Those slogan shouters are bad. Why again are Democrats going to be simple slogan shouters for opposing Mr. Bush's conservative agenda?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't see how slogan-shouting in and of itself is all that bad -- at least, not under ideal circumstances. One of the points of a slogan is to try to capture as much meaning on a certain issue as possible and use that to attract other people's attention and gain their interest and support.
Unfortunately, circumstances are hardly ever ideal, and so I certainly understand the attitude against them. A lot of people try to just use the slogans themselves as their arguments, and use them in shouting matches with the opposite faction. Or else they simply latch on to the slogan without any understanding of the concept behind the slogan and its meaning and importance.
I don't think slogan-shouting is wrong under some circumstances -- provided there's something to back it up.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Iraq still is developing nukes, beyond any reasonable doubt."
The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, and so far evidence in support of this accusation has been LACKING. As in: 100% absent. No amount of overblown republican rhetoric can hide that FACT, not this time. Unrestrained warmongering is NOT the act of a civilised nation pretending to hold diplomacy in the highest esteem. Not that it wasn't clear from the outset Bush and his cronies were pushing for war no matter WHAT the inspectors uncover, with or without a UN mandate.
Iraq does NOT present a danger.
Meanwhile, North Korea has virtually started a wholesale of its nuclear arsenal and forms a credible, REAL threat, yet is unhindered by the hawks from downtown DC. As in: not even talked down. Why? Strongly reinforces my suspicion the arguments given for military intervention in Iraq are blatant LIES.
Ahh, condensation.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Good, further clarification.
Those slogan shouters are bad. Why again are Democrats going to be simple slogan shouters for opposing Mr. Bush's conservative agenda?
Actually, I don't believe I said that they are, or would. I've said that they could, that there are enough of them to be a hindrance, and that some of them are likely to have that inclination (especially those who voted for the war resolution who now say they oppose attacking).
They may be smarter than that, and there may be actual debate - but it probably won't be "public" per se, just on C-Span. Publicly, either it will be people making points (good) or the polite equivalent of "slogan shouting" (bad.) I'm not saying which until it happens.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Cartman's post - debate, if old and tired. Carman's picture - slogan shouting. AND old and tired.
He has also demonstrated an inability to grasp Resolution 1441 and its contents, including the FACT that the burden of compliance, that is accounting for EVERYTHING that the Un KNEW was there in 1998.
Everything else he says is so much a straw man that it could stand in for the Scarecrow of Oz.
Korea and Iraq - two different places, two different conditions, two different situations, requiring two different solutions.
At least Korea has a history of being a LITTLE open to dialogue.
But the condition of renegotiation has already been established: Cease nuclear development as they promised in 1994, readmit UN inspectors.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:�There�s a strong intelligence case that Iraq has not destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and is building the capability to use them,� said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House intelligence committee. �There�s a growing al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and I think the case can be made that there is a growing affiliation� between Baghdad and terrorist groups.
quote: Illustrating the problem was the recent discovery by U.N. inspectors, based on U.S. or British information, that Iraqis may have cleaned out a site the inspectors were about to visit. Describing that incident, a senior administration official said, �The minute you reveal the information, you risk making it untrue.�
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But you were not talking about the war to begin with, you were talking about the Democrats being a hindrance to Mr. Bush's conservative domestic agenda. Which is neither here nore there.
I get stuck on the use of the word hindrance. Personally, I think the Democrats are not doing enough to act in opposition to Mr. Bush's conservative domestic agenda. Yet to say that Democrats are only doing so because they
quote:have the need/ability to do this
implies the base motives which are soley political. I couldn't agree less with that implication.
As far as the war goes, no, I too doubt there will be a debate. Congress could rescind the War Powers Act, but I think that unlikely. Mr. Bush has made up his mind to attack Iraq and no one else can persuade him otherwise. And debate in these forums is rather pointless.
You seem to think that Mr. Bush has proven his point of the danger of Iraq.
