Fortunately, the majority of Americans are finally getting it. Midterm elections are coming. Have a nice day. Enjoy your "cakes". Quiver in your shoes, you "conservative sheep", I'm back.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > So, Everyone Is Finally Getting It |
| Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2006, 05:54 PM |
| Finally, the truth about Katina is surfacing. Bush, the manic psychotic is not capable of admitting that he was wrong. I see the nice republicant sheep bleating about "the aclu" and "Al Gore". They still think the nice little brown "cakes" from the bull's pasture, given to them by Mr. Rove, is really cake. Fortunately, the majority of Americans are finally getting it. Midterm elections are coming. Have a nice day. Enjoy your "cakes". Quiver in your shoes, you "conservative sheep", I'm back. |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 03-Mar-2006, 06:15 PM |
| Who forget to lock the door? That darn old alley cat, maisky, has somehow snuck back in! |
| Posted by: oldraven 03-Mar-2006, 08:53 PM |
| Hit the deck! I've never seen a post so loaded! |
| Posted by: Fiddler 04-Mar-2006, 06:19 AM |
| Well Mac, It looks like those magic pills didn't work. Think we could get our money back? |
| Posted by: John Clements 05-Mar-2006, 11:54 AM |
| If I had my way George W and all his cronies would be facing an international tribunal, charged with deliberate, and negligent homicide, because of lying us into a war, and trying to lie his way out caring for the people in New Orleans. To call George Bush pathological would be an under statement! |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 05-Mar-2006, 02:58 PM | ||
Brother maisky, Have you meet John Clements yet? I think he may have somehow gotten to the left of you (not sure how that is possible, but he did ). |
| Posted by: maisky 05-Mar-2006, 08:06 PM | ||
Hey!! I'm the left wing rational person here. You must be after my job! |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 07-Mar-2006, 03:33 PM | ||||
This subject has been discussed ad nauseum, and as of yet no one has been able to offer a rational counter-argument to the following quotes as they pertain to the "Bush lies." ......................
You may, if you wish, resurrect this discussion from a previous thread by clicking http://www.celticradio.net/php/forums/index.php?showtopic=8054&st=0 I really don't think you have the ability to convince anyone that "Bush lied" as long as you take an honest look at all the facts, and not simply spin your way through it. If it is hate alone that makes you continue to babble about the "lies", then I can understand that. I have seen it time an again on this very forum by otherwise intelligent folks. It's sad, yes, but desperation always is. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 07-Mar-2006, 08:03 PM |
| Personally I'm sick of the government in general lying to me. I don't trust Bush, I don't trust Clinton, I don't trust any of them. However, as the current leader of our country and of our armed forces, I place the majority of the blame on Bush and his administration. I don't trust the current administration, and Bush's presidency has erroded my belief and trust in the US government. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 08-Mar-2006, 08:04 AM | ||
Welome to the club brother. I haven't trusted government since.............er...............um, I don't remember ever trusting government. |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 08-Mar-2006, 10:08 AM | ||||
As I recall from my own study of US history, that is precisely why the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states:
|
| Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Mar-2006, 11:57 AM | ||
Of course you realize that with that document also came the ammendment process, so that powers of federal government can permeate each corner of the country. |
| Posted by: John Clements 16-Mar-2006, 08:15 AM |
| Hi maisky, believe me I’m not out to take your left wing job, but I would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. Remember, “Stand up, stand up. Stand up for your rights. Stand up, stand up, don’t give up the fight.” |
| Posted by: oldraven 20-Mar-2006, 03:43 PM |
I think we're supposed to Get up, Stand up.  |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Mar-2006, 11:11 AM | ||
In this forum, "back to back" is a more appropriate position. You are most welcome. It is nice to make your acquaintence. |
| Posted by: John Clements 21-Mar-2006, 06:36 PM |
| Hi maisky, as in you watch my back, and I’ll watch yours. I couldn’t agree more, and the pleasure is all mine. I’m sure. |
| Posted by: Sonee 01-Jun-2006, 06:57 PM |
| Wow, you come back from a six month absence and find that absolutely nothing has changed!!! Man, I LOVE this forum!!!! So, lets get to the rehashing then, shall we?!  |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Jun-2006, 06:51 PM |
| All I'm going to say is you have the right to say what you want about GWB. There's a lot of things that Bush has done that I strongly disagree with but he's a friend of the NRA and supports the 2nd ammendment. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 07-Jun-2006, 06:48 PM | ||||
I was gone longer than that and it hasn't changed. Unfortunately, I won't be able to hang around and bash the bashers as much as I used to. Still, ya gotta love their tenacity. "Bush lied, Bush lied, BushliedBushliedBushlied." If you repeat it often enough and loud enough, somebody will believe it. Of course, some people believe the earth is flat, too.Actually, I'm of the opinion that ALL politicians lie, some more than others.
