Author Topic: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out  (Read 12437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2008, 06:36:11 PM »

They show no such thing.

Yes the quotes do show many of the democratic party leaders stating
rather clearly the threat from Iraq.

One day you should learn the difference between "saying" and "believing." 

Oh it's time for the big conspiracy again to connect the looney dots?

You heard from the people they bought.  All of them, Albright, Clinton, etc.

So Democratic President Clinton, Democratic Senator Kennedy, Democratic Speaker Pelosi,
Democratic Vice President Al Gore, Democratic Congressman Waxman, they are all in on
the big conspiracy too?  ::)

You like to quote from the whores, but not from the people who can't be bought

Gosh how crazy of me to quote people like the twice elected Democratic President Of the United States, the Democratic Secretary of State of the United States, the Democratic United States Presidential Nominee, the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and the 2nd longest serving Democratic Senator in the United States. Yes the big conspiracy involves them all and may be directed from Venus or Mars.  ::)


"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2008, 06:38:35 PM »
<<Quite the contrary , Saddam was very prone to make war>>

VERY prone?  This is a joke.  He attacked Iran with U.S. encouragement and assistance.  He invaded Kuwait with a green-light from the American ambassador.  And pulled out of Kuwait when threatened with American force.  At the point in time where the U.S. attacked him, he was extremely unlikely to have received further U.S. incentives to attack any of his neighbours, and so, was extremely UNLIKELY to have made war again.  So the spectre of all the people who would have died in new Saddam wars had he been left to his own devices is not only pure speculation, but poorly grounded speculation at that.

 <<he seldom left his Own population alone >>

You are kidding me, right?  What dictator ever does?  There's no evidence he was any more vicious and murderous towards his own population than any other Middle Eastern dictator in repressing revolts and perceived plots.  What you can say about Saddam in that respect you can say of every other Middle Eastern dictator.  The difference that I can see being that the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party under Saddam delivered first-class education and health care to its people, equality for women, education for women and  forcible repression of all religious extremism.

<<he often attacked his neighbors the casualtys of our whole invasion period do not equal yet the number killed in any one year of his eight year fight with Iran. >>

Yeah, for which you can probably thank the U.S. for in the first place.  Funny how that attack on Iran took place shortly AFTER the Iranian Revolution had gotten rid of its initial secular middle-class front-men and taken a major anti-U.S. turn, isn't it?  BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War minimum casualty estimates (both sides total) 750,000 and maximum (both sides total) 1,500,000 and Lancet estimate of casualties to date in Iraq I believe was 600,000.  In addition to the casualties you also have to factor in the level of homelessness and internal and external refugees produced by the invasion and the sectarian killings that followed in its wake.  The homeless and the refugees number well into the millions.

Apart from all of that, the likelihood of Saddam launching any new wars at the time of the American invasion, with no prospect of American support or encouragement, is less than zero, so the whole discussion of potential war dead is really pointless since there was no realistic prospect of future Iraqi attacks on their neighbours.

<<I think your speculations are very poorly founded.>>

Yeah, well thanks for your opinion.  I've got my own opinion of YOUR speculations, as you might have gathered.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2008, 06:49:33 PM »
<<So Democratic President Clinton, Democratic Senator Kennedy, Democratic Speaker Pelosi,
Democratic Vice President Al Gore, Democratic Congressman Waxman, they are all in on
the big conspiracy too?  Roll Eyes>>

LOL

You are the one who raises the "big conspiracy" theory. 

All I said was that they all answer to their corporate and special-interest donors.  They carry their water.  I guess you find it really surprising that politicians can be bought, eh?

I bet you were really, really SHOCKED when the "anti-war" Nancy Pelosi, once in a position to do so, utterly failed to cut the purse-strings to the Iraqi War which she so vehemently opposed during the elections.  OMG, she's anti-war but she's NOT anti-war!  How can that happen?    ::)

Welcome to the real world.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2008, 07:16:09 PM »
I was really only curious whether or not Ami would try to tell me it was not white.  He seems to only ever want to disagree.

I only disagree when I know you're wrong.

I think you've mentioned your van being white previously, but I have no solid information one way or the other.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

fatman

  • Guest
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #64 on: May 29, 2008, 11:17:10 PM »

Today, Saddam is gone, and "officially" the country is a "democracy" and doesn't persecute anyone. 

They're still locking up homosexuals in Iraq.  The recent amnesty proposal would allow for the release of suspected terrorists and murderers, but would not allow the release of homosexuals.

