Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The current head of Iraq is a former Baathist & CIA source turned strongman installed by the U.S. government and dependant on U.S. troops; one of his first actions was to declare that a state of emergency justified martial law. Of course, maybe it will all work out nicely in the end.

Why did we not declare martial law?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why did we not declare martial law?

Too busy changing conforming their tax code to the 2000 GOP platform.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Ty: "one of his first actions was to declare that a state of emergency justified martial law."

Do you think he was wrong? Seemed clearly right to me.

Second issue:

I think that a multinational (preferably) force should enter SUdan very soon both to: (a) secure the flow of supplies to the displaced refugees and to (b) wipe the janjaweed from the face of the Earth if they ride out against that force or the civilian population again. If the Sudanese Army or Air Force tries anything, we could send the Ohio National Guard to defeat them.

We're getting close to the point where (I hope) the U.S. will consider doing so, because it seems that the Sudanese government either can't or won't stop the forces that they've unleashed against those tribes. The size of the force could be a fraction of that in Iraq, and the logistics _much_ easier (especially if we get cooperation from some of the Mediterranean countries -- Egypt would be ideal).

We would prefer not to do this because we don't want to upset the chance of a settlement of the North-South civil war. However, it is past the point (IIRC) where tens of thousands of people have begun to die. Hundreds of thousands displaced.

There is little press coverage in the West because the Sudanese government allows no press access to those areas, and because most of America cares less about Africa than about Europe.

As a practical matter, I think, it will have to be a mission under U.N. auspices. I'm not sure we have the combat power (esp. airlift) to do it ourselves -- with the Iraq commitment. I hope they grow a sack soon. We can only hear "Stop that! I mean it!" From Kofi and Colin so many times before it loses effect.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ty: "one of his first actions was to declare that a state of emergency justified martial law."

Do you think he was wrong? Seemed clearly right to me.

I can understand why he did it, but it's hardly auspicious for the rule of law, since the legal framework we left them did not give him the power to do this. If Iraq was all about installing our own strongman in Hussein's stead, someone ought to tell Bush before he makes any more speeches on the subject.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One more. I can't resist.



If you are raised in Philadelphia to know nothing of the Koran and believe that Muslims believe that life's sole purpose is extermination of infidels, it's hard to make a case that they're not animals. You will think their value to the planet is several grades below the cattle grazing outside.

Oh, bite me. Keep sucking off Gattigap. If you suck hard enough, he'll tell you you your foreign policy knowledge is so amazing you ought to get an ambassadorship.

Gattigap - Its half and half. I read the opinions of most of the idiots on this board who generally get their politics from either the left or right plank and decide to post something nuts. But then, in the midst of a rant, I start thinking "Fuck, that ain't a bad point..." and wind up including something sensible and insightful. So I'd say my shit here is half and half. Usually I intend to piss off the idiots here who sound like Bob herbert or Frank Rich soundalikes, but then I wind up sounding like Ann Coulter.

Now, back to Ty... I did not say ALL Muslims' sole purpose was to rid the world of infidels. I said that "radical" Islam's purpose. I'm glad I carefully inserted "radical" - it really worked well. And I thought I had bad reading comprehension. Now, if you omitted "radical" on purpose, which I don't think you'd do because you're obviously smarter than that (even if you do get a load of your politics from some shitass liberal sources... my guess is, you actually took your poli-geo professor in college seriously), please bag the cheap technique. You don't need it.

I'm nearly ready to cancel my WSJ and NYTimes subscription, not because I have a problem with biased opeds and reporting, but because the plank-following is so fucking pathetic. The only guy who seems to blend the left and right a little bit is safire, and he's lost all credibility in my book for his continued belief that WMD will be found.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, bite me. Keep sucking off Gattigap.

I only have one mouth, big boy.

Now, back to Ty... I did not say ALL Muslims' sole purpose was to rid the world of infidels. I said that "radical" Islam's purpose. I'm glad I carefully inserted "radical" - it really worked well. And I thought I had bad reading comprehension. Now, if you omitted "radical" on purpose, which I don't think you'd do because you're obviously smarter than that (even if you do get a load of your politics from some shitass liberal sources... my guess is, you actually took your poli-geo professor in college seriously), please bag the cheap technique. You don't need it.

I apologize for oversimplifying your views, but what with the suggestion that we do a Dresden on major parts of Pakistan, it seemed to me in keeping with the spirit of your proposal.

Who are we killing? A lot of the radical Islamists live in the same neighborhoods as the non-radical types, and if we warn the other guys to leave, the radicals might just be smart enough to leave too.

And I can't figure out whether you think we ought to just kill them because they won't be deterred, etc., or whether we ought to be ruthless because then they'll back off like they did in Syria and Iraq.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Coming soon: a Bush flip-flop on the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (or some such post), timed to deflate Kerry's bounce from the convention.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Coming soon: a Bush flip-flop on the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (or some such post), timed to deflate Kerry's bounce from the convention.

Seeing as the current headline on cnn.com is "Dems Ready to Party", detracting from the convention is a worthwhile endeavor. (and the same will be true in a month.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Seeing as the current headline on cnn.com is "Dems Ready to Party", detracting from the convention is a worthwhile endeavor. (and the same will be true in a month.)

I anxiously await all of the conservatives who have whined about so-called Kerry flip-flops to nail Bush for having bottling this thing up in committee for months and then reversing himself only when it suits his short-term political interests.

I agree about the conventions, of course, but it is the summer -- would you rather the media got excited about sharks? It's always something, so why not this?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
would you rather the media got excited about sharks?