Indeed. Personally, I don't own a gun. My wife has enough for both of us. But to quote Bruce Cockburn: "If I had a rocket launcher, some sonofabitch would die." It's probably a good thing I don't have access to a pony nuke. Maisky, I'm glad to see you're still alive and kicking. Even if you're still kicking GWB.  |
| Posted by: maisky 13-Jun-2006, 08:13 AM | ||
So supporting the second ammendment forgives his abrogating all the rest? My oh my, the blinders are on firmly. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Jun-2006, 08:36 AM | ||
You can still find Germans who will remind you that Hitler made the trains run on time. What he was using them for is another matter, but by God they were really on time. |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Jun-2006, 08:19 AM | ||
Absolutely WONDERFUL analogy!! |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 15-Jun-2006, 06:45 AM | ||
Like I said before, I don't agree with a lot of what Bush has done but you can't compare him to Hitler. If Bush was a Fascious, no one would have guns except for the military and police. Wire tapping? I'm suspicious of. I don't want to give up any of my freedom for the sake of security. Like I said again. He's a friend of the NRA so for that I stand by him. Let me ask you this, would you except a President who would try to disarm the citizens by banning hand guns and other type guns but would remove the troops from Iraq and push to make even more conservation laws? You'd give up a freedom as long as "YOUR MAN OR WOMAN " is in office? If so, thats just what the Germans and Italians did in WW2. They gave up personal freedoms with hope that things would "get better". The Government should fear the people not the people fear the Government. I say the one who wishes to disarm the public of ANY type gun, is afraid of something. I'm thankful I live in a state where I have the right to carry a conceiled weapon. God forbid I'll ever have to use it. But God forbid I'm ever in a situation were I needed it but wasn't allowed one. I praise Alaska and Vermont. There you don't even need a permit to carry a gun. In Alaska all you have to worry about is the Polar Bear, in Vermont you have to worry about child molesters that judges won't punish properly. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 15-Jun-2006, 09:35 AM |
| First off, one can compare Bush to Hitler. Just because he doesn't match on one point, doesn't mean the two don't share similarities. Second, just because one right, in this case the right to bear arms, isn't being taken away doesn't mean other freedoms and rights aren't. Turning a blind eye to all the things someone is doing that are wrong or you dont' agree with simply because you agree with one thing they are doing seems rather shortsighted. Especially with politicains, all their policies need to be scrutinized. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Jun-2006, 12:14 PM |
| Now wait a minute. I realize that this internet medium doesn't always reflect irony or tongue-in-cheek very well, but the comment was not a comparison between Bush and Hitler in any case. It's an analogy that points to admirers who will find one good thing that an inadequate or objectionable leader does, among many that he may do badly, and say "There, see! That is why I like him/stand by him -- that's enough for me." The ribbing is on the loyalist, not the leader. Just a clarification.  |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 15-Jun-2006, 01:36 PM | ||
Very Good! I agree with you. |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 15-Jun-2006, 01:40 PM | ||
All I was saying is he's not a facious. A facious would NEVER allow guns in the hands of private citizens for fear of uprise. Now lets look at some other far left politicians. They're calling for the end of private ownership of guns. Now if that's not facious, I don't know what a facious is. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Jun-2006, 02:17 PM |
| "Fascist", yes? I don't think you can define it by the witholding or control of one particular liberty, any more than you can judge the worth of a leader by his upholding of one particular liberty. This article is not bad: What is Fascism? By Laura Dawn Lewis This may surprise most educated people. One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems. Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable. Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws. Or it can be implied and held up by consensual conspiracy, (people know it is wrong but do nothing to stop it or change it. Through lack of action, they give consent), as it was in the deep South for African Americans and others of color. . . . Rest of the article is here: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 15-Jun-2006, 03:30 PM | ||
