DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on January 12, 2007, 04:12:04 PM
-
What happens if we withdraw from Iraq, gradually or even more precipitously, even for deployment in surrounding areas? Would the political situation move toward resolution or toward exacerbation? Would a horrendous bloodletting ensue? Even more importantly for world peace, would the conflict take on a regional character, perhaps pitting Shiite Iran against the "stable" Sunni-Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt? What would this possibility mean for the entire stability of the world political system? Notably, crying debacle, Democrats have given no sustained analysis or discussion to these issues.
On the other hand, it is important to note from my perspective that this dilemma was totally unnecessary. It was created entirely by Bush's swagger and neo-con steel-fisted diplomatic concepts. As we can now see in retrospect, a continued Iraqi regime under Saddam -- yielding far fewer atrocities than now occur there daily -- would have stood as a "natural" barrier to Iranian ambitions, something this president's father knew ... and acted upon.
Bush is living in a fantasy world serving at once the phantasm of our national interest -- I still think he's convinced himself of the efficacy of his policies -- but also his stubborn, "I refuse to lose streak," which dovetails in his mind with his legacy, a matter now looming large for him. From an objective standpoint, if I can presume to assume that mantle, Bush's new strategy faces overwhelming if not prohibitive odds. By all indicators, it seems, it is a gamble not worth taking.
Yet, here comes the circularity of the problem: what happens if we withdraw? Crucially, to this very day, to my knowledge no opposition politician has painted a strategic vision of how we leave Iraq as well as can be expected and also how we can position ourselves for the long struggle with violent, radical Islam. Indeed, what would a "loss," which I'm willing to absorb, mean to the appeal and spread and virulence of radical Islam? Can that be countered now by joining the real issue as I see it: a broad-based cultural, political, social, economic, theological, etc. campaign to enable the Muslim world to accept the radicals' real enemies, the moderate Muslims, and thereby ooze the radicals out of haven, habitat and support as their ideology is routed by a true or truer Islam more in tune with reality and its own principles? While this is being done, of course, as appropriate, all military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets should be brought to bear on the problem.
-
<<What happens if we withdraw from Iraq . . . ? >>
Of course that's a legitimate issue.
<<Would the political situation move toward resolution or toward exacerbation? Would a horrendous bloodletting ensue? . . . would the conflict take on a regional character . . . ? What [about] the entire stability of the world political system? Notably, crying debacle, Democrats have given no sustained analysis or discussion to these issues.>>
IMHO, these are unknowns. The plain fact is, nobody can make an authoritative prediction. Way too many variables.
<<On the other hand, it is important to note from my perspective that this dilemma was totally unnecessary. It was created entirely by Bush's swagger and neo-con steel-fisted diplomatic concepts. As we can now see in retrospect, a continued Iraqi regime under Saddam -- yielding far fewer atrocities than now occur there daily -- would have stood as a "natural" barrier to Iranian ambitions, something this president's father knew ... and acted upon.>>
If the votes are there, impeach the bastard. If not, just move on. You can all sing "We won't be fooled again," but Michael Tee knows for a fact that you will. Nobody ever said democracies come with a guarantee of infallibility.
-
You title your thread as all bullshit aside then yo start pushing the manure by the truckload.
This isn't Bush's War. This is an American War. .....and until that issue is agreed upon then there is no sense taking your laments seriously.
-
It was an "optional war" and he opted. Simple as that. Now, of course, it is an American war -- one, I hasten to add, that America wants to exit like from a burning theater -- but too many are hung up on the causes of our predicament rather than on the solutions going forward, if there really are any. In this panorama Bush appears as a prime mover, fucking it up the first time and now expecting a wary public nonetheless to follow a failed leader to an unknown destiny. To do this, in addition to a heavy dose of reality, Bush needs a large measure of credibility, something he has lost precipitously and deeply. The only way to reclaim the tatters of his credibility is to talk straight, which implies candor about the whole mission, something he flatly refuses to do. That's another dilemma: the dynamics of a failed leader who's lost his credibility going to the trough one more time to trade on that very commodity. Mainly, I don't concern myself with that, focusing instead on the policy questions I have listed.
Oh, and fuck you.
-
Now, of course, it is an American war -- one, I hasten to add, that America wants to exit like from a burning theater -- but too many are hung up on the causes of our predicament rather than on the solutions going forward, if there really are any.
Do you not read your own posts.
There is always a Bush zinger in them. Always.
What is strange is, if i recall correctly, you were for this "optional" war when it started.
I presume that your logic at the time was based on careful analysis and not some marching to the beat of the majority at that time, though your turnaround could fall into that same follow the crowd pattern.
Oh and go fuck yourself.
-
It was an "optional war" and he opted. Simple as that. Now, of course, it is an American war -- one, I hasten to add, that America wants to exit like from a burning theater -- but too many are hung up on the causes of our predicament rather than on the solutions going forward, if there really are any. ..... Mainly, I don't concern myself with that, focusing instead on the policy questions I have listed. Oh, and fuck you.
It's amazing how good Domer is at posting questions & condemnations, all the while never actually posing any solutions or substantive ideas in addressiong those criticisms/condemnations. Gotta love the consistency however
-
domer: <<Bush is living in a fantasy world serving at once the phantasm of our national interest -- I still think he's convinced himself of the efficacy of his policies -- but also his stubborn, "I refuse to lose streak," which dovetails in his mind with his legacy, a matter now looming large for him. From an objective standpoint, if I can presume to assume that mantle, Bush's new strategy faces overwhelming if not prohibitive odds. By all indicators, it seems, it is a gamble not worth taking.>>
Is that an issue? Whether the gamble's worth it or not?
You didn't define the terms of the gamble.
If the gamble is on "Iraqi democracy," it's a no-brainer - - WTF does it matter to the U.S.A. if Iraq becomes a democracy or not? OF COURSE, it's not worth it. It's not worth the life of a single American. If they want democracy badly enough, they'll settle their differences amongst themselves and make a democracy, and if they don't want it badly enough, they'll wind up with whatever works for them. Either way, none of America's fucking business. It's SO much not America's business that no intelligent observer could ever believe that it was or is the cause of anything happening in Iraq now or at any time in the past.
If the gamble is for a reliable source of energy in future times of acute scarcity, it's a different story. Depends on how highly you value oil, and how highly you value human life, specifically, the lives of Arabs and the lives of the American underclass. And I think we all know what value the average American puts on the lives of either the Arab general population or the American underclass.
