posted
I'm always sooo delighted when I see this "no legitimate government" card pulled from the big brassy uniform sleeve. It brings up memories of the merry thirties when Stalin didn't fight any offensive wars against sovereign nations. After all, the nations, as represented by the local communist cells, were solid allies of Stalin's regime, and had invited those troops for a friendly visit. It was just an inconsequential bunch of "elected" "officials" of the "government" sitting in the "parliamentary building" in the "capital" who insisted otherwise...
To be sure, I'm happy to see the Taleban gone. Next in line should logically be the Kurds, a bunch of PKK terrorists and their supporters with proven Qaeda connections who should be carpet-bombed to extinction for the sake of world peace. Good thing that president Hussein is siding with the rest of the free world on this.
(What this has to do with indecisive firemen is beyond my powers of reasoning, but I still suggest holding fire on Iraq until mid-October. That should get my old school pal safely back from his honeymoon there...)
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:the average Afghan seems to be a hell of a lot happier now. to me, that matters a hell of a lot more than unilaterally withdrawing from treaties, many of which were a bad idea to begin with.
You're a shining beacon of pure altruism. With that kind of attitude, who needs foreign politics?
quote:you also seem to be conveniently forgetting that the UK also sent troops to Afghanistan. not quite so unilateral when its an international effort, bozo.
Ad hominem #1.
Now *IF* you had actually bothered to read my post, you'd know that I brought up Afghanistan as an example of the general direction non-domestic policy is headed in, and you wouldn't be putting your usual steaming piles of verbal excrement in my mouth.
quote:and you are forgetting that the US President has fairly wide ranging powers now a days when it comes to the miltary.
... Making it much easier for potential whackjobs to abuse that power, especially when, say, large corporations with vast interests abroad are calling their shots.
quote:and you forgot that he had approval from the American people and congress.
Approving of an action does not grant it legal status outside US borders.
quote:you also seem to have forgotten that a formal war couldn't be declared since the Taliban were not recognized as a sovereign nation by the US.
Oh, what a fucking crock. Attacking autonomous states when it suits our purpose == Bad Thing. Attacking recognised regimes (yes, the Taliban were exactly that) == Bad Thing. Still, I'd like to hear personally from the average Afghan if he/she is indeed soooooo much better off as you claim, what with the NA running the place pretty much the same way the Taliban did.
quote:and you forgot that Al Qaida, which was under the aegis of a non sovereign "government", WAS and IS a very real threat to the United States.
Did I? Quote the relevant part of my post.
Isn't it ironic, though, that A-Q, which was amongst other things given financial support by the CIA during the titanic struggle with the forces of the Evil Empire (Reaganspeak kicks ass), has unanimously decided to turn its sights on the US, infuriated by its presence and activities in the middle east? Too bad one can only appreciate this incongruity if one dares to look in the mirror.
quote:you also seem to have forgotten that no reductions in freedoms have actually happened despite irrational fears about the goverment.
Man, this is deep. Many of us here, including me, have tried to convince Omega and First that their fears about Big Brother were irrational, yet now I find myself on the other side of the fence. No reductions in freedom, eh? I seem to recall a little plan called TIPS being floated quite recently. It got shot down before it surfaced, of course, but the very fact it floated at all shows the damage 9/11 has left in its wake, and TIPS is by far not the only disturbing element of the sociopolitical aftermath. But if you prefer living in a police state, who am I to argue?
quote:you also seem to have forgotten that the Afghani people were enslaved by a group they didn't want.
And we know what's best for them, don't we? Presumptious and arrogant.
quote:you seem to have forgotten that toppling the Taliban and capturing and killing Al Qaida was the right thing to do.
Have I? Quote the relevant part of my post.
quote:did i also mention that you forgot that it was an International effort and that no Sovereign Nation was attacked since the Taliban was not a legitimate government?
I believe I addressed this.
quote:you seem to have forgotten all the important things. no surprise, there.
Ad hominem #2. No surprise, there.
quote:p.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
It's called sarcasm. Want me to spell it out for you?
[ August 21, 2002, 08:42: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: P.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
Considering your apparent need to bring this up on a daily basis, I can only conclude that Jesus raped your mum and that you are in some sort of denial.
-------------------- 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:...no reductions in freedoms have actually happened despite irrational fears about the goverment.