That is basically the defination on wikipedia. There are several forms of fascism. It all depends on where it occured. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Jun-2006, 03:49 PM |
| Wikipedia's discussion is a good introduction too, and doesn't disagree with any facets of the one in the link I posted. They don't overlap completely, though. This one by Lewis has a good bit more to say about times when the US has come closer to incorporting fascist elements of governance, and it's cautionary in a way I think it's good to keep in mind, for that reason. In any case, both discussions are general enough to serve as a springboard. Nothing can never be purely definitive unless it considers every case and all its variations pretty much exhaustively, and that's the material of a large and heavily referenced book. If you have come across something specific that substantially runs against the general construct in this article and the wikipedia entry, I'd be very interested in looking at it. |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 16-Jun-2006, 12:29 PM | ||
All and all we do have to be careful what we label a fascious I suppose. An anarchist whould say ANY form of Government is fascious. The reason I look strongly at the gun control issue is because in the past, oppressive leaders first priority was to disarm the population. Any way this discussion is off the posted topic. I started a thread on guns so any further discussion on Guns and Gun control can and should be discussed there. |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 16-Jun-2006, 12:31 PM | ||
Thanks for sticking up for me! I forgot to thank you. |
| Posted by: jedibowers 22-Jun-2006, 06:44 AM |
| Well it is starting to look like Bush, nor anyone else, lied about Iraq having WMD's. A newly declassified document states that we have found hundreds of weapons with mustard and sarum gas, which are consided WMD's and were on the list of what Iraq was not to have. Some were not in conditions to be used in the usual way, but were still dangerous. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 22-Jun-2006, 09:25 AM | ||
Hide and watch! The Bush-haters will surface, here and elsewhere, with their unequivocal, synchronized affirmation that "this proves nothing!" They will spin, they will accuse, they will dance a fancy dance in the name of hanging on to their "illegal" war mantra. And why shouldn't they? They have been so successful in creating this mass frenzy that even the president himself has outwardly admitted the intelligence that was used to justify the attack on Iraq was faulty. This he did even after finding illegal implements of war. Political pressure is the most powerful force on earth, ranking higher than water and air. |
| Posted by: Sonee 22-Jun-2006, 10:41 AM |
| I am getting so tired of all this finger-pointing, blame placing BS about the war in Iraq. Is there anyone on this planet that actually believes that proving "Bush lied", or "Bush was lied to", or was "just-to-stupid-to-know-any-better" is going to put Saddam back in power or bring to life all those that have already died? Saddam was an evil tyrant who didn't deserve to run ANY country, especially a country with the capability and/or the connections to destroy other countries. What do the Bush-hating, defacers of soldiers sacrifices think will happen to the 'great' country of Iraq if we just up an pull out? "Sorry, guys. Our bad, we shouldn't be here so we're just gonna leave it all up to you!" That country would self destruct and be prime fodder for another terrorist, similar in scope and magnitude to Osama and Saddam, to just walk in and claim as his/her own. Whether you agree with the war or not you should respect the fact that we are going to 'finish what we started' and not leave the people of that devastated country to fend for themselves as they have NEVER had to do before. The people of this country are NOT quiters and we are NOT going to abandon those people when they need us the most, no matter how loudly you shout that it's our fault in the first place. Maybe more so BECAUSE you think that. Instead of crying about the fighting of war you can no longer change perhaps we should be focusing our efforts on protecting ourselves from ever having to make these kinds of choices again. (Sonee jumps off her soapbox and takes a couple of deep breaths in an effort to calm down!!) |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Jun-2006, 02:32 PM |