-
domer, Prince of Denmark:
<<Yet, here comes the circularity of the problem: what happens if we withdraw? >>
Well, domer, let me break it to you: you don't know and I don't know. Your "President" tells you what will happen, but he's a liar, a coward, and a moron. Since he knows absolutely NOTHING about the region in question, his "opinion" is whatever his clique of militarists, fascists and right-wing Likudniks tell him will happen, and since his track record is one of unadulterated lies, misrepresentations, false predictions, ridiculous claims of premature victory and disastrous errors, I wouldn't put too much credibility in any of his predictions of the calamities that would follow a cessation of his illegal occupation of another sovereign state.
<<Crucially, to this very day, to my knowledge no opposition politician has painted a strategic vision of how we leave Iraq as well as can be expected and also how we can position ourselves for the long struggle with violent, radical Islam. >>
Time to grow up, domer; no magic solutions on the horizon. The present mess calls for an obvious solution, but the Prince of Denmark won't make a move until he finds a solution to ALL his problems. (I would take issue, BTW, with your presupposition of a "long struggle with violent radical Islam," which is just complete and utter bullshit, but that's clearly a whole nuther topic.)
<< Indeed, what would a "loss," which I'm willing to absorb, mean to the appeal and spread and virulence of radical Islam? >>
Good old domer. As long as he can pose a question which no one can answer about the future outcome of Problem A, he will be so paralyzed by fear of the worst Problem A outcome that he can't take the obvious steps necessary to resolve Problem B.
<<Can that be countered now by joining the real issue as I see it: a broad-based cultural, political, social, economic, theological, etc. campaign to enable the Muslim world to accept the radicals' real enemies, the moderate Muslims, and thereby ooze the radicals out of haven, habitat and support as their ideology is routed by a true or truer Islam more in tune with reality and its own principles? While this is being done, of course, as appropriate, all military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets should be brought to bear on the problem.>>
Absolutely hilarious. The title of the thread is "Here are the issues" (presumably at stake in Iraq) Only in the tortured mind of a domer would these morph into the broader issues of the supposed intramural Islamic culture wars (moderates vs. violent radicals) which may or may not have anything to do with the real cultural divides in real Islam. Do you REALLY think that Bush - - or to be fair to the little prick, ANY American President - - has what it takes to orchestrate a "broad-based cultural political social economic theological etc." ("etc." - - was something left out???) - - these guys are lucky if they can just do a creditable job of managing the military aspect of the operation, domer, you're treating the individual President as if he were the force of history itself.
Nothing more pathetic than a man in over his head who is unable to admit fundamental error, unable to admit defeat, and goes on needlessly squandering the lives and money of other people to prove his point. If the people of Iraq are hell-bent on slaughtering each other, it's gonna go on as it is, with or without the Americans. Probably without them, it'll end a lot faster when one faction rises to the top - - as Saddam's did - - and then imposes a kind of rigid order-through-state-terror on the rest of them, which paradoxically produces a kind of peace and prosperity for most of the people most of the time.
And on the other hand, it's only when the U.S. gets involved - - by encouraging and assisting Saddam to attack Iran, or by intervening in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which should have been resolved by the Arab states themselves, probably by allowing it to happen, Kuwait being just a totally artificial creation of the British under their colonial policy of "divide and rule" - - that the blood really starts to flow in massive quantities.
-
We can't keep this up and keep our own defenses strong.
It's like asking a sick person to give blood and donate a kidney, all while the person is 1) undergoing chemo 2) having dialysis 3) undergoing surgery and 4) hemorrhaging.
Well, you CAN do all that. But the patient dies.
-
Frame up the issues with the greatest logic you can. Your personal logic usually deducts to the refrains of "can't we all just be friends?"
The issues of which you speak are in contention with the reality of the Neocons. They rubbed shit on the United Nations, and engaged in no diplomacy whatsoever with anybody, ever since.
Did you watch his speech?
The whole world waiting to see some reasonable compunction, see him get emotional and flinch were disappointed, as he coolly and calculatingly spoke his message without inflection. He had to work on it to keep it that clean, that free of emotion. My guess is chemical help, and that would be a kinder theory.
You would have to consult a voice analyzer to recognize any Bush inflection--it was flat, mono-toned and matter of fact. Missing was the slightest passion. It was a job of ubercareful script delivery control.
It was delivered with a complete reversal of his native emotional software. The message and the delivery were created, carefully.
This would be reading Neocon points with a Big Brother voice, neutral but still beyond challenge.
In the facts, he robotically but securely gives the same extant Neocon plan: get what you can of the Middle East at all costs, no matter what the country thinks. What matters is what Grubber Feuhrer Krystal thinks.
There is going to be a showdown. Many Democrats are hating this. They don't mind voting, but they mind committing. This showdown is true, and could only be true, because the Neocons have lost their vise grip on the media. Now the Democrats, long hiding and counting who knows what, will have to actually step forward and define themselves on the Middle East issue. Some of them will have as much difficulty in embracing an unsavory issue as you have. Some inevitable ugliness just happens, despite the finest Domer remediation. While most were too bewildered to respond, due to the rank corruption in waging the war and the Katrina response, you were, if I remember, always giving the benefit of the doubt to Bush.
Lofty notions of what should be will continue to fall flat. The war is a civil one, and will remain unwinnable as fought. You might start to realize the misplacement of your gilded guesswork when you realize that there is nothing in the Neocon position that will embrace any discussion. We invaded without discussion, which occured because we were misled. Talking of compromize and negotiation in diplomatic terms will not be possible until they are gone, no matter the surrounding outrage. Remember Watergate! They did not give an inch, and had to be brought to their knees. Marching tin Neocons and their Nixonian precursors do not know retreat or retract; they are mad like Hitler, reduced to commanding the war on table top on their own terms to the very end.
The key is to impeach. When Pelosi took impeachment off the table, she tacitly gave pardons and paroles to many Democrats, and let's only hope that she was not swapping spit with the impish daemon wearing the zionist armband. We are beyond your multi-colored bandaids, your bouncing ball pronoucements, Domer, I am afraid.
Get real or get back.
If they are impeached, it will be over. America was healed to some degree because Nixon was brought to impeachment, but was cut short by the strange full and complete pardon by eagle scout Gerald. But without bringing consequence to crime, we will turn over and over and over like the deadly theatre in Baghdad, until it is gratefully stopped by removing the insulting faction.
