Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Well, let's not pretend then that we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a bad man.

No one would or should say thats th e_only_ reason we invaded iraq was because Hussein was a bad man -- that is merely the reason that makes the invasion morally justified.

I remain mystified by the reasoning of people who think that the failure to depose every dictator and fight every morally justified conflict everywhere on the globe somehow renders suspect or hypocritical our actions to depose certain dictstors or fight certain conflictx for moral reasons. It is an odd sort of grade-school reasoning that utterly fails to take into account the complexity of the world and the realistic constraints on U.S. action.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Pre-emptive dissing?

Saves time. I can work out my personal demons without having to wait.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Israel has bombed Syria in its pursuit of Hamas. Israel is about to target Lebanon. Is this good?

(Ty can pretend he hasn't read any of this. Atticus can do his basic snide, sarcastic, insubstantive response. SAM will have to uphold the "answer substantively" role, or anyone else is welcome.)

Its a mix. The only thing I don't want to see there is a.) any involvement of Egypt, b.) any involvement of Jordan, and c.) any WMD use by anyone.

If Israel wants to find peace with its neighbors, it needs to do any or all of the following:
a.) achieve regime change in Syria/Lebanon;
b.) create entirely unpopulated "buffer" areas on its borders by pushing a lot of people farther out; or
c.) scare the bejeezus out of its hostile neighbors.

The basic problem is the one we confronted with Afghanistan after 9/11. A country that harbors your enemy combatants is your enemy. And we will all be better off if nations who do such harboring are treated as enemies.

Excluding the British shelling the Boston Irish that is.

Seriously, there has to be an international consensus that states are responsible for the terrorist NGOs that they harbor. The alternatives just get worse as the available bombs get bigger over time.


Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Is there anyone on this board who is willing to take the position that California will not have a Governor it can be ashamed of when the sun rises tomorrow?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Its a mix. The only thing I don't want to see there is a.) any involvement of Egypt, b.) any involvement of Jordan, and c.) any WMD use by anyone.

If Israel wants to find peace with its neighbors, it needs to do any or all of the following:
a.) achieve regime change in Syria/Lebanon;
b.) create entirely unpopulated "buffer" areas on its borders by pushing a lot of people farther out; or
c.) scare the bejeezus out of its hostile neighbors.

The basic problem is the one we confronted with Afghanistan after 9/11. A country that harbors your enemy combatants is your enemy. And we will all be better off if nations who do such harboring are treated as enemies.

Excluding the British shelling the Boston Irish that is.

Seriously, there has to be an international consensus that states are responsible for the terrorist NGOs that they harbor. The alternatives just get worse as the available bombs get bigger over time.


Hello

Of course, Israel could take very significant steps toward peace by dismantling some settlements, something entirely within it's control.

And some of us wouldn't discount the potential impact of regime change in Israel itself.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Is there anyone on this board who is willing to take the position that California will not have a Governor it can be ashamed of when the sun rises tomorrow?

No way. The results probably won't be known for three weeks or more, so Davis will still be in.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Is there anyone on this board who is willing to take the position that California will not have a Governor it can be ashamed of when the sun rises tomorrow?

I will. When Californians elect Arnold, they can finally say that they are beyond their uber-PC fetish. That the are tired of dems that have run their country into the ground because they are worried about endangered owls and field mice, but not about endangered jobs. That they would rather have an honest hard-working businessman who likes to play smack-ass/grab-ass than a corrupt incompetent career bureaucrat anyday. This is their first step on the way to redeeming their dignity. Step two is dragging Arianna Huffingtons corpse through the streets and making Gray Davis eat what's left of it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
No way. The results probably won't be known for three weeks or more, so Davis will still be in.

Are you spending the day reading fine print to find your client an out?

OK, so is anyone ready to argue the position that come
All Hollow's Eve, we won't all find the California Governor a little scary?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
I will. When Californians elect Arnold, they can finally say that they are beyond their uber-PC fetish. That the are tired of dems that have run their country into the ground because they are worried about endangered owls and field mice, but not about endangered jobs. That they would rather have an honest hard-working businessman who likes to play smack-ass/grab-ass than a corrupt incompetent career bureaucrat anyday. This is their first step on the way to redeeming their dignity. Step two is dragging Arianna Huffingtons corpse through the streets and making Gray Davis eat what's left of it.

Said with all the seriousness you can muster for that position, aye?

That honesty thing is going to get challenged just a bit during the sexual harrassment lawsuits, isn't it?

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
OK, so is anyone ready to argue the position that come
All Hollow's Eve, we won't all find the California Governor a little scary?

what I expect is the worst of the fall out, is how we are seen in other countries. we have a debacle of a presidential election, and finally get to a result.
then our president decides we as the sole superpower can take pre-emtive actions*. then, in our next major election, an actor, who might be a nazi sympathizer** is the front runner over a naturally large breasted women, a midget, and some political hacks that seem severly compromised. If I was living in country X, I'd like to think the country that may decide to come kick our ass next year, at least has a rational election process.

*with which I agree
** with which I disagree

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
That honesty thing is going to get challenged just a bit during the sexual harrassment lawsuits, isn't it?

You mean the statute of limitations hasn't expired for incidents that happened in 1974? And none of the allegations I heard were from people who worked for Arnold, just random people. So what harassment is there? Is there some hostile workplace or quid pro quo issues that I am not getting, or did someone forget to update my pocketpart. Hehe...my pocketpart. Excuse me, I have some paralegals to harass.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Are you spending the day reading fine print to find your client an out?

Well, let's see - is this a day that ends in the letter "y"?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No one would or should say thats th e_only_ reason we invaded iraq was because Hussein was a bad man -- that is merely the reason that makes the invasion morally justified.

I remain mystified by the reasoning of people who think that the failure to depose every dictator and fight every morally justified conflict everywhere on the globe somehow renders suspect or hypocritical our actions to depose certain dictstors or fight certain conflictx for moral reasons. It is an odd sort of grade-school reasoning that utterly fails to take into account the complexity of the world and the realistic constraints on U.S. action.

Once upon a time, I was studying in another country, and the US Ambassador to that country came to have a very informal chat with some of the students. The Ambassador had some prepared remarks, which he gave, and the floor was open to questions. An earnest young man, a citizen of the host country, stood up at some point during the question answer period. He wanted to know why the US continued sanctions against Cuba when conditions in Indonesia (I think it was Indonesia, it could have been somewhere else) were so much worse. He went on at length to list the atrocities in Indonesia. Things didn’t sound nearly as bad in Cuba as they did in Indonesia. It sounded inconsistent. We were picking and choosing without looking at the merits of the case. So why, Ambassador, is the United States imposing economic sanctions on Cuba and not Indonesia? The Ambassador didn’t hesitate in giving his answer. “Because there aren’t a million voting Indonesians in Miami.” The room erupted in laughter, and the Ambassador went on to soothe the young man’s ego with a more lengthy answer that essentially boiled down to the same thing. We had/have a national interest in Cuba, and we don’t really care much about Indonesia. Every time the US makes an apparently inconsistent foreign policy decision, I think back to that remark, and things make a hell of a lot more sense to me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
You mean the statute of limitations hasn't expired for incidents that happened in 1974?

There are no doubt repressed memories all over the state that only an election result can trigger.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
If Israel wants to find peace with its neighbors, it needs to do any or all of the following:
b.) create entirely unpopulated "buffer" areas on its borders by pushing a lot of people farther out; or

Why out? Why not in? (This is related to, but slightly different from, GGG's settlement point.)