| Bush lied, repeatedly. Pulling out of Iraq, just like pulling out of Vietnam is inevitable. We lost the war the day we invaded. The civil war in Iraq has been going on for centuries. It will still be going long after we leave. I dont disregard the sacrifice of our noble soldiers. This is another case of needless sacrifice caused by stupid leaders. History is full of it. So sad. So needless. Citing a Republicant "source" on WMD is interesting. These are the same liars that insisted the weapons were real in the first place. Citing an extreme right-wing news group gains no credibility. |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 23-Jun-2006, 05:26 PM | ||
I always love to hear from Brother Maisky! WARNING!!!! Ad-hominem attack follows:        So how's it going in that Bizaro World you libs live in? Ad-hominem attack complete!!! Sorry, sometimes I can't stand it anymore and I just have to release it or I'll explode!  |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Jun-2006, 09:18 PM |
| How many saw this smoke screen? Carl Rove misdirection. Suspects not terrorists, families say 'My son, he don't have a heart to kill people,' one mother says Friday, June 23, 2006; Posted: 8:40 p.m. EDT (00:40 GMT) FBI agents and police conduct operations in the Liberty City area of Miami, Florida. Image: Save on All Your Calls with Vonage Save 50% on your bill with Vonage unlimited local/long distance -... www.vonage.com Bad Credit Refinance Up to 4 quotes with 1 form. Serious refinance inquiries only please. www.nextag.com Homeowners - Don't Miss Out $145,000 mortgage for $484 per month. Refinance while rates are still low. www.lowermybills.com More Useful Links • Notebook Computers • Online Book Stores • Baby Registry WATCH Browse/Search Witness: They stood guard 'like soldiers' (1:48) Raid in Liberty City (1:43) Terror probe in Miami (:29) RELATED Gallery: The alleged targets • Indictment details plans for jihad • Time.com: How Serious Was the Threat? • Analyst: Homegrown terrorists big threat SPECIAL REPORT • Bin Laden: Alive or dead? • Timeline: Al Qaeda attacks • Explainer: Terror alert system • Graphic: U.S. intelligence • Special ReportINDICTED Narseal Batiste Patrick Abraham Stanley Phanor Naudimar Herrera Burson Augustin Lyglenson Lemorin Rotschild Augustine Source: Federal grand jury document YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Acts of terror or Create Your Own Manage Alerts | What Is This? MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Friends and family of the seven men facing federal charges of aspiring to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower said Friday the men were not involved in terrorism. The sister of Lyglenson Lemorin, or "Brother Levi," one of the men arrested Thursday on charges of concocting a terrorist plot, said her brother was involved with the group of men to study religion. Gina Lemorin, who had just returned from her college graduation in Atlanta, Georgia, when she learned of the charges, said he had been with the group in Miami doing construction work. But when the group began practicing "witchcraft," she said, Lemorin left and moved to Atlanta about four months ago. Lemorin, 31, has children who live in Atlanta, she said, and he "is not a terrorist." Lemorin appeared before a federal magistrate Friday in Atlanta, and five of his codefendants did the same in Miami. All were scheduled for arraignment next week. The seventh man, Stanley Grant Phanor, was in state custody in Miami on a firearms charge and has not yet appeared in federal court. According to a federal grand jury indictment released Friday, the man who recruited the group, Narseale Batiste, conspired with a government informant to wage "jihad" against the United States. (Full story) The attack was meant to be grander than the attacks of September 11, 2001, and included planned bombings of the 110-story Sears Tower, the nation's tallest building, and the FBI office in Miami, the indictment says. While the indictment says the men plotted to "kill all the devils we can," they apparently had no weapons or equipment for such a task. (Watch as the government outlines the alleged plot -- 4:34) Batiste gave the informant a list of materials he needed, which included "boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios and vehicles" as well as bulletproof vests and $50,000 in cash, according to the indictment. Batiste told the informant he was organizing an Islamic army to wage a jihad in the United States, the indictment says. The family of Phanor, who according to the indictment calls himself "Brother Sunni," told reporters in Miami he was innocent of all charges and was a practicing Roman Catholic, not a Muslim. "They all call themselves brothers and they well-mannered," said his older sister, Marlene Phanor. "All they was trying to do was clean up the community. We