I'm not sure we haven't reached the point where a shark bite is more consequential than the conventions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And I can't figure out whether you think we ought to just kill them because they won't be deterred, etc., or whether we ought to be ruthless because then they'll back off like they did in Syria and Iraq.

Both. Ever have a real nasty case where its hard to get what you need, so you ask for something unreasonable and just become a real son of a bitch about things, knowing that if you make a forceful enough demand for 10, you'll get the 7 you need? Although on many levels, I loathe that behavior, I also respect the determination of such bastards. Assad didn't have to clear cut the entire neighborhood, but he knew if he didn't, he was fucked down the road. I am also comfortable with clear-cutting religious fanatics because they do nothing to move humanity forward. If we had no religion, we might not have the nonsense we have today. Organized religion speaks to man's fear of death. Nothing more, nothing less. Its a primordial defense mechanism - a conscious self-fooling. I believe in a God on the basis that something had to create the world. I don't believe in organized religion, or that there's any way to "talk" with him. My theory in that regard is just as disprovable as the "faith" these lunatics tout, but at least mine is grounded in rational thought, rather than fables. The Koran is not rational thought, and I don't respect anyone who'd believe it whole hog. Such a person should offend all rational thinking men. We're not losing any Nobel prize winners or progressive future leaders when we bulldoze a slum packed with madrasses. I say good riddance, and while I couldn't do it myself, I respect Assad's wise decision to do so. He nailed the cancer early and it hasn't been back. Nobody else has had such success.

Nothing makes a better argument than success. Assad was successful. Them's just facts.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Both. Ever have a real nasty case where its hard to get what you need, so you ask for something unreasonable and just become a real son of a bitch about things, knowing that if you make a forceful enough demand for 10, you'll get the 7 you need? Although on many levels, I loathe that behavior, I also respect the determination of such bastards. Assad didn't have to clear cut the entire neighborhood, but he knew if he didn't, he was fucked down the road. I am also comfortable with clear-cutting religious fanatics because they do nothing to move humanity forward. If we had no religion, we might not have the nonsense we have today. Organized religion speaks to man's fear of death. Nothing more, nothing less. Its a primordial defense mechanism - a conscious self-fooling. I believe in a God on the basis that something had to create the world. I don't believe in organized religion, or that there's any way to "talk" with him. My theory in that regard is just as disprovable as the "faith" these lunatics tout, but at least mine is grounded in rational thought, rather than fables. The Koran is not rational thought, and I don't respect anyone who'd believe it whole hog. Such a person should offend all rational thinking men. We're not losing any Nobel prize winners or progressive future leaders when we bulldoze a slum packed with madrasses. I say good riddance, and while I couldn't do it myself, I respect Assad's wise decision to do so. He nailed the cancer early and it hasn't been back. Nobody else has had such success.

Nothing makes a better argument than success. Assad was successful. Them's just facts.

"Re-Baathification and Genocide in '04!"

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Both. Ever have a real nasty case where its hard to get what you need, so you ask for something unreasonable and just become a real son of a bitch about things, knowing that if you make a forceful enough demand for 10, you'll get the 7 you need? Although on many levels, I loathe that behavior, I also respect the determination of such bastards. Assad didn't have to clear cut the entire neighborhood, but he knew if he didn't, he was fucked down the road. I am also comfortable with clear-cutting religious fanatics because they do nothing to move humanity forward. If we had no religion, we might not have the nonsense we have today. Organized religion speaks to man's fear of death. Nothing more, nothing less. Its a primordial defense mechanism - a conscious self-fooling. I believe in a God on the basis that something had to create the world. I don't believe in organized religion, or that there's any way to "talk" with him. My theory in that regard is just as disprovable as the "faith" these lunatics tout, but at least mine is grounded in rational thought, rather than fables. The Koran is not rational thought, and I don't respect anyone who'd believe it whole hog. Such a person should offend all rational thinking men. We're not losing any Nobel prize winners or progressive future leaders when we bulldoze a slum packed with madrasses. I say good riddance, and while I couldn't do it myself, I respect Assad's wise decision to do so. He nailed the cancer early and it hasn't been back. Nobody else has had such success.

Nothing makes a better argument than success. Assad was successful. Them's just facts.

And some of the California sillies here thought I was a bit nuts when I justified Pinochet's execution of suspected radical leftists (of the revolution-exporting variety).

My brutha.

[Gattigap]

I haven't seen it reported in print media yet, but NPR did a story today on Iraqi Gen. Amir Saadi's continued detention. [spree: see last audio link, bottom of page]

According to the story, al Saadi was the general responsible for telling the world in the months headed up to GWII that Iraq had not stockpiles of WMD.

Though events would seem to have played out in his favor, he was placed on the deck of cards, arrested, and has remained in detention since, even though his usefulness in detailing the location of hidden WMDs has probably come and gone.

The story details, among other things, that:

• The US interrogators have told him that "interrogations are over" for him;
• The US has no reason to detain him; even Bremer recommended that al Saadi be released;
• as a reflection of his (lack of) importance, al Saadi was not included on the list of prisioners that the Iraqi government had to officially charge in order to justify their continued imprisonment;
• al Saadi has been told that he won't be released before the elections because his release would be fodder for the Democrats; in any event
• The US official position is that al Saadi remains detained because he's a "security risk." No explanation forthcoming of how that's so

Let's hope that we can articulate a specific reason that this Iraqi general needs to be held in a cell for several more months, after all other traditional reasons (like interrogations) have expired, because the reason of keeping down Kerry's "bump" really sucks ass.

Gattigap

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And some of the California sillies here thought I was a bit nuts when I justified Pinochet's execution of suspected radical leftists (of the revolution-exporting variety).

Pinochet was a Pisco Sour drinking weenie.