 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
che, you can find both the Clinton and Obama speeches at www.cspan.org
lotm, Kerry's adopted a realist stance, at least publicly. And so has Dear Leader (hence the appointment of a Ba'athist hitman and terrorist as PM, the engineer of Honduras' Batallion 316 as Iraq's ambassador, etc., etc.). Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Shrub has conflated the idea of "democracy promotion" with a policy of grossly incompetent corporatism, so there's a strong incentive not to take stances that put human rights in the fore, for fear of being attached to the Iraq policy. So what I see from Kerry is a foreign policy that values human rights no less than the current gov't, and is absolutely going to be more competent in whatever they try to accomplish. It's not what I want, but it's a hell of a lot better than the status quo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Front lines? Er, I think fire houses are the LAST line of defense in the war on terror. If firemen are rescuing folks from burning buildings due to a terr act, or a blown up train, or or pulling people from a tunnel filled with poison gas, thats already the end of a string of defeats. Defeats of law enforcement, of intell, of special operations, of public diplomacy, and yes, of nation building. Suppose there had been more firehouses in lower Manhattan on Sept 11, 2001. What would that have meant - a few more dead firefighters, is all.
|
So what is the point of "homeland defense"? 99% of terrorist attacks will be nothing like 9/11, first of all. second, you prepare for everything, not only the most optimistic outcome.
quote:
What WOULD have stopped 9/11 would have been an interventions in Afghanistan more substantial than Clintons pinprick bombing, BEFORE 9/11. Now Im not blaming Clinton for that - or Bush either, for that matter. There wasnt the political will to do something like that with what was, after all, only sketchy intell. |
So then what is the point of that? The way to stop 9/11 would have been better intel and border control and police actions, NOT an invasion o afghanistan in 1998, specially given the utter lack of political will. Just look at the current mess in Afghanistan. If that is your idea of success, for all means, vote Bush.
quote:
So what I want to know is will Kerry act decisively when there is only sketchy intell??? |
How do you do that? Why would you do so? cause you must be safe uber alles? then why not fund firehouses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
che, you can find both the Clinton and Obama speeches at www.cspan.org
lotm, Kerry's adopted a realist stance, at least publicly. And so has Dear Leader (hence the appointment of a Ba'athist hitman and terrorist as PM, the engineer of Honduras' Batallion 316 as Iraq's ambassador, etc., etc.). Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Shrub has conflated the idea of "democracy promotion" with a policy of grossly incompetent corporatism, so there's a strong incentive not to take stances that put human rights in the fore, for fear of being attached to the Iraq policy. So what I see from Kerry is a foreign policy that values human rights no less than the current gov't, and is absolutely going to be more competent in whatever they try to accomplish. It's not what I want, but it's a hell of a lot better than the status quo. |
Ramo - Bushes policy has been inconsistent.
I dont share your charecterization Iyad Allawi, Im afraid. I dont want to get into a debate about John Negropontes role in Honduras in the 1980's but I dont see any evidence he isnt commited to transforming the middle east. I see evidence for a real commitment to change in Iraq - I really didnt want to threadjack this to a discussion of details on the ground in Iraq though - I do think its clear there are at least SOME individuals in the Bush administration who are commited to a transformative strategy, and that from time to time they have the dominant role in setting policy. I think its QUITE possible that Kerry can do worse, and so its necessary to know just what he intends to do.
Again, I realize this isnt an issue for the "no one can do worse than Bush crowd" . Im not sure why y'all cant realize that there are MANY Americans who dont particularly like Bush, who nonetheless think its quite possible to do worse, and that Kerry needs to speak to those people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So what is the point of "homeland defense"? 99% of terrorist attacks will be nothing like 9/11, first of all. second, you prepare for everything, not only the most optimistic outcome.
quote:
What WOULD have stopped 9/11 would have been an interventions in Afghanistan more substantial than Clintons pinprick bombing, BEFORE 9/11. Now Im not blaming Clinton for that - or Bush either, for that matter. There wasnt the political will to do something like that with what was, after all, only sketchy intell. |
So then what is the point of that? The way to stop 9/11 would have been better intel and border control and police actions, NOT an invasion o afghanistan in 1998, specially given the utter lack of political will. Just look at the current mess in Afghanistan. If that is your idea of success, for all means, vote Bush.
How do you do that? Why would you do so? cause you must be safe uber alles? then why not fund firehouses? |
I didnt say Im against homeland defense, to hold it up in contrast with spending money abroad, as the firehouse line does, seems profoundly misguided. Yes we should do homeland defense, but the essence of this fight must be taken to the enemy.