-
We can't keep this up and keep our own defenses strong
If not now, when.
That is the real issue that seems to be avoided.
-
Yellow,
I certainly hope the democrats attempt a coup d'etat via impeachment.
-
You are only sure of yourself because it has been taken off the table.
But go ahead, explain why it couldn't happen.
And it wouldn't be a coup d'etat, but a coup caught and throttled by a coup de grace.
-
Here I sit, targeted and "vilified" by both sides, when all I do is adopt the diction and syntax of any (wannabe) American politician, and struggle manfully to get a handle on this problem, intelligently and in good faith. If that "tack" doesn't work, I suggest we scrap the playbook itself and ready ourselves for a tumultuous time indeed.
-
Nothing Bush is doing now in Pelosi's post-pledge period is anywhere near a high crime or misdemeanor. As for the entry into the war itself, from the avalanche of material that has been produced on it (though more may come out), I do not believe Bush "lied" our way into war so much as he fumbled us into it in a march of stupidity, stubborness and true belief. Neither is that portrait of his behavior a high crime or misdemeanor.
-
To consider the war in Iraq to be "optional" one must presume that there were other options .
To leave the status quo was not an option availible , the embargo was already leaking a lot and Saddam was getting more sympathy than handicap from it. The Status quo we had was rickety and overdue for change.
To let Saddam loose from the strictures we had on him was a viable option , but it would have without any reasonable doubt have resulted in the extinction of the Kurds , Marsh Arabs and decimation of the Shia. Another war with Iran wouldn't be unlikely either.
I think that we have chosen the most humane and harmless option by going to war in Iraq , if you don't agree then you need to defend your favoriate option from its supposed faults , with the advantage of the perfection that only supposition could achieve.
-
I agree with Domer re:impeachment. Even without the pledge, you don't have a a case and politically it would be suicide.
-
Here I sit, targeted and "vilified" by both sides, when all I do is adopt the diction and syntax of any (wannabe) American politician, and struggle manfully to get a handle on this problem, intelligently and in good faith. If that "tack" doesn't work, I suggest we scrap the playbook itself and ready ourselves for a tumultuous time indeed.
The Neocons have already scrapped the playbook.
That is the point.
We have the Neocon war in Iraq, and the war with the Neocons at home.
At present, we have almost all Democrats and waking Republicans waging that war at home.
As has been so poignantly pointed out, it is indeed "a tumultuous time indeed."
Offering what "should be done" pales to the bigger question--what to do with the intransigent Neocons?
Please offer your feelings about watching the speech. Were you chilled in the least?
Has the Neocon back been broken, or is Bush suddenly even goofier that we imagined?
-
Please offer your feelings about watching the speech. Were you chilled in the least?
Has the Neocon back been broken, or is Bush suddenly even goofier that we imagined?
I had to work so I didn't see.
But if the President is about to quit being moderate and middlefinding it will be good news to me .
President Bush's worst fault has been his constant atempts to compromise and find middle ways , this worked beter in Texas when he was govenor , it has brought him nothing but greif as President .
-
<<Please offer your feelings about watching the speech. Were you chilled in the least?>>
I congratulate you for picking up on the control factor. It was there but I missed it. You're good, Crane.
To those who think there are no grounds for impeachment: there are grounds for hanging Bush as a war criminal so there are certainly grounds for impeachment. Planning and waging wars of unprovoked aggression is a capital crime at international law, one that brought Ribbentrop and other top Nazi leaders to the gallows and it definitely IS a high crime and misdemeanour. The problem is there aren't many politicians with guts enough to call Bush's crimes what they are. THAT'S why impeachment is a non-issue, not that there isn't a case.
-
Yes, framing impeachment would be difficult.
Not impossible.
Only how long will America continue to swallow when ordered, only to witness a spiralling mass of so much corruption?
Was he also 'stupid' and 'oblivious" to the massive amounts of missing money in Iraq?
Can he be impeached for hanging around such accused and alledged criminals as Halliburton, Raetheon, Bectel? Does that qualify for aiding and abetting?
Does the buck stop there, at his desk. Nixon was wily and competent at evasion, Bush is woolly and cares not that his foot is being chewed on by himself. He seems to suggest he is absolved beforehand, by a bigger hand.
Nixon was impeached for what, erasing tapes, while Clinton for fibbing on initial inquiry if he fed Monica in the Biblical sense. Neither of those were established concrete proof beforehand.
Impeachment seems to be a process, which developes upon consecrated inquiry, and does not have to be locked tight before out of the gate.
We have seen through Watergate, through Starr, through Spitzer, through Fitz et al, that it grows thorns and traps as it goes.
But you have to get them there first.
The Democrats have just begun to open investigations.
I think there will be ample material to assemble impeachment credibility.
And, above all, I meant impeachment was the sound thing to do, for the sake of healing in this now-divided nation, and not that it would. I said Pelosi took it off the table. I didn't hear Pelosi argue in the paucity of legal credibility, like you. I can't google it, but I believe Pelosi took it off the table because of fall out, not from lack of legal bullets. It would have taken her longer to determine that, and she acted immediately, and preemptorilly. She should explain this herself.
-
Juniorbush has never been anything but a divisive asshole. There is a reason why so many of us utterly despise the jerk.
He lied about nonexistent threats made against the nation by Iraq and mongered a war that need not to have been mongered.
He did this in the most incompetent way possible, surrounding himself with moronic Zionist NeoCons and spurning the advice of his Official Adult Supervision, Colin Powell. Iraq was turned into an anarchy, the De-Baathification process ended any real hope of order being restored. Military officers who disagreed with Juniorbush and Cheney were canned.
Both of these lying clowns deserve impeachment, conviction and serious jail time. There should be no Juniorbush Library for this klutz at all.
-
Yes, framing impeachment would be difficult.
Not impossible.
Only how long will America continue to swallow when ordered, only to witness a spiralling mass of so much corruption?
Was he also 'stupid' and 'oblivious" to the massive amounts of missing money in Iraq?
Can he be impeached for hanging around such accused and alledged criminals as Halliburton, Raetheon, Bectel? Does that qualify for aiding and abetting?
Does the buck stop there, at his desk. Nixon was wily and competent at evasion, Bush is woolly and cares not that his foot is being chewed on by himself. He seems to suggest he is absolved beforehand, by a bigger hand.
Nixon was impeached for what, erasing tapes, while Clinton for fibbing on initial inquiry if he fed Monica in the Biblical sense. Neither of those were established concrete proof beforehand.
