Still Hating America.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Lancaster? What the fuck do the Amish know about war? That butter churner's in way over his head.

They kill with cholesterol.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
There is a great documentary on this.



Described as the Monty Python of nature films. Worth watching.

Animal cruelty is never funny.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They kill with cholesterol.

Fits their passive aggressive nature. A seething bunch, always staring at you from the fields as you drive by. They give me the creeps.

You just know they've got basements full of ball gags and anal beads.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The behavior of those states can also be influenced by isolating them and sanctioning them, which is exactly what Pelosi as well as the majority of our government decided to do in the Syria Accountability Act. Pelosi herself waxed poetic about how great it was that our President would be given, under the Act, the freedom to impose sanctions on the Syrian government which he did by Executive Order, after Powell's last ditch efforts to "talk to them" as you put it. Now all of a sudden Pelosi doesn't like the amount of U.S. "talking to them"? Bullshit.

If Pelosi had taken the position that members of Congress shouldn't be traveling to Syria, and then went there, you'd really have nailed as a hypocrite.

BTW -- is that what we do with people who sponsor terrorism and help kill our soldiers? We keep "talking to them"? "Common sense" indeed.

Do you remember the Cold War?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you remember the Cold War?

Or Newt's visit to China in '97?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Pelosi’s meetings in Syria go beyond the Iraq war issue. She may disagree with the President about the war in Iraq, but in terms of diplomatic relations… she shouldn’t be suggesting or giving the impression that the current administration isn’t being fair to Syria in terms of how much it should be listening and talking to Syria. She may disagree that U.S. troops in Iraq, but her country has been attempting (well before the war in Iraq) to reign in Syria’s role in terrorism, creating weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations and raiding big sovereign countries like Lebanon. Take for example the Syria Accountability Act, which Pelosi voted for and lists as its purpose: "To Halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes."

Let's see what Congress, Pelosi included, has to say about Syria in the Act:


Pelosi’s own statement on the Act: “Syria’s assistance to terrorist organizations is well known, and the State Department continues to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, in violation of resolutions on that issue by the United Nations Security Council. The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, which Syria controls, provides a haven and the site of training facilities for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. These activities could not occur without the assent of the Syrian government.”

So, gee I wonder why people are upset at a vocal critic of the administration getting cozy with Syria’s top chiefs/henchmen and talking about keeping open dialogues and shit.

You have an excellent point. If you want to change somoeone's behavior, you most certainly don't want to engage in any sort of dialogue with them. That might create some accidental peaceful change.

I see you're still as lucid and insightful as you ever were.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Or Newt's visit to China in '97?

that's different. Newt was trying to see why the Clintons trusted China with all that technology.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Interesting op-ed. Probably would make wonk happy.

He seems right--it's a slogan now, not a meaningful term.

I'm not sure why you think this would make me happy. Care to enlighten me?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because when a country is threatened by another, its reaction is to pull together. Political opposition becomes delegitimized. Think about how Bush's support skyrocketed after 9/11. The Iranian government is not monolithic, but stepping up the pressure on Iran is a great way to marginalize whatever opposition there is to the government and strengthen the hardliners. The hardliners surely know this, which might be why they captured those British troops.

• IRAN'S CRACKDOWN
  HOSTAGE CRISIS A DISTRACTION? April 5, 2007 --
  
  WAS the crisis over the cap ture of the British host ages part of a smoke screen for a crackdown on dissidents in Iran?
  
  The question is posed in Tehran as the establishment debates the future of the regime's foreign and domestic policies.
  
  The crackdown is beginning to gather pace. Several publications critical of government have been shut down, and numerous officials regarded as "not revolutionary enough" elbowed out, especially in the provinces. And now the regime seems to be setting the stage for show trials that recall the worst days of Stalinism in the Soviet Union.
  
  Last month, a member of the Majlis, the regime's ersatz parliament, was sent to prison for six years on trumped-up charges. The real "crime" of Salaheddin Ala'i: He had criticized the killing of dissidents in Iran's Kurdistan province.
  
  Next week, it will be the turn of former Deputy Interior Minister Mostafa Tajzadeh, who'll stand trial on charges of undermining the security of the Khomeinist state.
  
  Tajzadeh is one of the establishment's most interesting figures. A man with impeccable revolutionary credentials, he has always insisted that the regime cannot ensure its future by silencing or murdering critics.
  
  The next on the block is expected to be Muhammad Reza Khatami - a brother of former President Muhammad Khatami - who also has an impressive revolutionary resume.
  
