s policies there have got to be better ways to making that known.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:42 PM

Finn,

I was being figurative. I wasn't suggesting that we should rise up in armed revolt, I think we should impeach the bastard through due process of law. i meant that a society which doesn't oppose its own capacity for evil becomes Nazi Germany. It is the only way Nazi Germany can happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Legitimate criticism and disagreement is one thing, but that’s not what often accompanies the... Anti-American arguments.

What do you define as anti-American? To me, that means subverting the Constitution, restricting American liberties, meddling in countries in ways that having nothing to do with defense, and setting up some groups or people above the law and above others. Anything that you disagree with? If you do, then we simply have a fundamental disagreement on what it means to be American.

And what do you define as "legitimate"? Anything that agrees with you?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:07 PM

Quote:
What do you define as anti-American? To me, that means subverting the Constitution, restricting American liberties, meddling in countries in ways that having nothing to do with defense

I disagree with the last, but I basically agree with the rest. Meddling overseas is pretty american. Invading on a preemptive war with a preset agenda to fix the world to our liking and possibly steel some oil is good old early 20th century germany thinking. No offense to the germans, who are not presently invading anyone. I like germans fine, nice place germany, been there a few times. Nice place america too, but I want to add a few things:

American business, their workers, their profits, they phisical buildings, their workers jobs, the cities that they operate and live in, even if they are new orleans. These two, are america, and if you are anti them, you are anti-american.

Bush's response to the recent problems at Gm and ford, which are a direct result of Bush's own energy policy, was : Let them die.

I can't think of a more anti-american sentiment.

I'm downgrading Bush to traitor. Possibly worse than Bin Laden, objectively, but not yet worst president ever.

Ps. If you have problems with my "worse than Bin Laden" please understand how pragmatic I am. I mean completely objectively, kills more people, destroys more American property. Bin Laden is still pretty awful in my book, #1 terrorist. Chances are I'm a lot more anti-Bin Laden unless you also have friends whose relatives were killed in a terrorist attack, which people in london might.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:18 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

I was being figurative. I wasn't suggesting that we should rise up in armed revolt, I think we should impeach the bastard through due process of law. i meant that a society which doesn't oppose its own capacity for evil becomes Nazi Germany. It is the only way Nazi Germany can happen.

“bastard?” “evil?” Allusions to Nazi Germany? I’m not sure that you understood my point. I’m sure that it’s all figurative; it’s just nonsense. Another way of putting it is that your argument has no perspective. If the US is “evil,” then what was Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don’t think you are suggesting an armed revolt. I think you are using that kind of language for shock value; it’s just bombastic posturing. Its only value is to stir up hatred for Bush and/or the US.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How do you define the "evil" and "good" of a nation? Number of people dead as a result of policies? Average standard of living in the country? Highest aspirations?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 1:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Then you proceed to muddy the wiretapping issue (ala your Fox news talking points) and the Dubai deal.

I was gonna respond until I hit this phrase - the code words for "I'm not going to take you seriously no matter what you say." No point in wasting my time.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 1:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Why, because it's all our fault, of course... We're evil, EVIL, don't you hear?

And from the other thread:
Quote:
So you're saying all Muslims are terrorists and are not to be trusted? How enlightened of you.
The nice thing about Geezer is that you can always count on him to put words in other people's mouths. Not that I'm saying he's intellectually and rhetorically dishonest or anything. I'm sure he truly thinks he's making a point.

tee hee

More like paraphrasing the words that come out of their mouths. Chortle.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We're evil. Our govt. is just f^&king evil, at this moment. If we the people don't rise up and burn them down, then we too, are evil.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Bush has approved A Middle Eastern Company in Dubai to take over U.S Port security...do I really need to say more,Dubai also has ties to Al qaeda.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 1:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Believe it or not, I have nothing against the USA. I have a lot against the weasely, lying, greedy, corrupt sociopathic Bush & Co Admin who screwed the pooch in Iraq, bankrupted the USA, and set the whole world against us.

Geezer, Geezer, Geezer... when will you learn to make the distinction? Bush is not the USA. Amazingly, NO President is the USA. Halliburton is not the USA.

Perhaps you should discuss terminology with your compatriots.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The US working the fantasy of a united non-religious Iraqi government? Or the Iraqis working the fantasy that the US will not cut and run?

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. Democracy is a flawed system. It has led to some of the worst disasters in history... The problem is that the system is seriously flawed, riddled with corruption, and not particularly representative of the will of the people.

4. It's really, really, not our job. The United States is not some all powerful God. The United States is a nation with problems, serious problems. It has a horribly flailing economy, an increasingly uneducated and unproductive populous, more debt than most people can imaging, is progressively losing ground on internation trade, and has a decaying, overinflated and seriously out of date healthcare system, to say nothing of its welfare, and transit systems. Added to that, we have embarked on this christian democrat crusade which has made us hated by the world.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The fact is we are not stopping the Nazis here. We are the Nazis. We're not stopping the real agression in the world which is China. We failed to defend Hong Kong, and now we're failing to defend Taiwan. On the genocide front, we failed to defend Rwanda, and now we're failing to defend Darfur. We failed to defend the jews or go to war with Germany.

Sounds like U.S. bashing to me. And I'm pretty sure Hong Kong, the Rwanda genocide, and WWII were not on Bush's watch.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm plenty consistant enough, and if I contradict myself very well, I contradict myself. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You follow which ever way your Beloved Leader point you.

Actually, it's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency as I mentioned it refers to keeping your story straight.

And once again with the "Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be brainwashed" meme. Sheesh.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you define the "evil" and "good" of a nation?

Ooh! Me! Me!

But just one example.