are Catholic. He's Catholic." She said the family attends St. Mary's Catholic Church in Miami. Sylvain Plantin, a cousin of Phanor's, said he was involved in a religious group called "Mores," which met to read the Bible. (Watch as one of the group's members says they are not terrorists -- 6:52) "They don't eat meat, they don't smoke, they don't drink, and they train highly intensively," he said. "The warehouse is the temple where they all go and pray and meditate." The windowless warehouse in Liberty City, a predominantly black and low-income area of Miami, was one of several places searched by FBI agents Thursday. Authorities said the men had been living there since March. Neighbors said the men, who wore turbans, caused no problems but seemed odd. (Watch as neighbors in the projects react to the arrests -- 1:49) "All you could do was just see their eyes. They had their whole head wrapped up. Just the eyes showing. And they were standing guard -- one here, one there -- like soldiers. Very quiet," one woman said. Plantin said what made them suspicious is the training they did. "They practiced martial arts," he said. "They didn't have guns, bombs and have no money funding." Phanor's mother, Elizene Phanor, said her son had never killed anyone. "My son, he don't have a heart to kill people," she said. "He say mommy, why the people have heart to shoot people?" A man who identified himself as "Brother Corey" said five of the men arrested in Miami were his "brothers," members of a religious group he identified as the "Seas of David." Brother Corey said the group has "soldiers in Chicago," but was peaceful and not associated with any terrorist organizations. He said he used the term soldiers because they were soldiers of God. (Watch man explain why his "brothers" are not terrorists -- 6:52) "This is a place where we worship and also have businesses, as a work site as a construction company we are trying to build up," he said, referring to the warehouse. He said the Seas of David is a religious group that blends the teachings of Christianity and Islam. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 23-Jun-2006, 10:19 PM |
??????????????????????? |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jun-2006, 04:47 AM | ||
Nice to hear from you, too, sir. My little corner of all of our bizarro world is currently ruled by King George II. The war monger who's primary goal of endlessly enriching the big oil companies is doing just fine. He is also dedicated to creating and endless stream of people who hate Georgeland (formerly America). |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Jun-2006, 03:02 PM | ||||
You're quite welcome, but I wasn't sticking up for you exactly. If I remember, you're the loyalist I was referring to.  Sonee is on point, but so is Maisky. We can't pull out precipitously, but not for the increasingly irritating "cut and run" reasoning. It is not a matter of "If we stay, we're big brave freedom-mongering heroes, and if we leave, we're lily-livered blah blah blah. . . and we're sending a message of yadda yadda yadda." That is not the point. And I don't believe the point is really that we have to honor the sacrifice of the soldiers by sacrificing more of them, painful as that whole line of reflection is. The point is "we" went in, and it's unfortunately still open to quibbling debate whether it was legally or wisely, and trashed the place. Yes, the ugly dangerous leader was taken out, but so was almost the entire infrastructure. Hunting rats with an elephant gun. So we are responsible not to leave until we are see the political equilibrium and some measure of function restored. Meanwhile the very rats we were afraid of are now running wild into the various holes and vacuum points we have created, and elephant guns are utterly useless to stop them. There is no reason NOT to be angry with the leadership for putting us and the Iraqi people in that position. |
| Posted by: Sonee 29-Jun-2006, 07:48 AM | ||
I completely agree with this statement. We SHOULD be angry for the position we find ourselves in. But all this bandying of who knew what, when and who they told, and who lied about what to whom and who should be 'blamed' for the war is utterly rediculous and a complete waste of time. We should put those energies to better use and try to find a plausable way out of the position we find ourselves in (no matter WHO put us in this position in the first place). I'll reiterate; It doesn't really matter who lied or what they lied about. Proving that 'someone' lied and 'someone else' was lied to won't change what has already happened. It certainly won't change GW's chances for re-election and it won't even change his public approval. (those who like him will continue to like him no matter what's said, and those who don't like him will find anything to discredit him with and continue to dislike him.) It's time we stopped worrying about what happened in the past and start figuring out what should happen in our future. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 29-Jun-2006, 08:26 AM |