That's not persecution?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2008, 12:41:51 AM »
<<Quite the contrary , Saddam was very prone to make war>>

VERY prone?  This is a joke.  He attacked Iran with U.S. encouragement and assistance.  He invaded Kuwait with a green-light from the American ambassador.  And pulled out of Kuwait when threatened with American force.  At the point in time where the U.S. attacked him, he was extremely unlikely to have received further U.S. incentives to attack any of his neighbours, and so, was extremely UNLIKELY to have made war again.  So the spectre of all the people who would have died in new Saddam wars had he been left to his own devices is not only pure speculation, but poorly grounded speculation at that.



All right , Saddam bears no responsibility for the millions he killed , because he slavishly followed American orders?

With no American orders he would have done no wrong?

I don't see it.

The Iranians were prepareing a war before Saddam attacked them, the US could not have prevented that war. However we could supply both sides with weapons to ensure that the fight would drain the strength from both countrys , neither of which was a freind.

Is that unscrupulous or canny?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2008, 01:43:43 AM »
<<They're still locking up homosexuals in Iraq.  The recent amnesty proposal would allow for the release of suspected terrorists and murderers, but would not allow the release of homosexuals.

<<That's not persecution?>>

I said "officially" there's no persecution and I put "officially" in quotes for a reason.  Sure there is persecution in Iraq, persecution for religious and political reasons across the board.  I wasn't actually aware of persecution of GLBT in Iraq, though, official or unofficial.  You sure you are not thinking of Iran, fatman?  Iran has some of the most barbaric laws in the world regarding the GLBT community - - about a year ago, they publicly hanged two teenage boys from a crane for homosexuality.

In Canadian law it does make a difference if the persecution is official or not.  If the discriminatory law is on the books, the victim is (unless there's some other problem) home free as a refugee claimant.  But if the persecution is unofficial, he or she has to prove that redress was sought by complaining to the proper authorities about the illegal persecution and that the authorities turned their backs on the guy and refused to help.  Or else that people who had made similar complaints tended to wind up dead at the hands of unknown assailants.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2008, 01:58:27 AM »
<<All right , Saddam bears no responsibility for the millions he killed , because he slavishly followed American orders?

<<With no American orders he would have done no wrong?

<<I don't see it.>>

??????
Are you having a good time arguing with yourself?  Because you're certainly not addressing any point that I ever argued.

<<The Iranians were prepareing a war before Saddam attacked them, the US could not have prevented that war.>>

Where'd you get THAT from?

<<However we could supply both sides with weapons to ensure that the fight would drain the strength from both countrys , neither of which was a freind.>>

Uh, actually, you provided Iraq with technical assistance and advice and in the closing days of the war shot down an Iranian civilian airliner on takeoff killing all 200+ passengers on board, pretending that it was all a big mistake.

<<Is that unscrupulous or canny?>>

Neither, it's simply false.  You helped the Iraqis but not the Iranians.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2008, 02:04:09 AM »
Quote
Neither, it's simply false.  You helped the Iraqis but not the Iranians.

Perhaps that is because we had an embassy in Iraq but no longer had an embassy in Iran.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2008, 02:20:39 AM »
<<All right , Saddam bears no responsibility for the millions he killed , because he slavishly followed American orders?

<<With no American orders he would have done no wrong?

<<I don't see it.>>

??????
Are you having a good time arguing with yourself?  Because you're certainly not addressing any point that I ever argued.

<<The Iranians were prepareing a war before Saddam attacked them, the US could not have prevented that war.>>

Where'd you get THAT from?

<<However we could supply both sides with weapons to ensure that the fight would drain the strength from both countrys , neither of which was a freind.>>

Uh, actually, you provided Iraq with technical assistance and advice and in the closing days of the war shot down an Iranian civilian airliner on takeoff killing all 200+ passengers on board, pretending that it was all a big mistake.

<<Is that unscrupulous or canny?>>

Neither, it's simply false.  You helped the Iraqis but not the Iranians.


You haven't heard of Oliver North?

fatman

  • Guest
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2008, 09:18:01 AM »
<<They're still locking up homosexuals in Iraq.  The recent amnesty proposal would allow for the release of suspected terrorists and murderers, but would not allow the release of homosexuals.

<<That's not persecution?>>

I said "officially" there's no persecution and I put "officially" in quotes for a reason.  Sure there is persecution in Iraq, persecution for religious and political reasons across the board.  I wasn't actually aware of persecution of GLBT in Iraq, though, official or unofficial.  You sure you are not thinking of Iran, fatman?  Iran has some of the most barbaric laws in the world regarding the GLBT community - - about a year ago, they publicly hanged two teenage boys from a crane for homosexuality.

In Canadian law it does make a difference if the persecution is official or not.  If the discriminatory law is on the books, the victim is (unless there's some other problem) home free as a refugee claimant.  But if the persecution is unofficial, he or she has to prove that redress was sought by complaining to the proper authorities about the illegal persecution and that the authorities turned their backs on the guy and refused to help.  Or else that people who had made similar complaints tended to wind up dead at the hands of unknown assailants.

