Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes. Are you telling me that when Saddam was "re-elected" by 99% that it was a real election?

No. But if you think the Iranian government is no more legitimate than Hussein's was, you have been drinking the kool-ade and should lie down in a cool, dark place until your head clears.

The people are not supporting the militia, the government is.

And yet, oddly, Hezbullah emerged from its war with Israel with more support than it had before.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Golly Penske -- maybe we should invade Iran. It sounds so crazy it just might work.

Ty I disagree with your conclusions often, but I assume you're usually right about facts. In particular, if you're right that:

1) the fuse is already lit for an Iraqi cival war, and

2) most terrorists from the region have flocked to Iraq,

it seems to me we can dodge our guys out and into Iran. The Iraquis will fight it out for awhile, they're preoccupied, then we can come back and kick the winner's ass. Meanwhile all those terrorists won't be in Iran- win win.

And you gotta admit we're the shit at the invading part, so that'll go fine.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And yet, oddly, Hezbullah emerged from its war with Israel with more support than it had before.

where, and to what benefit?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Hank's movie smears the Washington Post for reporting by the (conservative) Washington Times that (allegedly, but not really) tipped off bin Laden that we were using his cell phone to track him.

You just can't make this stuff. Oops -- I guess you can.

So an interviewee says the word "Post" instead of "Times" - and you regard it as an ABC-driven "smear campaign"?

BTW, has Dan Rather ever apologized?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So an interviewee says the word "Post" instead of "Times" - and you regard it as an ABC-driven "smear campaign"?

It's not ABC-driven. Why Disney/ABC has turned over the reins to the conservative activists making this crap is beyond me, but as a Disney shareholder I hope the Faustian bargain is reaping big rewards on the bottom line.

Conservative agitprop apparently doesn't need to be fact-checked, but it's not like I'm the best-read person on this stuff and I knew that it was the Times and not the Post. I hope all the factchecking they didn't bother to do is saving Disney more big $$$$.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not ABC-driven. Why Disney/ABC has turned over the reins to the conservative activists making this crap is beyond me, but as a Disney shareholder I hope the Faustian bargain is reaping big rewards on the bottom line.

Conservative agitprop apparently doesn't need to be fact-checked, but it's not like I'm the best-read person on this stuff and I knew that it was the Times and not the Post. I hope all the factchecking they didn't bother to do is saving Disney more big $$$$.

now you know how we felt when Farenheit 911 came out.

It's progress that you do admit the Clinton administration pulled the plug on a potential chance to kill Osama, you just feel the movie takes license with the detail. That is actually a big admission from you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
now you know how we felt when Farenheit 911 came out.

It's progress that you do admit the Clinton administration pulled the plug on a potential chance to kill Osama, you just feel the movie takes license with the detail. That is actually a big admission from you.

Like Slave, I read Ghost Wars, so I know all about the various efforts to kill Osama bin Laden. When you admit that this conservative docudrama is lying to make Clinton look bad, that'll be progress -- you've come close, but you can't quite go there.

You complained about the Clinton Admininstration when they tried to hit bin Laden with cruise missiles, and you complained about the Clinton Administration when they didn't.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. But if you think the Iranian government is no more legitimate than Hussein's was, you have been drinking the kool-ade and should lie down in a cool, dark place until your head clears.
.

What makes you think the Iranian government has any legitamacy at all when the government chooses who is eligible to run (and makes that a very limited list). When Khatami ran they allowed someone who did not support the administration 100% (only 99.95%), but after he won they changed the rules so now you have to support the Mullahs one hundred percent to run. How is that in any way more legitimate than what Saddam did? He also had elections.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think the Iranian government has any legitamacy at all when the government chooses who is eligible to run (and makes that a very limited list). When Khatami ran they allowed someone who did not support the administration 100% (only 99.95%), but after he won they changed the rules so now you have to support the Mullahs one hundred percent to run. How is that in any way more legitimate than what Saddam did? He also had elections.

No more kool-ade for you.



eta: Iran's government is less democratic than ours, but you are fooling yourself if you think it is as undemocratic or illegitimate as Iraq's was.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Like Slave, I read Ghost Wars, so I know all about the various efforts to kill Osama bin Laden. When you admit that this conservative docudrama is lying to make Clinton look bad, that'll be progress -- you've come close, but you can't quite go there.

You complained about the Clinton Admininstration when they tried to hit bin Laden with cruise missiles, and you complained about the Clinton Administration when they didn't.

the bottom line is Clinton dropped the ball. WTC I was in 93. What did he do? It was a foreign attack on American soil and he sat on his hands. Much like another Dem, Carter, who let our embassy go down in Iran with nary a whimper. That's sovereign territory, no? At least Bush is a CinC of action.

Interesting piece in the WSJ today:

LONDON -- Two bearded young men in a lounge at Heathrow Airport overhear an American journalist on the phone, describing his forthcoming trip to earthquake-ravaged Pakistan. He hangs up and a conversation with the journalist begins. The pair is headed the same way, to do their part in the ongoing reconstruction effort, though not for any government or recognized humanitarian agency. They are religious students, Muslims, and although they speak in the broad accents of northern England, they dress in the large white skullcaps, long white shirts and short white trousers in vogue with their set.

It's a mostly one-sided discussion. The more assertive of the two derides the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, dictator and Bush puppet. And speaking of puppets, he adds, how about the U.K.'s Tony Blair? At this he launches into a tirade against Anglo-American foreign policy. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is his main point of reference, the authoritative document about American designs.

Interesting, Michael Moore, feted by the Democrat party, and proven anti-American rabble rousing liar, is the inspiration for the jihadis.....treason?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think the Iranian government has any legitamacy at all when the government chooses who is eligible to run (and makes that a very limited list). When Khatami ran they allowed someone who did not support the administration 100% (only 99.95%), but after he won they changed the rules so now you have to support the Mullahs one hundred percent to run. How is that in any way more legitimate than what Saddam did? He also had elections.

2222~!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the bottom line is Clinton dropped the ball. WTC I was in 93. What did he do?

Do you know who committed that attack? Hint: Not bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

BTW, Sheik Rahman is in jail in the United States. Any idea how he got there?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
You guys are like talking to candidates. Lets just say that all attempts at getting the Iranians to stop fail (which is exactly what I believe will happen - this whole diplomatic thing is just a stupid dance). Israel bombs but we know they are still progressing with the nukes. Do we invade?

It has to remain a legitimate, if undesired, possibility.

How can it not?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It has to remain a legitimate, if undesired, possibility.

How can it not?

I don't know what "legitimate" means here. We maintain some leverage if the Iranians think we might use military force.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know what "legitimate" means here. We maintain some leverage if the Iranians think we might use military force.

that only works to a point, and I think we are past that point.