| By and large I agree that persisting in recriminations for their own sake, or for the hope of some future advantage gained by holding someone hostage with memories of the past hanging over their heads, is pointless. However -- it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it (George Santayana, I think). To which I would add -- fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you again, you stinking liar, and oh yeah, shame on me too. There is also the point that our leaders spend a lot of time using and misusing the term "being brought to justice." (If you remember the sound byte, the president remarked when they dropped the bomb on Zarkawi that he had been "brought to justice," which is an absurd-past-arrogance way to describe it. Just an example of the very slippery use of terms. A summary execution is never justice.) If they are behaving in a way that can be legitimately demonstrated to be unjust or illegal while holding up such a broad, comprehensive and completely self-righteous standard, AND expecting not to be brought to account for their behavior, that's not trivial and it's not really in our advantage to just let it go and move on. |
| Posted by: Sonee 29-Jun-2006, 02:16 PM |
| I whole-heartedly agree that we can't forget the past, or the past mistakes, but I don't think they need to be dredged up every few days or used as a campaign platform/rhetoric. Repeatedly harping on THIS particular 'mistake' is not going to help us avoid similar missteps in the future but is only going to serve as a prybar in further seperating America along party lines. Unless we completely overhaul the government from the ground up we will never be able to totally eradicate the possibility of being 'lied' to. As far as I know we have never decided, beyond a doubt, that Bush lied himself, or that he was going off of false information given to him by 'liars' in other areas of government and was only guilty of ignorance. Either way the entire government organization is capable changing/falsifying/covering up information that it doesn't want the public to know about and continually griping about Bush's failings isn't going to stop that. All politicians lie when it suits their purposes yet I don't see any other political figure getting anywhere near the heat that Bush is. Granted he IS our president but do you really believe that he made these decisions all on his own? There were certainly other politicians that supported and backed him, why aren't they on the 'hit list' too? MY answer to that question is that it isn't about the lies themselves but merely a way to gain some future advantage. If it WAS about the lies and 'how dare they' there would be a THEY being held accountable, not just one man. As far as 'being brought to justice": I think that when someone commits a crime they forfeit every right they ever had, including the right to life if the crime involved the intentional taking of someone else's life. People are always talking about the 'rights' of the criminal, and God forbid we step on these rights, but what about the 'rights' of the rest of us, not to mention the victim(s)? The criminal walked all over the victims rights and made the rest of us feel unsafe in our own neighborhoods/cities/counties/states/countries, but lets not be 'mean' to the poor criminal. Zarqawi wanted to eliminate all Americans and the entire United States from the face of the earth and would have gone to any lengths to see that it was done AND had many people willing to help him AND worked closely with the man responsible for 9-11. So, lets not take comfort in the fact that he is no more, lets not call it justice that he has been stopped, forever, from ever contributing to another 9-11 here or anywhere else, and lets instead, lament the manner in which he was removed and call the president 'arrogant' for daring to remove so evil an enemy and calling it 'justice'. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Jul-2006, 03:36 PM | ||