An "Evil" nation is one where this bulletin board wouldn't exist in the first place, and if it did, the people who disparage the government on it would be disappeared and no one would ever know, e.g. North Korea, China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia.

A "Good" nation allows free expression of opinion, even if it does not agree with the government's position or causes dissent and trouble. e.g. Denmark, England, the United States.

We could go on listing "good" and "evil" traits all day. Every country has both in differing degrees. The real test is probably - Pick where in the world you'd most like to live. That would be the best of the "Good" places for you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm plenty consistant enough, and if I contradict myself very well, I contradict myself. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You follow which ever way your Beloved Leader point you.

Sorry, DT, but as an English teacher I have to correct you -

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
This is the sort of statement that I take as a partisan picking-a-fight, and I've learned to avoid them.

That's a good way of getting my back up DT.

I asked the question because you were using Hong Kong like it was a example of an all out millitary invasion, which it isn't. The lease was with the Chinese government for Hong Kong and the surrounding area (it was originally indefinatly British after the first Opium Wars, but that was changed with the addition of extra territories after subsequent conflicts and the signing of the 99 year lease).

I believe the lease was with the Chinese government, thus since the Peoples Republic of China is the Chinese Government, Hong Kong is rightfully PRC territory since the end of the lease. If Britian had stayed there, or America or anyone else had attempted to prevent the PRC taking control, they would have been the aggressor.

In fact the PRC is a successor to the ROC and Qing and it's claim to Hong Kong and it's surrounding territories was up held by UN resolution as I understand it. As I see it we can argue whether handing over control to the PRC was the right thing to do till the Cows come home, but if we had prevented it we would be the aggressor on Chinese soil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you define the "evil" and "good" of a nation?

You want to talk EVIL?

Quote:
Chinese slap ban on TV cartoons

Cartoons that blend live-action actors with animation are to be banned from TV in China.
Shows such as Teletubbies and the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit? could be affected by the decision taken by the country's main TV and film regulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4743414.stm

Banning the Teletubbies? My God.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's becuse Teletubbies are gay. Winky carries a purse, you know. The Xtian right says so, so it seems Communist Chinese and Xtians are on the same side!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Ooh! Me! Me!

But just one example.

An "Evil" nation is one where this bulletin board wouldn't exist in the first place, and if it did, the people who disparage the government on it would be disappeared and no one would ever know, e.g. North Korea, China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia.

Apparently you not only put words in the mouths of your contenders, you also put words in the mouths of your allies! In sum, your definition of a "good" nation is based on civil liberties. I presume you mean laws which prevent "unreasonable" search and seizure, indefinite detention, and torture? Laws that prevent snooping on email and phone calls, policies that make government open and accountable, and representatives that are not swayed by money?

But, okay- I'll bite: I'd prolly like best to live in New Zealand. Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway sound pretty good too. Due to an accident of birth, I was born here, and ongoing commitments keep me here. I keep working to make this nation a better place. And you....?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 9:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In sum, your view is that a "good" nation has civil liberties in place. I presume you mean laws that prevent "unreasonable" search and seizure, indefinite detention, and torture? Laws that prevent snooping on email and phone calls, policies that make government open and accountable, and representatives that are not swayed by money?

Preventing unreasonable search and seizure? you mean like the 4th Amendment? Yeah, that's a good law. I seem to recall that a prohibition on indefinite detention is there in the Bill of Rights as well. A decision on whether prisoners taken during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq fall under this law is working its way through the courts, just like any other dispute.

Congress just passed a law refining and enlarging the definition of torture, and outlawing it. Neat, eh? The system works.

Most any "snooping" requires a warrant. The very small percent, very strictly defined as contact with an overseas terrorism suspect, that can occur without a warrant requires a report to a Congressional oversight body. Called any terrorists lately?

With a free and active media just champing at the bit to pull down anyone they can in the name of ratings, and sunshine laws enacted in the past 30 or so years, we know quite a bit more than ever before about the workings of the government.

Politicians swayed by money? Like death and taxes, that's with us always.

That glass still looks half full to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 9:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Preventing unreasonable search and seizure? you mean like the 4th Amendment? Yeah, that's a good law. I seem to recall that a prohibition on indefinite detention is there in the Bill of Rights as well. A decision on whether prisoners taken during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq fall under this law is working its way through the courts, just like any other dispute. Congress just passed a law refining and enlarging the definition of torture, and outlawing it. Neat, eh? The system works.

Most any "snooping" requires a warrant. The very small percent, very strictly defined as contact with an overseas terrorism suspect, that can occur without a warrant requires a report to a Congressional oversight body.

First of all, I noticed that you skipped right past "open and accountable" government. That's pretty typical of your responses: you ignore what you don't have answers for, and steer the conversation away from your areas of weakness. So, to note:

Geezer apparently has no opinion on open and accountable government. Since the Constitution and other laws don't work unless the government actually follows them, this is a rather large omission: Russia actually has some rather nice laws on the books. So does China.

Whether the Bush administration broke the law and "snooped" on citizens illegally (and on the face of evidence, it appears that they did) is a matter of some importance. And meanwhile, people are still in detention, and prisoners have died of abuse in US custody. When will those prisoners actually get a hearing? When will Congress investigate warrantless spying? When will the Administration stop impeding the CIA-outing investigation? When will Gonzales and Bush be brave enough to testify under oath? When will Geezer actually support civil liberties? To borrow one of Rummy's favorite lines: "Who knows"?

Where the system works, it's thanks to people like me and not you, Geezer. I actually defend civil liberties through all legal means at my disposal, and try to hold the government accountable. What about you? "Lackadaisical" is too active a description. Even "passive" doesn't seem to capture the right tone. "Obstructive" might be more accurate.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 9:52 AM