Afghanistan - do we really need yet another good new - bad news from Afghanistan thread - in which we discuss the details of the disarmament of militias, the role of ISAF and PRTS, the upcoming elections, etc, etc. I agree Afghanistan could be done BETTER, and thats one reason i want an ALTERNATIVE to Bush. Does Kerry think going into Afghanistan was a mistake?? If so, Id like to know that. Hes said so far that its NOT, so he think he DOES consider invasion and regime change one tool in the WOT.
Do I need safety uber alles? Im not sure what you mean. I think the first job of the govt is to make us safe from foreign attack, and if there is a strong case that a state is sponsoring terrorism against the US, the govt has an obligation to go to war with that state, if at all possible. I think that is what Kerry said last night. Im not sure what standard of proof he requires. HIs statements on Iraq seem to indicate he would require a very high standard of proof, one thats difficult to achieve by the nature of things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I didnt say Im against homeland defense, to hold it up in contrast with spending money abroad, as the firehouse line does, seems profoundly misguided. Yes we should do homeland defense, but the essence of this fight must be taken to the enemy. |
It's a rhetorical device for pete's sake! If Bsuh builds firehouses in Iraq (place he is not the prsident of), then why not where hje is president? It's setting up a contradiction. That's all. Which is why I say you read far too much into such an obvious dig.
quote:
Does Kerry think going into Afghanistan was a mistake?? If so, Id like to know that. Hes said so far that its NOT, so he think he DOES consider invasion and regime change one tool in the WOT. |
He has always supported having gone in (do you read his website and so forth?), thinks Bush left too early.
quote:
Do I need safety uber alles? Im not sure what you mean. I think the first job of the govt is to make us safe from foreign attack, and if there is a strong case that a state is sponsoring terrorism against the US, the govt has an obligation to go to war with that state, if at all possible. I think that is what Kerry said last night. Im not sure what standard of proof he requires. HIs statements on Iraq seem to indicate he would require a very high standard of proof, one thats difficult to achieve by the nature of things. |
Obligation to go to war!? Sorry, NO. The state system works differently, and I rpefer working within the agrred upon system than a half assed attempt to change it which will invariably fail and make everything worse.
The standard of proof for war is rightly EXTREMELY HIGH.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
It's a rhetorical device for pete's sake! If Bsuh builds firehouses in Iraq (place he is not the prsident of), then why not where hje is president? It's setting up a contradiction. That's all. Which is why I say you read far too much into such an obvious dig.
quote:
Does Kerry think going into Afghanistan was a mistake?? If so, Id like to know that. Hes said so far that its NOT, so he think he DOES consider invasion and regime change one tool in the WOT. |
He has always supported having gone in (do you read his website and so forth?), thinks Bush left too early.
Obligation to go to war!? Sorry, NO. The state system works differently, and I rpefer working within the agrred upon system than a half assed attempt to change it which will invariably fail and make everything worse.
The standard of proof for war is rightly EXTREMELY HIGH. |
Firehouses - cause we have many firehouses in this country, and in some places cost benefit indicates some should be closed. Whereas the return to building them in Iraq is massive. Cant say, that, cause it would insult all the isolationist instincts in the heartland, which its playing to, cheaply.
Getting out to soon - we still have 10,000 troops in Afghan, we havent gotten out.
Obligation - once again, i dont really give a ********* what GePap thinks about the standards of international law. I care rather more what John F. Kerry thinks about them, and I still dont know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
lotm:
I don't know how you can disagree with my characterization of Allawi, Hersh has documented it:
quote:
“If you’re asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does,” Vincent Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. officer, said. “He was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff.” A cabinet-level Middle East diplomat, who was rankled by the U.S. indifference to Allawi’s personal history, told me early this month that Allawi was involved with a Mukhabarat “hit team” that sought out and killed Baath Party dissenters throughout Europe. (Allawi’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) At some point, for reasons that are not clear, Allawi fell from favor, and the Baathists organized a series of attempts on his life. The third attempt, by an axe-wielding assassin who broke into his home near London in 1978, resulted in a year-long hospital stay. |
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040628fa_fact
Even if you believe that this is only his past, Allawi is the guy the realists love (which is why he was the CIA's man), he has built a party from Ba'athists in the army, has created connections with other Ba'athist parties, has had his detainees abused, has personally murdered several, has secured emergency powers for himself, and just yesterday has postponed the National Congress. Do you honestly believe that this is the best guy for democracy in Iraq?
