SC and Prole: We told you so

[sexual_chocolate]

Another interesting point to consider regarding iran:

 

would ahmadinejad have been elected if al gore had won the presidency?

 

remember that bush came out with his vitriolic axis of evil speech before the iranian elections, a time when a modicum of moderation existed in iranian politics (remember rafsanjani, khameini(sp) and other reformists?); after bush's escalation, the iranian people promptly vote into office an outspoken nationalist, one who made militarism a campaign issue, capitalising on the fears of the population.

 

very understandable, really. the consequences of bush's "policies" were so apparent from day one, and we'll be suffering from the blowback for years to come, i'm afraid.

[underworld]

another speculation thread....geez!

[sexual_chocolate]

if one sees a mechanism at work, notes its predictive qualities, then said mechanism escapes the charge of being simply "speculative".

 

the mechanics of fear and violence are pretty well understood, for those interested.

[mattp]

Another snippet re: our relationship with Iran:

 

The Bush administration rebuked Iran and said: we don't speak to rogue nations like you when they offered to help us stabilize Iraq shortly after the invastion.

 

One Source

 

Another Source

 

As far as I know, the administration has declined to comment on the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group's recommendation that we attempt to involved nearby nations including Syria and Iran in helping stabilize the situation now. Instead, they are "upping the ante" by spewing more "with us or against us" rhetoric and daring them to step out of line.

 

-----

 

I'm still wondering if Fairweather will answer:

 

Do you STILL think we should just nuke a country or two? Which ones?

 

Do you REALLY think Bush has done a better job responding to 911 than Gore would have? How?

 

---

 

Sexy's "mechanism" is clearly in play here. These guys do not seem to want either peace or stability.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

What if we just snuck into his house and took away his gun before he had a chance to load it?

 

...and he catches you in the act...

 

 

...after reloading; a more fitting analogy.

[sexual_chocolate]

hey that would be the excuse the US needs! Perfect!

 

It worked in Panama, vietnam, korea....

[Fairweather]

Fairweather, I take it you are insulting me because you don't want to respond to my last few posts. Call me whatever you want, but I'm still curious:

 

Do you STILL think we should just nuke a country or two? Which ones?

 

Do you REALLY think Bush has done a better job responding to 911 than Gore would have? How?

 

Are you just trolling here or trying to be annoying or do you have a point? We understand that you don't like Mr. Chavez, but we've touched upon Bush and Iraq and I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on these issues. (I posted these questions extra large just in case you may be experiencing a little "inability to focus" yourself.)

 

Not biting, Mr Matt. Until you have the decency to actually read a link I've posted before you claim it as your own and re-post it, I don't really feel obligated to respond to your bizzare interpretation of something I may or may not have stated nearly four years ago.

 

BTW; you seem a little tense with the big font and all. Anger problems?

[mattp]

That's a B.S. evasion, Fairweather, and I'm pretty sure you know it. You've made some serious statements here, and I'm curious whether you really mean it or not. I was quite stricken to read your words five years ago but now, after how all of this has turned out, I'd think you'd if anything be less inclined to urge attack than before. Perhaps that is not the case.

 

Since the American public rightfully is not accepting of long protracted wars with American dead, and since a short volley of cruise missiles is terribly short of what is required, I think an appropriate response that says to terrorists and the rest of the world that we mean business is the complete destruction of an UNOCCUPIED city.

 

....

 

Yes, with nukes or similar. (fuel-air explosives) Yes, we advise them (the host country of these terrorist dogs...not Afghanistan for sure) that a certain city may be a bad real estate investment in, say 48 hours.

 

I used the big font so you wouldn't claim you hadn't noticed my questions. If you still feel that way, that is cool and all -- everybody is entitled to their opinions, right? Show some self confidence and tell us what you believe.

[billcoe]

 

"i caught a fish THIS big"

 

Well, sure I've gone lesbo with my hairdresser now, but I loved sleeping with "Big Bill" too for the obvious reasons.