Impeachment seems to be a process, which developes upon consecrated inquiry, and does not have to be locked tight before out of the gate.
We have seen through Watergate, through Starr, through Spitzer, through Fitz et al, that it grows thorns and traps as it goes.
But you have to get them there first.
The Democrats have just begun to open investigations.
I think there will be ample material to assemble impeachment credibility.
And, above all, I meant impeachment was the sound thing to do, for the sake of healing in this now-divided nation, and not that it would. I said Pelosi took it off the table. I didn't hear Pelosi argue in the paucity of legal credibility, like you. I can't google it, but I believe Pelosi took it off the table because of fall out, not from lack of legal bullets. It would have taken her longer to determine that, and she acted immediately, and preemptorilly. She should explain this herself.
Not a single instance yet of President being caught in a lie at all.
But you think that an impeachment would be a cinch?
Try to find the proven lie , proven to a reasonable doubts standard , and then call it a credible possibility .
Nancy Pelosi is doing what she can, not what can't.
-
Nixon was impeached for what, erasing tapes
This is the second time tonight you've made this incorrect statement.
Nixon was never impeached. There have been only two presidents impeached by Congress - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
-
I've expressed my view of impeachment and will stick by it as legally sound. What I decry is the substitution of this inflammatory issue for the one we should really be discussing: what is the realistic alternative to a surge according to the analysis I sketched in the initial post?
Could it be, as Bush promotes, the worst possible outcome to let the civil violence in Iraq take its course? Does one last try make any sense when the odds of success are prohibitive? Would it be better simply to accept defeat now rather than expend more Americans lives pursuing a fait accompli? Is this stark lineup of alternatives all that there is? Can a full strategic case be made for withdrawal as actually optimizing our chances in Iraq and in the overall struggle with violent, radical Islam?
These are the questions of the moment, I suggest.
-
Does one last try make any sense when the odds of success are prohibitive?
Why are the odds to success prohibitive?
-
I've expressed my view of impeachment and will stick by it as legally sound. What I decry is the substitution of this inflammatory issue for the one we should really be discussing: what is the realistic alternative to a surge according to the analysis I sketched in the initial post?
Could it be, as Bush promotes, the worst possible outcome to let the civil violence in Iraq take its course? Does one last try make any sense when the odds of success are prohibitive? Would it be better simply to accept defeat now rather than expend more Americans lives pursuing a fait accompli? Is this stark lineup of alternatives all that there is? Can a full strategic case be made for withdrawal as actually optimizing our chances in Iraq and in the overall struggle with violent, radical Islam?
These are the questions of the moment, I suggest.
The alternatives are ,to fight as if we mean to be effective, surgeing and draing down as required for desired effect , or , fighting as if we were reponding to polls taken ten thousand miles away from the battle ,increaseing or decreaseing the troop strength with the effect on the battle being a secondary concern.
The decision for whether or not to grow more agressve hould be delegated to the wisest head , in closest proximity to the fight, if effectiveness is a hgh priority.
Surgeing now might be ineffective for all I know from my vantge point , if it were my decision to make I would want to attend the breifings that that the dusty officers are holding.
-
This is the second time tonight you've made this incorrect statement.
Nixon was never impeached. There have been only two presidents impeached by Congress - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
==============================================================
Neither Johnson nor Clinton was convicted and thrown out of office.
Nixon knew that if he did not resign, be would be both impeached and ejected from office in disgrace, so he left.
Clinton knew that the GOP didn't have the votes, so he hung on.
Johnson I suppose was convinced of his innocence and did the same.
===================================================
The NeoCons are essentially a just jawboning society. They have no actual power other than the power to persuade, and their powers of persuasion are in extreme post-Viagra mode.
-
The NeoCons are essentially a just jawboning society. They have no actual power other than the power to persuade, and their powers of persuasion are in extreme post-Viagra mode.
Actually sounds more like the UN. And FYI, Ami's still right. Still only 2 presidents ever Impeached, and Nixon wasn't 1 of them
-
And FYI, Ami's still right. Still only 2 presidents ever Impeached, and Nixon wasn't 1 of them
XO knows that. That is why he didn't directly address AMI's post.
-
And FYI, Ami's still right. Still only 2 presidents ever Impeached, and Nixon wasn't 1 of them
XO knows that. That is why he didn't directly address AMI's post.
Smart move......for a change
-
This is direct as it gets, clown:
Nixon knew that if he did not resign, be would be both impeached and ejected from office in disgrace, so he fled.
-
Nixon knew that if he did not resign, be would be both impeached and ejected from office in disgrace, so he fled.
he was not impeached, like you claimed he was.
Perhaps you mispoke, perhaps you were taken out of context, perhaps you were fed faulty intelligence, perhaps you simply got it wrong.
-
I did not say that Nixon was impeached.
I said that he knew that he would be both impeached and convicted, and he fled rather than face either.
The Republican leaders came to the White House and told Nixon that he would be impeached and deposed, and he resigned.
Everyone knows this. It is not because he was somehow more innocent than Clinton or Johnson.
He looked like sh*t and fell in it, and he knew it. That's why he quit.
-
I did not say that Nixon was impeached.
Ooops my mistake. Crane was the one making that claim.
-
Nixon knew that if he did not resign, be would be both impeached and ejected from office in disgrace, so he fled.
he was not impeached, like you claimed he was.
Perhaps you mispoke, perhaps you were taken out of context, perhaps you were fed faulty intelligence, perhaps you simply got it wrong.
I simply got it wrong.
Actually, I was arguing impeachment and the process, stating that Nixon's end came when the tapes were discovered, and did not stipulate that Nixon was not impeached, but was done in by the threat of impeachment. Nixon was brought to impreachment, and they gave him the option of the noble dagger.
Ami got it right, as far as the gotcha goes. I would have felt defeated if the issue I was making rested on that clarity. It really didn't.
As you know, any argument can be brought to the mat with a gotcha.
Again, Ami was factually right, and I was amiss, too busy making my point to keep my ducks in a row.
Ami got one duck.
-
<<Again, Ami was factually right, and I was amiss, too busy making my point to keep my ducks in a row.
<<Ami got one duck>>
But he didn't get the yellow crane.
The problem with these right-wing nit-pickers is that they're afraid to face the issue head-on so they avoid it wherever possible by picking out tiny and largely insignificant factual errors or half-errors which aren't even material to the argument, and then they crow like they shot down the whole idea (which they never really addressed) in flames. You gotta keep a sense of humour when you're dealing with them, Crane, because you know they'll never win an argument legitimately.