There are a few people who would disagree that statement. Not the least of which is one Jose Padilla, who, even though he was not captured on a field of battle, languishes in a jail cell. The government says they can hold hime indefinitely without being charged with a crime.
Same can be said of Yaser Hamdi and the 300 or so "detainees" in Cuba.
I have less of a problem with Hamdi and the others being held. They are prisioners of some sort of war and Hamdi was captured on the battlefield. The probles is the fact that there logical plan of what to do with them other than legal limbo because Bush just keeps saying he can hold them as long as he wants to.
And on top of that:
quote:Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House are considering creating a military detention camps for all U.S. citizens deemed by the administration to be enemy combatants.
Internees in this special camp will be treated just as Padilla and Hamdi have been so far - as if they did not possess the basic, traditional rights that can be invoked by U.S. citizens suspected of crimes. Even persons accused of treason have the right to these protections. (The Rosenbergs, to take one example). But according to the government, Padilla, Hamdi, and other American citizens interned in the camps do not.
-------------------- 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
quote:See, that's the problem with your initial argument, you couldn't just say 'Congress did this' or 'Congress did that'. Nooooooooooo, it's them Demecrats. Cause only Demecrats do that.
Fortunately, I didn't say this. I said that both parties do it, just that the Democrats were better at it.
This makes you the teensiest bit of a liar, but hey, why let the truth stand in the way of a good rant?
By the way, I suspect that an honest, line-by line accounting of the remaining 3.2 billion dollars of the bill would tell the tale. Unfortunately I don't have access to that sort of information.
As for your final article... I'm awaiting an analysis by the nice non-tinfoil-hat-wearing folks at snopes, and will reserve comment until then. Nice subject jump, though.
quote: Declarations of war are the only legal means he has to accomplish this.
Not necessarily. There are the UN Resolutions which could be interpreted to authorize just about any action against Iraq.
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990), which authorized member states to use "all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area" has never been rescinded. To be pedantic about it, we are still operating under its jurisdiction.
Taken literally, the pre-Desert Storm Resolution 678 could be said to authorize not only the one-time use of armed force, but also whatever subsequent use of armed force might be needed to restore international peace and security in the area. The U.S. could argue that a renewed use of armed force is now needed if peace in the area is to be permanently restored.
Resolution 687 imposed the obligation to accept the neutralization under international supervision of its chemical, biological and medium- or long-range missile capabilities.
Resolution 678 gave member states the authority to uphold all "relevant resolutions" subsequent to Resolution 660, and Resolution 687 is such a resolution.
-------------------- "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
There is one thing I won't be called you pompous overblown windbag, and that is a liar.
You took a stupid swipe at the Democrats and I called you one it.
quote:although it sppears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
-------------------- 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
-------------------- "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
In the hyperbole of the Flameboard, that ain't nothing.
[ August 21, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- 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
quote: In the hyperbole of the Flameboard, that ain't nothing.
By that logic, neither was my 'swipe' at the Democrats.
-------------------- "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
Only I didn't call you a liar for your little swipe. You know as well as I do that it's just not true, because both sides play the political game just as good as the other side.
Go, count the riders. Add the parties up and get back to me.
Until then, if you want to get right down to it,
quote:although it sppears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
is an unfounded accusation...which I pointed out in a sarcastic way.
As for my final article, I'm not sure that calling an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and the Associate Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & Technology "tinfoil-hat-wearing" does anyone a bit of good. Or that Snopes would have the discussion of law that the Commentary section on FindLaw has.
Irregardless of your remark, it is far from a "subject-jump" as you describe because Mr. Reks brought the issue up in his far reaching post. This is a wide ranging topic touching on things scuh as Mr. Bush playing politics with the spending bill and the reaction of the firefighters, the apparent looming attack on Iraq and even civil liberties. I hope readers of the thread will be able to keep up.
[ August 21, 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- 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
I was all hepped up for the dialogue, but now not so much. But I will point out that my skepticism re: the "liberation" of Iraq does not extend to Afghanistan. Or even Iraq. I mean, that is, not in the way this thread is tending. I'm all for toppling governments who are eager to blow me up. Let's just not labor under the delusion that this is the same as waving the magic democracy wand.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote: P.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
Considering your apparent need to bring this up on a daily basis, I can only conclude that Jesus raped your mum and that you are in some sort of denial.
yes, my mother was raped by an Argentinian named Jesus. does it make you fucking happy to gloat over that, you arsefaced pedophile?
IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