[Fairweather]

That's a B.S. evasion, Fairweather, and I'm pretty sure you know it. You've made some serious statements here, and I'm curious whether you really mean it or not. I was quite stricken to read your words five years ago but now, after how all of this has turned out, I'd think you'd if anything be less inclined to urge attack than before. Perhaps that is not the case.

 

Since the American public rightfully is not accepting of long protracted wars with American dead, and since a short volley of cruise missiles is terribly short of what is required, I think an appropriate response that says to terrorists and the rest of the world that we mean business is the complete destruction of an UNOCCUPIED city.

 

....

 

Yes, with nukes or similar. (fuel-air explosives) Yes, we advise them (the host country of these terrorist dogs...not Afghanistan for sure) that a certain city may be a bad real estate investment in, say 48 hours.

 

I used the big font so you wouldn't claim you hadn't noticed my questions. If you still feel that way, that is cool and all -- everybody is entitled to their opinions, right? Show some self confidence and tell us what you believe.

 

OK, Matthew. Since you have such a hard time separating the two, I'll spell it out for you:

 

Afghanistan: Given that The Taliban lent safe haven to the Al Queda killers who murdered almost 3000 of our fellow countrymen on 9/11/01, we were entirely justified in our actions there. The multi-national presence in Afghanistan remains completely justifiable now as well. I believe George Bush took/has taken the appropriate measure of response, and while it is regrettable that we did not capture Bin Laden, the country of Afghanistan no longer hosts him and offers him a safe, state-sanctioned home in which to train.

 

Iraq: Obviously, GW & Co fucked this one up. I believe I've stated before my disgust with the VP and Rumsfeld, and with the intelligence manipulation that led to the invasion. All Monday morning QB-ing now. I remain convinced that our invasion can be justified on other grounds - such as the constant attacks on our aircraft patrolling the old 'no fly zone', Saddam's attempted assasination of Bush Sr in Kuwait, or the murder of 600 Kuwaiti POW's after Iraq capitulated the first time around. While demonstrating that a despot could be removed militarily in 21 days, GW's "let's stay and fix Iraq" strategy, while noble, has been one major fuck up. In hindsight, we should not have invaded Iraq. Our efforts in Afghanistan/Pakistan have suffered, but I'm not sure a stronger push there would produce positive results in any case. I hope we're mostly out of there by the end of this year.

 

Matt, maybe you actually admire Ahmadinajad and hope for some outcome that tames what you obvioulsly view as American dominance of world resources and events. Why don't you just come out and say it? I have no problem with someone playing devil's advocate, but you seem sincere in your rhetoric. Careful what you wish for. Now, please don't dissect what I've written above and demand even more detailed explanation in that arrogant and condescending way you seem to have mastered. I've spelled it out for you in as clear a manner as possible - which is more than you've ever found the humility to do for me.

 

I would ask you to consider this: Why is it that every single debate on this board leads you back to the same old Bush hatred response? Every single one! Bush lied! We were deceived! Oil! Halliburton! Rush Limbaugh! I very sincerely believe you are consumed. I don't see this in Off White - or even Prole or Sexual Chocolate. Can you answer this for me? For yourself?

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

I'll answer the last question first. I AM consumed. I believe that the Bush Administration has taken actions that seriously threaten our National Interest for years to come and that they may even start World War III.

 

Bush was not fairly elected the first time around, and maybe not the second. Despite his ratings in the polls though, and despite your own statement that you believe they screwed up in Iraq, they continue to have your support and that of way too many other Americans for an ongoing policy of warmongering and lying, and I believe this is a real serious problem for us and for the world. I don't think there has been anybody so militaristic, criminal, and so capable literally of destroying the world, since Hitler. Seriously.

 

You seem to feel that since you acknowledged that they lied - whenever that was but I think it was less than a year ago that you finally figured it out - we should simply "move on" and ignore that little problem and conduct our discussions here as if we continue to assume that these guys are looking out for our interest and we can trust our government. That I do not understand. And that willful ignorance, blind trust, or whatever you want to call it is what empowers them.