-
I guess the question is how important is it to have your ducks in a row when trying to make a point. Does your point suffer when surrounded by factual errors?
Is the greater truth more imprtant tan the piilars of that proof?
Wasn't that what rathergate was about. Were any lessons learned?
And Mikey, I like Crane. Always have. Glad he posts here. He has a unique talent he brings to the boards. I rarely agree with him, but i love his presentation. Even when his ducks are being non conformist.
-
Being a liberal rather than a big buck lemming, I feel their pain.
They have but shards to attempt to paste together, given the ruins they stand in.
Still, this has been a regime of knowing what we don't know, so who knows?
With all that's happening in the collapsing cards, you can't find compunction in the White House with a magnifying glass.
Maybe they're waiting for another big boom, and a suspension of the Constitution. As you know, the first big boom gave them all their assumed power, and the seemingly unchallenged privledge to doctor up a new way of political life in America. Scalia, appointed by Papa and rarely a disappointment to him, calmly overroad the Florida Supreme Court, giving their power binge continuum.
They have tried to unlace the Constitution from Day One.
It was Bush's Attorney General, I believe, Bush Hispanic Gonzales who called it an 'out-dated' document while, maintaining the momentum, Bush added that it was 'just a piece of paper.'
Wonder if either one of them regretted those remarks?
More, was dissing the Constitution a talking point, to be picked up and punted forward?
It went away quietly, so maybe a wiser Rove called it for what it was--a fucked duck.
-
Nothing Bush is doing now in Pelosi's post-pledge period is anywhere near a high crime or misdemeanor. As for the entry into the war itself, from the avalanche of material that has been produced on it (though more may come out), I do not believe Bush "lied" our way into war so much as he fumbled us into it in a march of stupidity, stubborness and true belief. Neither is that portrait of his behavior a high crime or misdemeanor.
"Nothing Bush is doing . . . is anywhere near a high crime and misdemeanor."
Actually, a high crime or misdemeanor is somewhat nearer than you think, since I was speaking of Bush, the President, the numero uno in high office.
"Meaning of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'
by Jon Roland, Constitutional Society
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high." It does not mean "more serious." It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibitied by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court . . .
...
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no offical position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath." That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation.)"
...
By Art. II Sec. l Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
-
I do not get Jon Roland's point.
The Presidential oath is not to tell the truth , the wholetruth and nothing but the truth , so telling a lie doesn't break the oath.
Rather it would seem that when a lie being told was an advantage to the preserveation, protectin and defence the Constitution of the United States he is sworn to tell te lie?
-
<<Rather it would seem that when a lie being told was an advantage to the preserveation, protectin and defence the Constitution of the United States he is sworn to tell te lie?>>
It's not impossible but I think it would be a pretty rare occurrence when a Presidential lie would help defend the Constitution. Obviously a "lie" sometimes is necessary in the defence of the nation if the enemy is to be kept from sensing the real weakness of the defending forces (I'm thinking of Churchill, after the fall of France, "We shall fight them on the beaches and on the landing grounds, we shall fight them in the fields and from the hills, we shall never surrender" - - was that a lie, and if it was, so what? it was magnificient)
Lies like Bush's - - the "threat" of Iraqi WMD, and now the "threat" of Iranian nukes - - are contemptible, designed not to protect America from enemies who might otherwise move in for the kill, but designed solely to mislead the people into approving wars which, if the truth were known, no sane or normal American would ever approve.
-
Do you consider a Nuclear arms race in the middle east no threat ?
Or is this a lie for some other reason?
-
<<Do you consider a Nuclear arms race in the middle east no threat ?>>
How could it be a threat? If you stop fucking with them, they will stop fucking with you. A nuke or two in Iranian hands could not possibly save them from the anihilation that would follow if they even attempted to nuke America. What could they possibly hope to gain anyway? Even a successful first strike (hard as it is to imagine) would leave them open and vulnerable to anihilation.
<<Or is this a lie for some other reason?>>
It's a lie because it's not true.
-
Even accepting this peckerwood, impeachment advocate's analysis as somewhat ballpark, in my view Bush didn't "lie" but rather fucked up, a consequence you can't sanction without paralyzing executive decision-making altogether.
-
<<Do you consider a Nuclear arms race in the middle east no threat ?>>
How could it be a threat? If you stop fucking with them, they will stop fucking with you. A nuke or two in Iranian hands could not possibly save them from the anihilation that would follow if they even attempted to nuke America. What could they possibly hope to gain anyway? Even a successful first strike (hard as it is to imagine) would leave them open and vulnerable to anihilation.
<<Or is this a lie for some other reason?>>
It's a lie because it's not true.
True to my mind , but what is the purpose of haveing a few Bombs then?
-
<<True to my mind , but what is the purpose of haveing a few Bombs then?>>
I think they're good to have. That way if the U.S. or Israel does decide to nuke them, they'll at least be able to inflict some kind of well-deserved retaliation.
If your neighbours had guns and had been threatening to kill you, woudn't you want to get a gun too?
-
Iran would want nukes for the same reason everyone that has them wants them: to prevent themselves from attack.
Iran is surrounded by countries with nukes. Russia, Israel, the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and India also have them.
-
Even accepting this peckerwood, impeachment advocate's analysis as somewhat ballpark, in my view Bush didn't "lie" but rather fucked up, a consequence you can't sanction without paralyzing executive decision-making altogether.
Wow, I didn't realize this analyst was a peckerwood, for starters.
I feel real dirty now. Here I was thinking he was making a pretty good argument, but on a personal aside, I took no pleasure in realizing that his theory made your comment look so goofy.
I knew you were a lawyer, but I had no idea you had such stature as a Constitutional authority that you could snort this away without dignifying it by arguing the points of his presentation.
Wish I was a lawyer.
Then you could explain to me what I'm missing when you laudily lilt your praises of Thomas and Scalia.
-
<<True to my mind , but what is the purpose of haveing a few Bombs then?>>
I think they're good to have. That way if the U.S. or Israel does decide to nuke them, they'll at least be able to inflict some kind of well-deserved retaliation.
If your neighbours had guns and had been threatening to kill you, woudn't you want to get a gun too?
Not if they had the drop on me already.
Are they really expecting us to watch them build them?