  In 1979, he was one of the two dozen or so "students" who raided the United States' Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomats hostage. Later, he built a career in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and solidified his revolutionary credentials by marrying a granddaughter of Ruhallah Khomeini, the ayatollah who created the Islamic Republic. During his brother's presidency, Muhammad Reza acted as deputy speaker of the Majlis.
  
  Yet, he too, is targeted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration - charged with "activities that undermine the Islamic system."
  
  Ahmadinejad believes that people like these three represent dangers for the system - if only because they insist that the authorities should obey the laws set by their own regime. In his view, a revolutionary regime, because it stands outside the normal framework of history, simply cannot be bound by any law.
  
  According to dissident sources in Tehran, the regime's security apparatus is preparing show trials for scores of others. The chief targets: thousands of middle-class elements who joined the Khomeinist revolution because of a misunderstanding. Ahmadinejad calls them "the half-pregnant ones" - people who dream of being revolutionaries but also crave for a comfortable, Western-style bourgeois life.
  
  Ahmadinejad's supporters speak of a "third revolution" - which, in practice, would amount to a purge of dissidents within the establishment.
  
  Many actual or would-be dissidents have already left Iran for what they hope will be temporary exile in Europe or America. They include a dozen former Cabinet ministers and hundreds of lesser functionaries and apologists. If the looming crackdown gathers pace, thousands more may join them.
  
  To prepare the ground for his "third revolution," Ahmadinejad has worked on three schemes.
  
  * First, he has radicalized political discourse.
  
  Under his two predecessors, Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, the regime had gradually changed its vocabulary by abandoning the revolutionary terminology and borrowing terms of ordinary politics.
  
  Those two mullah-presidents spoke of economic development, civil society and a dialogue of civilizations. They also allowed some space for non-revolutionary (though not overtly counter-revolutionary) expression in such fields as art, cinema and literature.
  
  Yes, both also banned hundreds of newspapers and magazines, and imprisoned scores of critics. They also organized the murder of numerous real or imagined opponents inside and outside Iran. But they targeted the regime's own children.
  
  They divided Iranians into two categories: khodi (our own) and biganeh (outsider).
  
  Rafsanjani and Khatami allowed khodi some latitude to criticize the regime - and also used these critics as safety valves to reduce tension in society.
  
  The biganeh, however, were allowed no space for expression. Their writings were blacklisted by the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, and their names banned from the media or used only in vilification campaigns. When perceived as too much of a threat, they were murdered, their corpses thrown in the streets - as was the case under President Khatami.
  
  The radicalization of discourse under Ahmadinejad makes it hard for the "half-pregnant" to speak with forked tongues.
  
  Khatami was able to tour the world, speaking of a dialogue of civilizations while allowing no dialogue inside Iran. Ahmadinejad recognizes the fact that a revolution is, primarily, a monologue - or even a soliloquy, addressed to itself.
  
  * Second, Ahmadinejad aims to link any criticism of the system with foreign powers.
  
  In the decisions to close newspapers or put "khodi" figures on trial, the authorities drop hints about illicit relations with "foreign enemies of Islam." This amounts to a return to classical revolutionary lore in which anyone who criticizes the regime must be an agent of a foreign enemy.
  
  * Ahmadinejad's third and perhaps most important scheme is to revive the regime's pretension of sacredness. He claims to receive periodic instructions from the Hidden Imam - a Mahdi-figure who, according to Shiite lore, went into hiding in 940 A.D. and will someday return to preside over the end of the world. He has thus restored the concept of the Hidden Imam to a central position within the Khomeinist doctrine.
  
  The concept was pure fiction from the start, and most leaders of the Islamic Republic realized that retaining it posed insurmountable theo-political problems. This is why the Hidden Imam was given a back seat under Rafsanjani and Khatami, although both are Shiite clerics.
  
  By restoring the Hidden Imam, Ahmadinejad makes it impossible for anyone to claim that Shiism, let alone Islam, admits of a range of interpretations. In this version of the Khomeinist doctrine, Islam is equated with Shiism, Shiism with the Hidden Imam - and the Hidden Imam with the Khomeinist regime.
  
  THE "half pregnant" had hoped that "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi might, would, at some point, restrain Ahmadinejad. Earlier this month, however, Khamenehi, in his Iranian New Year message, paid glowing tribute to Ahmadinejad, and endorsed his strategy.
  