I apologize MT, I didn't realize that you were speaking of official policy, I had thought it was more of a blanket statement.  Anyways, I also had a couple things wrong in my post, evidently they still aren't allowing murderers out.  And yes, this is in Iraq and I am aware of the despicable policies in Iran.  Google "Iraq gay" and you'll see quite a bit about militia squads targeting homosexuals also.  It kind of leads me to wonder which direction we should take in this war, on one hand I'd like to pull out if the government is locking up gays, on the other, I'd rather stay in so that the militias don't kill off every homosexual in Iraq.  Here's the full text of the amnesty bill that passed in Iraq, preceded by a (what I think) pretty good blog report:


Full text of Iraq's recently passed amnesty law
Iraq's new amnesty law was passed on February 13 by Iraq's parliament as part of a package of three bills (the other two were a provincial elections law and the 2008 budget). Iraq's Presidency Council ratified the amnesty law last week, so it is now set to become the official law of the land. This law was one of the U.S. benchmarks, and its ratification is important.

When this legislative package was originally passed, Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus described the provincial powers law as a ?landmark law? in which ?Iraqi legislators have reached an historic compromise.? Of course, Crocker, Petraeus, and the rest of the Bush crew ended up with egg on their faces when the provincial election law was vetoed by Iraq's Presidency Council on February 27.

Iraq's amnesty law was meant to provide "limited" amnesty, and differs markedly from the Chieu Hoi "surrender" program during Vietnam, which was basically an American-administered effort to alter the perception of Viet Cong guerrillas from freedom fighters to common criminals, and then to release them back into the Vietnamese population hoping they would help evaporate the ocean of popular support in which guerrillas swim, to use Mao's famous metaphor. Although the United States undoubtedly pressured Iraq to pass the amnesty law, it does not have the ostensible stamp of American propaganda efforts that Chieu Hoi had.

Although, as Cora Sol Goldstein wrote and I blogged about, U.S. public diplomacy and "information control" failures have been criminal since March 2003, and maybe a little more propaganda in Iraq and a little less propaganda here in the states would be a good thing.

Couldn't help but be troubled by Article 2 (H): people guilty of "crimes" of homosexuality are not eligible for amnesty? I am sympathetic to cultural relativist arguments, although I don't buy into the majority of them, but homosexuals are persecuted badly in Iraq. In 2006, Iraqi police killed a 14 year old boy for being homosexual, and Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa on his website calling for the execution of gays in the "worst, most severe way."

I know that Iraq's legal system and governance, if it is to have any chance of succeeding, must be authentically and indigenously Iraqi; otherwise, the Iraqi government will be perceived as nothing more than a puppet for the United States. But this bit about homosexuality in the amnesty law is troubling, and perhaps Ambassador Crocker should have tried to run a bit of interference.

Text of the amnesty law follows.



Law number (19) for the year 2008

The Amnesty Law

Article 1

A general amnesty applies on convicted Iraqis and on (convicted) people who were residing in Iraq, for the time remaining in sentences. They are released in compliance with a provision stated by the committee that has been formed in accordance with Article 5 of this law.

Article 2

The following (individuals) are excepted from of the provision of Article 1 of this law:

First: Those sentenced to death in accordance with the Iraqi penal law number 111 of the year 1969.

Second: People who are convicted of the following crimes:

A. The crimes provided for in Paragraph 2 of the Article 1 of the Iraqi High Criminal Court law, number 10 of the year 2005.
B. Terrorist crimes, if they caused a death or permanent disability.
C. Crimes of voluntary killing.
D. Crimes of involuntary manslaughter in which those related (to the crime) people refuse to abandon their personal rights.
E. Crimes of abducting people.
F. Crimes of theft associated with aggravating circumstances.
G. Crimes of embezzlement of state funds or despoiling of them.
H. Crimes of rape or of homosexuality.
I. Crimes of incest.
J. Crimes of counterfeiting Iraqi or foreign currency or of forging official documents.
K. Crimes (related to) drugs.
L. Crimes of trafficking in artifacts.
M. Crimes which are laid out by the Military Penal Law, number 19 of the year 2007.

Article 3

A. Conclusive cessation of the legal procedures taken against the accused people in all crimes, with the exception to the crimes that are mentioned in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of this law, whether their cases are in investigation stage or trial stage, (as well as) the release of detainees by the decree of the committee to be formed in according with Article 5 of this law.

B. The committee which is to be formed in accordance with Article 5 of this law must release any detainees who have been held for more than six months and who have not been brought before the investigating magistrate, or (the detainees for whom) more than a year has passed since their arrest and (their case) has not been referred to the relevant court.