It is like haveing a crazy neighbor go for a gun while he is surronded by the SWAT team.
-
, in my view Bush didn't "lie" but rather fucked up, a consequence you can't sanction without paralyzing executive decision-making altogether.
But Juniorbush had his flunkies or puppeteers cherry pick the intel so that he could start this unnecessary war. There were no attempts to buy uranium from Africa and more important, Iraq bought no Uranium. There were many, many many lies that Juniorbush and his puppeteers knew were false. They were gung-ho for war, and Halliburton and the oilmen were gung-ho for getting their hands on Iraq's oil, the cheapest large oil deposits to exploit on the planet.
Whatever you say, the fact is that if this particular executive decision making had been paralyzed, we'd be much better off today.
Juniorbush took advantage of 9-11 to lie his way into a war that the pub;lic would never have approved of, then he blew the execution of the war bigtime. He was both a liar and a bungling incompetent nincompoop.
Thousands have died because of his lies, ignorance and incompetence, and thousands more are doomed to die because of it.
-
, in my view Bush didn't "lie" but rather fucked up, a consequence you can't sanction without paralyzing executive decision-making altogether.
But Juniorbush had his flunkies or puppeteers cherry pick the intel so that he could start this unnecessary war. There were no attempts to buy uranium from Africa and more important, Iraq bought no Uranium. There were many, many many lies that Juniorbush and his puppeteers knew were false. They were gung-ho for war, and Halliburton and the oilmen were gung-ho for getting their hands on Iraq's oil, the cheapest large oil deposits to exploit on the planet.
Whatever you say, the fact is that if this particular executive decision making had been paralyzed, we'd be much better off today.
Juniorbush took advantage of 9-11 to lie his way into a war that the pub;lic would never have approved of, then he blew the execution of the war bigtime. He was both a liar and a bungling incompetent nincompoop.
Thousands have died because of his lies, ignorance and incompetence, and thousands more are doomed to die because of it.
There were no attempts to buy uranium from Africa and more important, Iraq bought no Uranium.
How do you know this?
Saddam had a lot of Yellowcake in storage, good thing it was not fom Niger .
-
Not if they had the drop on me already.
Are they really expecting us to watch them build them?
It is like haveing a crazy neighbor go for a gun while he is surronded by the SWAT team.
===================================================
That is pure, silly grade-A bullsh*t.
No one named the US the world's Swat Team.
Iran has done nothing to incite anyone, anywhere.
Ahmedinejad knows that he can get votes and approval of the more moronic of his citizens by baiting Israel with stupid Holocaust conferences and entirely hollow threats. He is for a one-state solution in Palisrael: everybody votes and there is one state, with no religious bias. You know, like this country, where Jews or Christians or Muslims or nobody gets special favors because of his religion.
Israel as a Jewish state is a rather bad idea. The idea that Jews should be given special treatment and others relegated to second or third or fourth-class citizenship sucks, after all.
-
<<It is like haveing a crazy neighbor go for a gun while he is surronded by the SWAT team.>>
I think in this case the crazy neighbour is you (well, not you personally, but your country) only he's started a fistfight with a neighbourhood adolescent kid half his size who's now kicking his ass and at the same time as the kid is kicking his ass, he's (the crazy neighbour is) yelling threats in your direction. THAT'S when it's time to go for the gun. If the guy's gonna kill ya, he's gonna kill ya, but I'd rather be killed going for my gun than cowering there with my hands over my eyes waiting for the crazy guy to finish with my neighbour's kid before he kills me.
-
Without the agression and bombmakeing there would not be any talk about ruining Iran for all habitation.
-
There were no attempts to buy uranium from Africa and more important, Iraq bought no Uranium.
How do you know this?
Saddam had a lot of Yellowcake in storage, good thing it was not fom Niger .
=============================================================================
What nuclear crap Iraq had was leftovers from their 1980's failed reactor. There is zero evidence that he bought any nuclear anythiong from anyone.
Juniorbush claimed that Saddam tried to buy ore from "Africa" (strangely, Niger was not mentioned), and he knew that this was bullshit when he said it. It was taken out or his speech, and Rove and Cheney had it reinserted. Everyone knew it was bullsh*t.
Yellowcake is sort of maybe dangerous in the sense that you really should not eat it. It is a very long ways from being anything truly dangerous.
Saddam had no idea what he had. His officers and scientists lied to him and told him he had arms that they knew did not exist, so he could be a greater threat to his neighbors.
-
Without the agression and bombmakeing there would not be any talk about ruining Iran for all habitation.
==========================================================
Iran is not an aggressor. The US is the country with 132,000 uninvited troops in Iraq.
If it makes you feel good believing all this crap, go right ahead.
The soothing feeling you get from believing bullshit is not an indication that it isn't bullshit, however.
The US cannot win a war with 77 million Iranians. If it attacks Iran, it will make the US even more unpopular everywhere else on the planet.
-
Saddam had no idea what he had. His officers and scientists lied to him and told him he had arms that they knew did not exist, so he could be a greater threat to his neighbors.
How can you beleive that President Bush knew that there was no WMD while you also beleive that Saddam didn't know this?
-
Without the agression and bombmakeing there would not be any talk about ruining Iran for all habitation.
==========================================================
Iran is not an aggressor. The US is the country with 132,000 uninvited troops in Iraq.
If it makes you feel good believing all this crap, go right ahead.
The soothing feeling you get from believing bullshit is not an indication that it isn't bullshit, however.
The US cannot win a war with 77 million Iranians. If it attacks Iran, it will make the US even more unpopular everywhere else on the planet.
The Iranian troops in Iraq are not invited .
The US troops ARE .
-
<<The Iranian troops in Iraq are not invited .
<<The US troops ARE .>>
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Ohhhhhhh . . .
plane, don't ever lose that sense of humour.
-
<<The Iranian troops in Iraq are not invited .
<<The US troops ARE .>>
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Ohhhhhhh . . .
plane, don't ever lose that sense of humour.
Iraq has an elected government .
Laugh all yu want but the alternative is an unelected government how could that be better?
-
<<Iraq has an elected government .
<<Laugh all yu want but the alternative is an unelected government how could that be better?>>
I was laughing at the "invitation." It seems that with enough firepower, I could be "invited" to the next Royal wedding.
-
<<Iraq has an elected government .
<<Laugh all yu want but the alternative is an unelected government how could that be better?>>
I was laughing at the "invitation." It seems that with enough firepower, I could be "invited" to the next Royal wedding.