I find Mr. Bush to be an accomplished misstator of the truth and I frankly don't believe much of what he has to say. Ironic that, since he was supposed to bring honor and intergrity back to the White House. When it comes to attacking Iraq Mr. Bush is nothing short of obsessive, and I think that he finds "evidence" to support his own agenda.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I haven't heard of any "proof" that al-Qaeda is working with or in Iraq so far, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised in some ways. Assuming that the al-Qaeda operatives would be looking for a place to go outside of Afghanistan rather than just digging in and taking cover, Iraq might seem like a logical place given its long defiance against the western nations.
On the other hand, one thing I've been learning from my political science class this term is that Hussein has a history of keeping the control of military power to himself -- basically, of doing his dirty work himself. Obviously he could be wrong (and he's aware of that), but my professor has argued that Hussein wouldn't want to give up the control of WMD's. But then again, simply granting them safety would probably not be out of the question for him either.
At this point, for most of us it's just speculation. Maybe some intelligence people and the high-ups in the government know more (as Bush has been claiming for months now despite refusing to present evidence).
On the issue of Korea... I'm really kind of split on that. On one hand, it seems that the DPRK is basically trying to get attention and recognition for itself -- it's a diplomatic ploy. However, given that their main export is missile technology, it's a very small step to start exporting nukes. I have hopes that the crisis can be resolved diplomatically -- but frankly that problem is of Bush's making anyway.
Does anyone realize that when the Bush administration published that report on US strategies that laid out the principles of "preemptive strikes" back in September, the only country mentioned by name in the entire report was North Korea? (And not even Iraq.) One a basic level I can't blame them one bit for getting paranoid, regardless of the history or politics. Combined with Bush's oh-so-charming "Axis of Evil" label, it serves to put unnecessary pressure from the wrong angle and is only exacerbating the problem instead.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I haven't heard of any "proof" that al-Qaeda is working with or in Iraq so far, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised in some ways. Assuming that the al-Qaeda operatives would be looking for a place to go outside of Afghanistan rather than just digging in and taking cover, Iraq might seem like a logical place given its long defiance against the western nations.
Yup. And the fact that Saddam is completely secularist, and has killed many, many, many Muslims just makes their teaming up even more logical!
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Iraq still is developing nukes, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Well, clearly the International Atomic Energy Agency knows far less than you do. Can you free up some time in your schedule to take over the inspections in Iraq for them?
quote:Mohamed El Baradei, the head o f the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke just after Mr Blix to state categorically that his teams had found "no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme". He also made a more direct plea for time.
"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to continue its natural course," Mr El Baradei told the council. "With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and providing there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able in the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon programme.
"These few months in my view would be a valuable investment in peace because it would help us avoid a war," he said.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Come on, Tom, Omega knows full well that with a name like that, Mohamed El Baradei is probably a Muslim and therefore in on it, after all they all are, everyone knows that. . .
posted
Actually, I heard that the whole Iraq thing was just a very comlicated practical joke being played on Blair by everyone. Bush is going to let him make a very solemn announcement that we are now at war and then all the world's leaders will step out from behind startigically placed curtains and laugh at him.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Yup. And the fact that Saddam is completely secularist, and has killed many, many, many Muslims just makes their teaming up even more logical!
You make it sound as though you believe Al-Qaeda is the ONLY Muslim Fundie group out there, and/or that Saddam hasn't been linked to any other terrorist organization, muslim fundie or otherwise.
It also makes it sound as though you believe that a person who kills SOME members of a huge, diverse group, can't ally himselves with OTHER members of that group.
These, of course, are too silly for words.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I haven't heard of any "proof" that al-Qaeda is working with or in Iraq so far, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised in some ways. Assuming that the al-Qaeda operatives would be looking for a place to go outside of Afghanistan rather than just digging in and taking cover, Iraq might seem like a logical place given its long defiance against the western nations.
Logical place to hide, lets see the US was already talking tough with Iraq shortly after Sept. 11. Would you find it logical to hide at the next logical target of US wrath? Myself I would hide somewhere safer than that.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