 

As to Afghanistan, I agree that whoever was president would have had to take some serious action. However, let me ask what you would now be saying about it if it HAD been Gore or some other Democrat who conducted an operation that was pretty much guaranteed NOT to catch Bin Laden, and then said "I don't really care about him (B.L)? What if this same president had read a memo, a month before 911, saying "terrorists are determined to strike on US soil" and failed to do anything about it? I seriously doubt you'd be acting now like it was no big deal and saying merely that "it could have turned out better." Like I said: I realize now and recognized then that serious action was needed. But the actions we undertook in Afghanistan, as in so many other places, were not for the purposes we were told. Maybe it was the oil pipeline deal or maybe it was something else, but it wasn't to get Bin Laden or to reduce terrorism around the world.

 

As to Iran, you have never read where I stated that I admire Ahmadinajad. I don't know where you get this stuff. Like Bush and Chavez, I think he's a belicose opportunist. I wonder, however, if Sexy Cocoa has a point: might Bush's hard-line rhetoric have actually helped get him elected? And I certainly believe it has been disastrous to label Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, refuse to talk with them, flatly rebuff their offer to help in Iraq, and demonstrate to them and to the world that if they don't hurry up and develop nuclear weapons we will crush them militarily but if they can arm themselves before we have an excuse to attack them, we will not.

 

I'm still wondering, however: do you think it would be a good idea to kick off a war with Iran right now? Syria? Korea? What about the nuclear option?

 

And "Matthew?" is that your version of the "arrogance and condecension" that you accuse me of or is that something else?

[Fairweather]

Well done. Now we have a dialogue. I continue to support GWB over Dem alternatives because I don't like the alternatives. Especially their domestic agenda. And I honestly do wish Bush would dump Cheney. Would a Gore presidency have resulted in a different election outcome in Iran? Who knows. Maybe. But the fact remains that no matter who wins an election in Iran, The Ayatollas remain the masters. And they don't have to worry about campaign posters, do they?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

My dick is this large.

[AlpineK]

The only Ayatolla I respect is the Ayatolla of rock and rolla.

 

Seriously F I think you want to drop a big fatty bomb on someone in the middle east. The fact is there are a lot of countries out there that are worthy of hate, but despite that the only option that makes any kind of sense is to negotiate with them and more importantly get the backing and help of other countries that are our allies. After all we are a super power, but we aren't the only fish in the pond.

[mattp]

Allright, Fairweather, so you continue to support Bush and company over their domestic agenda. We could have a whole 'nother discussion about that, because in my view they've been just as negligent and criminal on the domestic front as well. That aside, does this mean that you feel it is appropriate to let them have their way with the world (so they can do what you believe is good for the domestic agenda), or do you actually support their International agenda as well?

 

As I see it, you often seem to argue that the UN is corrupt, that International law does not apply to the US and we should never allow it to, that nations or other third parties who even vaguely resist the will of the US military should be crushed and we should not bother with diplomacy unless it is simply a one-way discussion based on the permise that they do what we want "or else," and all of this may indicate you think we are the "chosen" ones who are destined to and properly should rule the world. Five years ago, you suggested we drop a nuclear bomb "or similar device" on some unidentified city in Afghanistan or other nation which may harbor terrorists, and in this thread you seem to have indicated you may still promote such action.

 

I know you said you wish Bush would dump Cheney but he has not done so. And after all the lies and the obvious disaster of their foreign policy not only with respect Iraq but also Iran, Afghanistan, and Korea, you STILL give them your support. It doesn't sound as if you merely support Bush and Cheney on their domestic agenda but also on the foreign one. You may have problems with some of it, but certainly not the package as a whole and it looks as if you continue to have "faith" that they will do the "right" thing and you might well support broadening the current war to include military action in Syria and Iran. Am I wrong here?

 

At your request, I set forth my position. Now it is your turn. I don't expect KK to do so, because he rarely does, apparently preferring to spew his rhetoric and insults without daring to reveal himself. You, however, have occasionally told us where you stand. Lets see it!