That is not called "firepower"it is called "money".
But who invited Saddam to tke over?
He and his party shot down the competition, firepower was their legitamacy.
Anyone with better firepower than Saddam had better legitamacy than Saddam.
-
<<But who invited Saddam to tke over?
He and his party shot down the competition, firepower was their legitamacy.
Anyone with better firepower than Saddam had better legitamacy than Saddam.>>
Well, that's sporting of you. I guess in the long run when America has finally had enough, you'll recognize the "legitimacy" of the Iraqi Resistance over the American puppet government.
-
<<But who invited Saddam to tke over?
He and his party shot down the competition, firepower was their legitamacy.
Anyone with better firepower than Saddam had better legitamacy than Saddam.>>
Well, that's sporting of you. I guess in the long run when America has finally had enough, you'll recognize the "legitimacy" of the Iraqi Resistance over the American puppet government.
No ,legitamacy depends on the consent of the governed , this is what elections are about .
There is no reason to cry over the loss of Saddams regime he was just a thug who ruled by haveing the best threat , we can equal that , but why settle for being equal to such a negative quantity?
If we can empower the people of Iraq to run their own govenment we will have lived up to our creed .
Of course if this turns out to be impossible we might as well have tried.
The people of Iraq have been waiting for this oppurtuity since the beginning of history , I hope they can take advantage of it.
-
<<If we can empower the people of Iraq to run their own govenment we will have lived up to our creed .
<<Of course if this turns out to be impossible we might as well have tried.>>
That is such ridiculous self-serving bullshit. You did NOT try to bring them democracy. You invaded them on a totally false pretext and had no intention of bringing democracy. The intention was and always will be to rob them of their oil, and the recent proposed hydrocarbons law presented to the Iraqi "legislature" makes that abundantly clear. Your army exercised complete control over every candidate who ran in the phony "elections" and if you think that the people of Iraq are going to let that sham continue much longer, you are deluding yourself once again.
If you think anyone is being fooled by this BS, by all means continue to present it as often as you like. I will never fall for that garbage and neither will anyone else with an ounce of intelligence.
-
That is such ridiculous self-serving bullshit. You did NOT try to bring them democracy. You invaded them on a totally false pretext and had no intention of bringing democracy. The intention was and always will be to rob them of their oil
Start with a false premise --> screw all credibility that might have followed
-
"You did NOT try to bring them democracy."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Did so.
The only reason not to think so is your prejuduces.
There is no stolen oil and there will not be no matter who wins the contracts to pump it.
I would like for American firms to win those contracts , in fair auctions.
And if thepeople of Iraq do not like the deal they should elect better dealers.
There are twice as many democracys in the world now as thirty years ago , it is a good trend.
But you have to expect some resistance from the tyrants.
-
<<The only reason not to think so is your prejuduces.>>
No, the reason is the historical record. The U.S. has never brought democracy to any oil-producing country in the Middle East. Stood by the House of Saud like a rock. Stood up for the Emir of Kuwait like a rock. Stood up for Saddam Hussein while he allegedly "gassed his own people" and ran the worst torture chambers in the Middle East; still stands up for the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the King of Jordan and the Algerian military dictatorship. Overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran and installed the Shah and his notorious secret police, SAVAK; supports a 39-year-old military occupation of the West Bank where the population's civil and human rights have added up to ZERO for 39 years. Only a moron could believe that a country with a record like this is interested in bringing democracy to anybody.
Also in the historical record: the U.S. invaded Iraq for a reason - - "WMD" - - which did not exist. The invasion was sold to the American public as an act of self-defence against a "madman" and his "weapons" - - NEVER was it sold to America as a great crusade that had to be undertaken for the purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq.
The "elections" that were held were a farce. At the best estimate of participation, only 57% of the electorate participated, many of them induced to do so by ration cards and the U.S. reserving unto itself the right to bar all candidates it deemed "unfriendly to democracy." Some election.
<<There is no stolen oil and there will not be no matter who wins the contracts to pump it.>>
Bullshit. That oil belonged to the Iraqi people and their government, now it's 70% American.
<<I would like for American firms to win those contracts , in fair auctions.>>
Yeah, that'll happen. That's what the U.S. Army is there for.
<<And if thepeople of Iraq do not like the deal they should elect better dealers.>>
Yeah, incorruptible ones. That's what the U.S. Army is there for.
There are twice as many democracys in the world now as thirty years ago , it is a good trend.
<<But you have to expect some resistance from the tyrants.>>
Yeah, I can see how many tyrants there are planting roadside bombs and driving suicide cars. They're pretty stupid tyrants. Maybe they can be tyrants in Paradise.
-
At the best estimate of participation, only 57% of the electorate participated,
At least 63 percent of Iraqis voted Saturday, she said, an increase of about 1 million voters over the first democratic election in January for a transitional government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html)
Some estimates were as high as 74%.
-
That statistic should give no comfort for, predictably, it produced a Shiite government which seems to be pursuing a Shiite agenda (Islamic Republic?) and hasn't even sent an intern to look up "reconciliation" in the Arabic dictionary. Without a constitution granting inalienable and impregnable minority rights, and an executive and judiciary eager to enforce them, the extent of the plebiscite means little to the actual ability of the Iraqi government to govern --- until such time as one side or the other is vanquished in a civil war.
-
At least 63 percent of Iraqis voted Saturday, she said, an increase of about 1 million voters over the first democratic election in January for a transitional government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html)
Some estimates were as high as 74%.
Perhaps what Tee is supporting is the near 100% turn-out to re-elect Saddam as dictator. I mean, there was no "coercion" by the minority at that time, right?
-
Some estimates were as high as 74%.
The population of Iraq, and the voting age part of it is known too well to have an error of from 57 to 74%
The number of voters is known.
Of course, Iraq never had a true election before, so this would be something like a field hockey tournament in the US
-
Estimates of the voter turnout in the Iraqi "election" are all over the map. I picked the one from the Iraqi Electoral Commission (not its exact formal name) which was 57% and seemed realistic. It's based on population figures since the actual number of eligible voters is not known. Since the population figures themselves are pretty hazy, you can set them anywhere; one of the correspondents on Daily Kos showed that the Iraqi government figures were in all probability based on multiplying the estimated population by the percentage of it that should have been voting age or more, and then giving the turnout as the total number of votes cast, divided by the estimated number of eligible voters and expressed as a percentage. The turnout can be whatever you want it to be.