You are right. Remembering the past for constructive improvement of future prospects is not at all the same as flinging it around uncritically, selectively and unethically to gain political capital. As far as the Zarqawi business is concerned, we may have a real disagreement on policy, but since it has such a concrete result, I don't think it's just a philosophical difference. It is easy to get to the point, especially when you have the far murkier and slipperier context of "war," when you can justify summary judgment and penalty dealt out for atrocities that anyone should be able to see warrant such a treatment. But it is next to impossible to pull back from that point. This has NOTHING to do with what -- or how much -- the perpetrator of the evils has done or would do or wants to do or can be expected to do. Please understand that I have no objection to the death penalty in cases like this, and probably this man, of all the cases we have heard of lately, deserves it richly; but only after a rigorous, exhaustive, and completely transparent public investigation, on the international level, and a weighing of all the charges and evidence should that penalty ever be dealt out. And yes, I will lament the fact that this man was not actually brought to justice by our government. There's no amount of emotional protest about how bad he was and how great it is to be rid of him (none of which is categorically false per se) that mitigates or excuses this kind of treatment. And really, it does not have to do with HIS rights so much as it has to do with the precedent that is set by acts like the one that took him out, and what precedents like that do to the rights of everyone. The laws around war crimes and international tribunals are still murky and don't have enough teeth in them. That is unfortunately going to be the case for a long time yet. But it is shortsighted to go on in a tit-for-tat vein of "What about OUR rights? Why should HE have rights when he's crapping on OUR rights?" There won't ever be a consensus of enforceable international law to deal with war crimes, or for that matter any other acts or policies of governments that abuse their own populations and those of others, without some sense of a standard that must not slip every time we think we've actually got a rat cornered. Israel has been catching hell for years over arrogant treatment of Arab populations in their region. Much of their policy has indeed been arrogant and excessive; but the reason they get such extreme bad press is that so much of the Western world expected a great deal more of them, largely for reasons stemming back to Western biblical perceptions of their national mission that the Israelis themselves never subscribed to. The point is, whether you choose a high ethical mission, as the United States claims to have done, or have a high ethical mission thrust upon you, everybody is looking and the consequences for disappointing the world's cockeyed perceptions and expectations are severe. If US leadership is to be taken seriously, it has to be exercised ethically, or it will eventually dissolve into, and be perceived as, global bullying. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 03-Jul-2006, 10:52 AM |
| You know, saying it doesn't matter if Bush lied is a bunch of bull. When Clinton was president he was impeached for LYING about his sexual activities. His lies didn't lead us to a war. His lies didn't get people killed. His lies didn't put our country in the position of being responsible for tyring to rebuild a country we tore apart. And yet Clinton was impeached and Bush is just sitting around with people saying, "OH, well it doesn't matter if lies were told. We're there now and so let's move on from here." Bull. If Bush lied to get us to war in Iraq then he SHOULD be impeached and anyone else involved should be as well. Since when does the American people sit back and let the Government do whatever it wants without holding itself acountable? If no one cares if the Government lies to us, then why do we even vote? What's the point? I'm not saying he did lie. But I am saying that if we went to Iraq under false pretenses despite intelligence to say otherwise, if a war was started that got American soldiers killed under a false pretenses, and if Clinton could be impeached for his sexual practices, then those involved in the lies leading us to war need to be held accountable. If someone cares about Clinton's lies, but not about whether or not Bush did or not, they are a hypocrite. I swear, it's like Washington has a license to do whatever the heck it wants lately. We either have a socialist state with the democrats or a dictatorship with the republicans. |
| Posted by: maisky 04-Jul-2006, 08:19 PM |
| So, the bottom line? When do we withdraw from the continuing civil war in Iraq? The civil war will go on whether we are there or not. My guess is that we will withdraw just before the next election, to minimize the fallout on the republicants. They really don't give a hoot about Iraq, just about their hold on power.  So what is new?....Nothing! |