And Negroponte is Powell's man. Are you arguing that Powell has become a neo-con? Or that Negroponte has switched allegiences?
The administration's neo-cons (who, I'm far from convinced care one whit about democracy) have fallen from grace, really ever since Chalabi went down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
lotm:
I don't know how you can disagree with my characterization of Allawi, Hersh has documented it:
quote:
“If you’re asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does,” Vincent Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. officer, said. “He was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff.” A cabinet-level Middle East diplomat, who was rankled by the U.S. indifference to Allawi’s personal history, told me early this month that Allawi was involved with a Mukhabarat “hit team” that sought out and killed Baath Party dissenters throughout Europe. (Allawi’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) At some point, for reasons that are not clear, Allawi fell from favor, and the Baathists organized a series of attempts on his life. The third attempt, by an axe-wielding assassin who broke into his home near London in 1978, resulted in a year-long hospital stay. |
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040628fa_fact
Even if you believe that this is only his past, Allawi is the guy the realists love (which is why he was the CIA's man), he has built a party from Ba'athists in the army, has created connections with other Ba'athist parties, has had his detainees abused, has personally murdered several, has secured emergency powers for himself, and just yesterday has postponed the National Congress. Do you honestly believe that this is the best guy for democracy in Iraq?
And Negroponte is Powell's man. Are you arguing that Powell has become a neo-con? Or that Negroponte has switched allegiences?
The administration's neo-cons (who, I'm far from convinced care one whit about democracy) have fallen from grace, really ever since Chalabi went down. |
i have my own problems with Hersh, as you might imagine, and with Cannistraro, both of whom have agendas.
The emergency legislation is quite moderate, and hasnt been implemented a month into the new govt.
Ive seen the murder charge, and it sounds very much like an urban legend to me.
And the conference was postponed at the REQUEST of the UNITED NATIONS, to enable MORE to participate.
Geez, Ramo, claiming Allawi is antidemocratic based on that last - youre getting to the Karl Rove level, ya know?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
USA Today:
"A critical conference on Iraq's path toward democracy was postponed for two weeks amid political squabbling and concerns that participation was too limited.
The conference was delayed at the request of the United Nations, which is monitoring the plan to create a democracy in Iraq. Elections are scheduled for January.
Iraq's interim government has been organizing the conference against a backdrop of violence. A car bombing killed 70 people Wednesday. Militants have launched a wave of assassinations and kidnappings in an effort to destabilize the new government.
On Thursday, Marines and insurgents clashed in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. Militants holding seven foreign truck drivers threatened to behead one of them in 24 hours if the company that employed them does not leave Iraq and other demands are not met.
Officials said security concerns were not a factor in the decision to postpone the meeting. Conference chief Fouad Masoum said the United Nations needed more time to encourage wider participation and attempt to get bickering parties to attend. The conference had been scheduled to start Saturday.
The conference was to be a gathering of 1,000 people, including delegates from Iraq's 18 provinces and tribal, religious and political leaders. The purpose is to select a 100-person national assembly, which will have some veto authority, approve the national budget and appoint replacements to the Cabinet.
But smaller parties complained about the selection process for the three-day meeting, saying it gave preference to large, established parties. To protest, some groups refused to participate.
Many of the larger parties were part of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council. Critics say those parties are dominated by exiles who have spent years outside the country and have lost touch.
"That's not fair to let the 10% dominate the whole process," said Sadoun al-Dulame of the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies. "They need to listen to the majority."
Jamal Benomar, a U.N. official, said the additional time would allow conference organizers to encourage the balking parties to participate. "The aim of this conference is to close ranks under the only tent that could contain all the Iraqis," he said."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
The emergency legislation is quite moderate, and hasnt been implemented a month into the new govt. |
Nonetheless, it exists, and can be abused.
quote:
Ive seen the murder charge, and it sounds very much like an urban legend to me. |
In what way?
quote:
And the conference was postponed at the REQUEST of the UNITED NATIONS, to enable MORE to participate.
Geez, Ramo, claiming Allawi is antidemocratic based on that last - youre getting to the Karl Rove level, ya know? |
It was about trying to bring recalcitrant political forces into accepting a selection process that, as your article pointed out, heavily favored exiles. The idea is that the other parties can't complain as easily about the process and the Congress if they don't boycott it. It's not a grand democratic gesture; it's a cynical attempt at giving the gov't legitimacy, and I'm not convinced it's not in part a postponement of a diffusion of power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
The emergency legislation is quite moderate, and hasnt been implemented a month into the new govt. |
Nonetheless, it exists, and can be abused.