[Crux]

AlpineK, fwiw, last time I listened to dialogue from the floor of the United States Senate, which was sometime last week, the observation being shared was that we no longer have allies -- that we are now alone in our militarism. One might recall that's how it usually goes for the bad guys, sooner or later.

 

Btw, anybody else notice that shot over the bow last week? China demonstrated its advancing preparedness to take out our military satellites. And oh, China has as its ally the nuclear power of Russia. Don't look now, but the guns of the world are turning. And why on Earth wouldn't they?

[Fairweather]

OK Matt. I'll ignore Crux who once stated his love for liberty in the form of an expressed desire for arrest warrants issued to ABC News execs who aired a documentary he did not like. I don't recall a right-winger ever suggesting the same here. Crux is a reactionary leftist kook whom the Democratic Party will buck in short order. Crux, do you honestly believe the majority of nations prefer Islamism over us? When the rubber hits the road, you're gonna be left wondering why you ever believed that. And mainstream Dems that run for the '08 presidency are gonna leave you steaming mad with their moderate tone. You are soon to find yourself marginalized - again. BTW, Crux, have you read Charlie Schumer's new book? I hear he spells it out for those of you on the Dem kook fringe. You're to be ignored.

 

I'm not sure how many different ways I can spell it out for you, Matt. Bush fucked up Iraq, and that has had adverse effects on our credibility - no doubt. But I believe his handling of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran has been spot-on. Keep in mind that the North Koreans built the vast majority of their nuke program during the Clinton administration, who tried to make nice . Now I haven't seem GWB attacking NK, have you? He has taken the very path those who lean toward your side of the fence prefer - dialogue. (With a bit of banking embargo mixed in.) The six-party talks are the epitomy of diplomacy! Do you honestly believe Kim Jong Ill will give up his nukes just because we talk one-on-one and make concesions??? Bill Richardson and Madame Albright tried that...didn't work. As for Iran, yes, I think they will have to have their progress toward the bomb stopped with air strikes - be it Israel, or us. The UN and EU efforts are getting nowhere, and while I hope they make progress toward their stated desires of a non-nuke Iran, we both know that probably isn't going to happen. As for Syria, I haven't heard anyone here making overt threats to attack inside that nation. (Israel v Hezbollah/Syria is a different issue, for the most part.) I think it is our right to kill any Syrian that infiltrates the Iraq border with the intent to kill American soldiers - at least as long as we're there - don't you?

 

Answer before you ask. Seems to me that this is how it should work now.

[Fairweather]

The only Ayatolla I respect is the Ayatolla of rock and rolla.

 

Seriously F I think you want to drop a big fatty bomb on someone in the middle east. The fact is there are a lot of countries out there that are worthy of hate, but despite that the only option that makes any kind of sense is to negotiate with them and more importantly get the backing and help of other countries that are our allies. After all we are a super power, but we aren't the only fish in the pond.

 

This is exactly what the Bush administration is doing! Six-party talks - NKorea. EU/UN negotiations - Iran. I'm not sure why you and Matt are so hysterical over this. Military action always looms the implied threat of failed diplomacy. doesn't matter the issue, or the nations involved.

[WhoooHoo]

Interesting how in just what little was said, said a lot about the two of you......

[gambo]

globalization? Think about it:

 

An English princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a French tunnel, driving a German car

with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was drunk on Scottish whisky, followed closely by Italian paparazzi on Japanese motorcycles; she was treated by an American doctor, using Brazilian medicines.

 

This is being sent to you by an American, using Bill Gate's technology, and you're probably reading this on a computer that uses Taiwanese chips, a Korean monitor, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a plant in Singapore, transported by Indian lorry-drivers, hijacked by Indonesians, unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen, and probably trucked to you by a Mexican illegal....

[archenemy]

We know exactly where one cow with mad-cow-disease is located among the millions and millions of cows in America but we haven't got a clue as to where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are located. Maybe we should put the Department of Agriculture in charge of immigration?

[mattp]

Answer before you ask. Seems to me that this is how it should work now.