Article 4

If any individual who received amnesty in accordance with the provision of this commits a premeditated crime from the crimes mentioned in Article 2 of this law within five years from the date of amnesty, the penalties for the crime for which he received amnesty will be implemented, and punitive procedures will be taken against him even if the individual received amnesty while he is in a trial or in the investigating stage.

Article 5

First: The formation of a committee or more by an order from the president of the Supreme Judicial Council in each area of appeal, presided over by judge of the first class, and with the membership of three judges to be in charge of executing the provisions of this law. One of the members of the public prosecution, to be called the Chief Public Prosecutor, represents (the prosecution) before the committee.

Second: The individuals covered by the provisions of Articles 1 and 3 of this law, or their relatives, have the right to submit an application to the committee formed in accordance with Article 5 of this law to take into consideration the possibility of having the amnesty law covering their cases, and the committee is obligated to consider these requests.

Third: The committee formed in accordance with Paragraph A of this article is responsible for vetting the files of the individuals who have been covered under this law, and for issuing its decisions in accordance (with the provisions of this law), and its decisions are subject to challenge before the appeals court of the area, according to its discretion.

Article 6

The Iraqi government is committed to take the necessary measures to move the arrested people from the prisons of the Multinational Forces to the Iraqi prisons to implement the provisions of this law to their cases.

Article 7

The provisions of this law applied on crimes that occurred before its implementation.

Article 8

The Supreme Judicial Council to issue instructions to facilitate the executing of the provisions of this law.

Article 9

This law is to be published in the official newspaper and to be effective starting with the date of its issue.

Motives and reasons

For the purpose of allowing the opportunity, to those Iraqis or those residing in Iraq, who strayed to commit certain crimes, to return to the right, and to join the social life, and (for the purpose of) spreading the spirit of forgiveness and to reform those who strayed from the straight path by granting them amnesty, to allow all the Iraqi people to build their homeland, and to set free those convicted or detained because of their committing of crimes covered by the amnesty, this law is passed.


Iraqi insider

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #71 on: May 30, 2008, 09:52:53 AM »
<<You haven't heard of Oliver North?>>

Ooops, ya got me there, plane.  North DID help the Iranians with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.  Forgot all about him.

My first inclination was that it's highly immoral to arm two sides to a conflict but when ya think about it, why not?  Suppose it were a German civil war between the SS and the SA?  I'd LOVE to give 'em both all the weapons they want and then sit back and watch the slaughter.  Or Nazis vs Ukrainian Nationalists.

You know what?  It IS immoral.  Because while the bad guys are killing each other, a lot of innocent civilians get killed.  It's fun to engage in fantasy battles where all the bad guys kill each other, but no way can you avoid in real life the central reality that war is hell.  We gotta get to a mental place where war truly IS the "last resort."  (But having said that, I still support both the Iraqi and the Palestinian armed resistance - -  I think, for a people living under military occupation, there is no other resort.)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #72 on: May 30, 2008, 10:02:36 AM »
<<You haven't heard of Oliver North?>>

Ooops, ya got me there, plane.  North DID help the Iranians with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.  Forgot all about him.

My first inclination was that it's highly immoral to arm two sides to a conflict but when ya think about it, why not?  Suppose it were a German civil war between the SS and the SA?  I'd LOVE to give 'em both all the weapons they want and then sit back and watch the slaughter.  Or Nazis vs Ukrainian Nationalists.

You know what?  It IS immoral.  Because while the bad guys are killing each other, a lot of innocent civilians get killed.  It's fun to engage in fantasy battles where all the bad guys kill each other, but no way can you avoid in real life the central reality that war is hell.  We gotta get to a mental place where war truly IS the "last resort."  (But having said that, I still support both the Iraqi and the Palestinian armed resistance - -  I think, for a people living under military occupation, there is no other resort.)

There is indeed another resort , not fighting at all.

Do you think that Japan would have been better off with a stronger resistance to occupation?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #73 on: May 30, 2008, 11:02:44 AM »
<<Do you think that Japan would have been better off with a stronger resistance to occupation?>>

no, they had nothing to resist.  General MacArthur was a great overlord and social reconstructor and they all recognized that.  They lucked out.  They would have been nuts to resist.  Maybe they should have resisted his leaving.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Poor R-Wingers: Scotty McClellan Sells Them Out
« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2008, 01:02:03 AM »
<<Do you think that Japan would have been better off with a stronger resistance to occupation?>>

no, they had nothing to resist.  General MacArthur was a great overlord and social reconstructor and they all recognized that.  They lucked out.  They would have been nuts to resist.  Maybe they should have resisted his leaving.

Is that a bad example to cite?

Or is our exploitation of Japan diffrent from our exploitation of other countrys in some way I am missing?