LOTM - yes it exists, in the circumstances Iraq faces thats a good thing, and it will be difficult to abuse, since the emergency automatically expires after 60 days, and needs approval of the Pres and both VPs to be extended. In any case i doubt any other Iraqi PM would have requested anything less, so its not evidence of Allawis dictatorial tendencies.
quote:
Ive seen the murder charge, and it sounds very much like an urban legend to me. |
In what way?
A rumour spreading around, laden with symbolism redolant to the local Iraqis.
quote:
And the conference was postponed at the REQUEST of the UNITED NATIONS, to enable MORE to participate.
Geez, Ramo, claiming Allawi is antidemocratic based on that last - youre getting to the Karl Rove level, ya know? |
It was about trying to bring recalcitrant political forces into accepting a selection process that, as your article pointed out, heavily favored exiles. The idea is that the other parties can't complain as easily about the process and the Congress if they don't boycott it. It's not a grand democratic gesture; it's a cynical attempt at giving the gov't legitimacy, and I'm not convinced it's not in part a postponement of a diffusion of power. |
So it would have been MORE democratic to go ahead and hold it with the other parties excluded??? Look, its an imperfect process - as was the loya jirga in afghanistan, and thats why its only to choose an interim consultative body, till real elections can be held. But the act of postponement, at UN suggestion, is again NOT an indication of dictatorial tendencies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
Slate:
Firehouse Rot
John Kerry's cheapest shot.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, July 30, 2004, at 10:15 AM PT
Allowance made for choreography, stagecraft, and all the rest of it, there need be no doubt that the Democrats in Boston sincerely wish to "project" the idea of compassion for the underdog, inclusiveness in general, and perhaps above all a degree of care and measure in foreign policy. The AIDS victim in South Africa, or the Bangladeshi woman hoping for a new well: These are sufferers and strugglers who would get genuine applause whether it was Barack Obama mentioning them or not. Of course we understand that our future is bound up with theirs.
But in the last few weeks I have been registering one of the sourest and nastiest and cheapest notes to have been struck for some time. In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, often made up of campaigners from the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU—one of the country's largest labor unions—the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis. (He obviously doesn't remember the line of his city's most famous columnist, the late Herb Caen, who referred to San Francisco as "Baghdad by the Bay.") These are only two public instances of what's become quite a general whispering campaign. And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America." Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of "making us safer": Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren't spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?
There is something absolutely charmless and self-regarding about this pitch, and I wish I could hear a senior Democrat disowning it. It is no better, in point of its domestic tone and appeal, than the rumor of the welfare mother stopping her Cadillac to get vodka on food stamps. In point of its international implications, it also suggests the most vulgar form of isolationism, not to say insularity.
And there's something more. It reveals a real element of bad faith on the part of many liberals and leftists. Think of the programs that many of them regard as wasteful and extravagant: the missile-defense system, for example (less than useless in the battle against terrorism) or the so-called "war on drugs" (ditto). But the mention of either of these would involve an argument over principle, and the risk of controversy. So, why not just say that the Republicans are squandering "our" money on a bunch of foreigners?
The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery? Would we not prosper ourselves—if the question has to be stated in this way—if the Iraqi economy recuperated to the point where it could become a serious trading partner?
This common-sense or self-interested objection doesn't exhaust the argument. A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.
This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right? Whatever you think about the twists and turns of U.S. policy toward Baghdad in the last three decades, there can be no doubt of any kind that we have collectively incurred a huge responsibility there, much of it political but a good deal of it purely humanitarian. To demand that American funds be cut off or diverted, just as the country is fighting to rebuild and struggling toward a form of elections, is unconscionable from any standpoint.
The worst thing about John Kerry's parochial line on the firehouses was the applause it got, with cameras even focusing on firefighter union jackets adorned with Kerry-Edwards buttons. The great thing about firefighters is usually their solidarity: They will send impressive delegations to the funerals of their fellows not just in other cities but in other countries, too. Solidarity and internationalism, indeed, used to be the cement of the democratic Left. So, do we understand the nominee correctly? Is he telling us that Iraqi firefighters are parasites sucking on the American ***, and that they don't deserve the supportive brotherhood that used to be the proudest signature of the labor movement? And why is Kerry so keen on attracting our "allies" to share the burden in Iraq—or to "reduce the cost to American taxpayers," as he inelegantly put it—if not to help put out the fire that might otherwise consume more than a point in the budget?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2004 22:53
God, what a dumbass, and yes, I mean Christopher Hitchens. i didn't care for him before the war, i don;t care for him now. 
|