 

I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, and here you appear to have at least tried to address the issues at hand rather than insult me and hide behind some excuse not to answer a question. But in all due respect I gotta say: it really doesn't look as if this is a two way street or even a real conversation here (kinda like Bush's attempt at "dialog" with N. Korea). Yes, you finally set forth several viewpoints on related issues, but you still haven't really answered the questions as I posed yet you ask your own and then insist: "answer before you ask."

 

In the interest of continuing a conversation, though, I'll answer your question: yes, I believe that we would have a right not neceessarily to kill them outright, but we certainly would have a right to capture, detain, and try under whatever rules may apply a Syrian who enters Iraq as a combatant or -- what did Bush call them? -- "enemy non-combatant."

[Dechristo]

I think it is our right to kill any Syrian that infiltrates the Iraq border with the intent to kill American soldiers - at least as long as we're there - don't you?

yes, I believe that we would have a right not neceessarily to kill them outright, but we certainly would have a right to capture, detain, and try under whatever rules may apply a Syrian who enters Iraq as a combatant or -- what did Bush call them? -- "enemy non-combatant."

 

God, I hate reading shit like this. Do you have any idea how ungrounded and disconnected from reality you sound when espousing an opinion such as this?

 

As anyone who has been shot at can tell you, when being fired upon, the target must either flee, shoot back, or, in a situation where the Geneva Conventions are respected by both sides, surrender. [sarcasm]I suppose a fourth option is to attempt to arrest while under fire and make the arrest or be killed.[/sarcasm]

 

I hope sincerely that you are never in a position to determine operational procedures for the military. I'm left to believe that either your bias has you more concerned for the welfare of those that desire to kill U.S. troops than that of U.S. troops or you're pitiably naive. Sadly, a naivete that may only be cured by an event of significant personal trauma.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

I hope sincerely that you are never in a position to determine operational procedures for the military. I'm left to believe that either your bias has you more concerned for the welfare of those that desire to kill U.S. troops than that of U.S. troops or you're pitiably naive. Sadly, a naivete that may only be cured by an event of significant personal trauma.

 

 

alright ambiguous military right wing tuff-guy, why don't you look at the statement by fairweather:

 

"I think it is our right to kill any Syrian that infiltrates the Iraq border with the intent to kill American soldiers - at least as long as we're there - don't you?"

 

without getting into a host of other very relevant contingencies, fairweather's post is a wee bit vague regarding the nature of threat a US soldier (ie illegal invader) might face from a syrian. as far as i'm concerned, the whole fucking invasion was, and continues to be, illegal; hence, any action by a US soldier is illegal (poor fucks). but that's just me, and i'm sure matt's got a different scenario in mind, one that takes into consideration the nature of the threat (ie clear and imminent, potential, etc.).

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I hope sincerely that you are never in a position to determine operational procedures for the military. I'm left to believe that either your bias has you more concerned for the welfare of those that desire to kill U.S. troops than that of U.S. troops or you're pitiably naive. Sadly, a naivete that may only be cured by an event of significant personal trauma.

 

 

alright ambiguous military right wing tuff-guy, why don't you look at the statement by fairweather:

 

"I think it is our right to kill any Syrian that infiltrates the Iraq border with the intent to kill American soldiers - at least as long as we're there - don't you?"

 

without getting into a host of other very relevant contingencies, fairweather's post is a wee bit vague regarding what the nature of threat a US soldier (ie illegal invader) might face from a syrian. as far as i'm concerned, the whole fucking invasion was, and continues to be, illegal; hence, any action by a US soldier is illegal (poor fucks). but that's just me, and i'm sure matt's got a different scenario in mind, one that takes into consideration the nature of the threat (ie clear and imminent, potential, etc.).

 

 

"right wing tough guy"? WTF? You guys on the left are so fucking dense with your aspersions. DeChristo doesn't strike me as "right wing" in the least. Just because someone disagrees with your left-wing orthodoxy in one case does not make him a "right wing"-er on all positions. Ditto for your last whining barb at me as a "reactionary". It's no wonder nobody takes you ass-clowns seriously.