  The "half-pregnant" are now forced to choose between becoming full-blown revolutionaries - or joining the counter-revolution.
  
  Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04052007...eri.htm?page=3

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Pelosi had taken the position that members of Congress shouldn't be traveling to Syria, and then went there, you'd really have nailed as a hypocrite.

It may not be a direct contradiction. But still....she talked a big game about how the proper way to deal with Syria was through isolation and letting the president impose sanctions. Since then, nothing has changed in terms of Syria's behavior, so why the sudden decision to go and "open a dialogue" knowing full well the Pres thinks it's a bad idea for either party to do it and that the U.S. should stand with one voice. I think the answer is to thumb her nose at the Pres and flex the bigger political muscles she has gotten since the Act was passed. The kind of games that are annoying when played domestically, but much worse when played internationally. Be honest - do you really think for Pelosi or Essi, etc. this is about having thoughtful convictions about how our approach to Syria should change?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I posted 2007 data indicating that sea levels have been rising. In response, you quoted the 2001 report saying that the evidence is inclusive. The February 2007 summary says clearly that in the last six years, the scientific consensus has changed, and that there is more evidence. If you don't see that from what I've quoted, and you care, then click on my link and look at pages 5-7, which explain how the science has developed.

T. (welcome back) S.

Thanks for the welcome, but I really cannot be bothered until you at least claim that the cite refutes my now much repeated point that sea-levels are rising at a rate higher than in 1910.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
It may not be a direct contradiction. But still....she talked a big game about how the proper way to deal with Syria was through isolation and letting the president impose sanctions. Since then, nothing has changed in terms of Syria's behavior, so why the sudden decision to go and "open a dialogue" knowing full well the Pres thinks it's a bad idea for either party to do it and that the U.S. should stand with one voice. I think the answer is to thumb her nose at the Pres and flex the bigger political muscles she has gotten since the Act was passed. The kind of games that are annoying when played domestically, but much worse when played internationally. Be honest - do you really think for Pelosi or Essi, etc. this is about having thoughtful convictions about how our approach to Syria should change?

When you say "this," do you mean their visit or your outrage? It's pretty clear to me that many congressmen could have visited Syria before the last election or now without elicited the contrived outrage that Pelosi's trip got, which was entirely a function of the White House's decision to criticize her -- but not the other Republicans visiting Damascus during the same congressional recess. In turn, the White House's decision was obviously a political hit on Pelosi. As Shape Shifter aluded to earlier, Republicans lined up to support Speaker Newt Gingrich when he visited China; notwithstanding, some of the same people now criticize Pelosi. I don't see any reason to think that Pelosi's visit reflects fundamental differences between her and the White House about what our Syria policy should be, for the simple reason that I don't see any reason to think that there are fundamental differences between the White House and those Republicans who are there. She's not "thumbing her nose" at the President, and more than those Republicans are. The President attacked her, not the other way around.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Thanks for the welcome, but I really cannot be bothered until you at least claim that the cite refutes my now much repeated point that sea-levels are rising at a rate higher than in 1910.

I decline to make such a claim until you confirm that your post is missing a key "not."

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you say "this," do you mean their visit or your outrage? It's pretty clear to me that many congressmen could have visited Syria before the last election or now without elicited the contrived outrage that Pelosi's trip got, which was entirely a function of the White House's decision to criticize her -- but not the other Republicans visiting Damascus during the same congressional recess. In turn, the White House's decision was obviously a political hit on Pelosi. As Shape Shifter aluded to earlier, Republicans lined up to support Speaker Newt Gingrich when he visited China; notwithstanding, some of the same people now criticize Pelosi. I don't see any reason to think that Pelosi's visit reflects fundamental differences between her and the White House about what our Syria policy should be, for the simple reason that I don't see any reason to think that there are fundamental differences between the White House and those Republicans who are there. She's not "thumbing her nose" at the President, and more than those Republicans are. The President attacked her, not the other way around.

You keep coming back to the "White House didn't criticize the Republicans as much as they did Pelosi". I'm still asking what you think Pelosi's genuine intentions were in going to Syria. Feel free to PM the answer. In the spirit of bipartisanship, you can answer the same question for Issa.

[Adder]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Thanks for the welcome, but I really cannot be bothered until you at least claim that the cite refutes my now much repeated point that sea-levels are rising at a rate higher than in 1910.

I don't really care about this enough to confirm, but there is a chart on page 6 (Figure SPM-3) of his link that may refute that. The labels in the immediate vicinity don't make whole lot of sense on their own.