-
I picked the one from the Iraqi Electoral Commission (not its exact formal name) which was 57% and seemed realistic.
Interesting.
From the "Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq" website, I get a voter turnout among registered voters of over 76% from their certified results. Most outside agencies claim that number is high.
Taking into account that out of 15,568,702 registered voters, 11,895,756 valid votes, 139,656 invalid votes and
62,836 blank votes were cast in 31,348 polling stations in all Iraqi governorates. Similarly, eligible Iraqi voters
cast 295,377 valid votes, 1,912 invalid votes and 1,094 blank votes in 560 polling stations in fifteen countries
abroad.
Certified Results (http://www.ieciraq.org/English/../final%20cand/IECI_Decision_Certified_Results_of_CoR_Elections_En.pdf)
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20542-2005Feb13.html
well here's a Washington Post interview quoting Farid Ayar of the Independent Electoral Commission as giving 58% turnout.
-
Canadian turnout...
27 November 2000 61.25
28 June 2004 60.9
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&document=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false
US turnout isn't even that good.
http://www.usavotenet.com/popups/totalturnout.htm
Considering the difficulty , and also considering the presence of international observers , I don't see that the Iriqui turnout deserves our criticism.
-
Considering the difficulty , and also considering the presence of international observers , I don't see that the Iriqui turnout deserves our criticism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation in Iraq is totally different. Neither in Canada nor in the US has the possible future of democracy been considered at stake in any recent Canadian or US election, as in Iraq. In the US and Canada, political parties are well-established: in Iraq, there were huge numbers of parties, and the nationalities of the candidates (most of whom were unknown to the voters) and therefore their assumed political affiliations, were revealed to the voters by their names. Iraq is a tribal society: every Iraqi one knows a Kurdish, a Shiite, a Sunni, a Turkman name.
The differences between Iraq and Canada and the US are are far too great to assume that any comparisons are not much more than idle musings.
-
Excellent answer, XO, and I'd only add that the turnout is virtually meaningless considering it had to be pumped up considerably by Shi'ite militia pressure in the Shi'a areas, free ration cards (as Ayar virtually admitted in the interview I posted previously) and the fact that the candidates were all vetted by the American occupation authorities. And don't forget that farcical "international observer" bullshit - - the Carter Center admitted that because of the hazardous conditions it observers stayed in Jordan for the "election."
This thing was a well-managed farce, a publicity stunt by the U.S., complete with the "purple finger" photo ops. IIRC, they staged a similar farce at one point in the Viet Nam War.
-
well here's a Washington Post interview quoting Farid Ayar of the Independent Electoral Commission as giving 58% turnout.
Ahh, you're talking about the election of the "interim government" that wrote the constitution.
I'm talking about the election of the actual government under the new constitution.
-
NO election in Iraq is or has been comparable to the elections in the US and Canada.
All the photos of purple-fingered Iraqi democrats are clearly propaganda and should not be taken as anything but propaganda.
One must remember that advertising was an invention of the US, and so was (under Wilson's AG Mitchell Palmer) propaganda. Goebbles adapted it to the German state, but Americans have continued to develop both advertising and propaganda (to the detriment of our culture, civilization and ethical standards) for decades since the defeat of the Nazis.
It has not been so prevalent in the Middle East because Americans are perfectly awful at foreign languages and cultures.At last count, there were SIX people in the US Embassy in Iraq capable of carrying on a conversation in Iraqi Arabic.
AIPAC is perhaps the only non-US propaganda that has a greater success than American propaganda.
Sure, we have all those Iraqi interpreters, but pretty much every one of them has a political ax to grind, and I don't think that staking my life on whether some Gyrene understood his English would be a wise thing to do.
I sure would like some proof that Cheney and Juniorbush have truly altruistic motives. I fail to see why it would be unfair to request these of Sirs.
Of course, Sirs continues to believe that Juniorbush has never told so much as a fib.
-
One must remember that advertising was an invention of the US,
So, all those Roman ads that were so well preserved under the ashes at Pompeii were placed there by time-travelling Americans?
-
You know what I am talking about.
The Romans had no press. Ads on walls are hardly ad campaigns.
-
You know what I am talking about.
The Romans had no press. Ads on walls are hardly ad campaigns.
So, billboards are not considered advertisements? Many of the ads at Pompeii were series of political ads, in addition to those advertising brothels and other commercial establishments.
The Egyptians had papyrus ads. After the creation of the printing press, printed ads on paper became common - well before the founding of the US.
There are examples of ads going back 6,000 years.
-
Modern advertising was a US innovation. So was propaganda.
The whole idea of inventing 'diseases' (psoriasis, halitosis) to sell the 'cure', for example.
-
You know what I am talking about. The Romans had no press. Ads on walls are hardly ad campaigns.
So, billboards are not considered advertisements? Many of the ads at Pompeii were series of political ads, in addition to those advertising brothels and other commercial establishments. The Egyptians had papyrus ads. After the creation of the printing press, printed ads on paper became common - well before the founding of the US. There are examples of ads going back 6,000 years.
D'OH....Ami with another right cross, square on Xo's debate chin. It's starting to get bloody folks ;)
-
The whole idea of inventing 'diseases' (psoriasis, halitosis) to sell the 'cure', for example.
Advertising medicines came about during the plague in Europe.
-
Modern advertising was a US innovation. So was propaganda.
The whole idea of inventing 'diseases' (psoriasis, halitosis) to sell the 'cure', for example.
Look, I'll speed this up some.
Name branding was partially a US concept. It arose about the same time in the US and Europe (19th century). All other forms of advertising are ancient in origin.
Propaganda, which you speciously link to advertising, is also ancient in origin. Again, we can find examples of propaganda in Roman works, and pre-common-era Indian and Persian writings. There are also numerous ancient oriental and occidental sources of propaganda.
-
Considering the difficulty , and also considering the presence of international observers , I don't see that the Iriqui turnout deserves our criticism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation in Iraq is totally different. Neither in Canada nor in the US has the possible future of democracy been considered at stake in any recent Canadian or US election, as in Iraq.
I would not have guessed that the outcome was so unimportat if I were simply listening to the opponents of President Bush , who sometimes confuse him with Satan.
That it s much less dangerous and much more easy for us to approach a polling place is a greater credit to Iriqus than to us.
-
<<to the opponents of President Bush , who sometimes confuse him with Satan.>>
No, Satan's a lot smarter and better looking.