Because you don't recall anybody speaking out, it was somehow their fault? That's not a strawman, that is exactly what you said.
Christ, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch says someone is doing something bad, they're called names. They supposedly don't say something bad, and now you're also calling them names.
You bleeding heart moonbats are all the same. Sheesh, just looking for ane excuse to make people look bad, even if that excuse is the actions of someone else. Rwanda? Get real.
Interesting... It was the Vietnamese who went into Cambodia to remove the the Khmer Rouge. You didn't know that, did ya? But you were more than willing to attack some imaginary Left, or myself.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of bleeding heart liberals like yourself who think the US should send our troops everywhere to protect and guard the world. Our troops are for defending America.
You're holding the Left responsible for what the Vietnamese did? Can you be any more fucked up?
What I find fascinating is that I just bought a shirt the other day and it says "Made in Vietnam". Apparently by leaving we hurt Vietnam so badly, they've turned into a capitalist nation which makes cheap products for sale in America. You know, maybe if we hadn't gotten into a war over there, this progress towards capitalism would have occured sooner. Ever think of that?
No, the mistake the Left made was getting us into Vietnam. That they recognized the mistake and pulled us out should be commended. It was never our business getting involved in their civil war.
Then there's also the basic fact that according to the legal systems of most European countries you only have the rights that are granted to you by the Government. In our system the Government only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution.
In principle yes, that is the way it should work.
But the wingnut Republicans have been trying to change that. Demanding we ban certain forms of speech, and say loyalty oaths daily.
Oh, and if the courts protect us by declaring their inititiaves unconstitutional, they get branded as being "activists"... whatever that means.
Oil for food was an unqualified disaster because it did *nothing* to motivate Saddam to change his bullying tune. The only thing it did was increase the poverty of the poor and give Saddam bargaining money because guess what? The food never made it to the needy.
Uhh, as opposed to prior to Oil for Food, when the people didn't get any food at all.
You have a distorted understanding of the purpose of the program. It was not to end suffering, it was not to eliminate Hussein... it was to relieve some of the suffering on the nation from the initial sanctions.
One thing I find amazing is the number of so-called conservatives who attack the UN for being impotent, and then suggest that the way to solve that is to give them more power. Why can't we just concede that the UN should be impotent, and work within that framework?
Interesting strawman, but I did not suggest that it was not a two way street. I simply point out that the US can ill afford the unilateral "piss off and accept the gruel we give you" attitude that so many now want to employ.
The management of the Internet should not be in the control of a single nation, it should be decentralized such that each nation can do what they want such that no other nation will be impacted should some nutjob take over.
I read somewhere that 95% of Russia's output is sold to Europe. Only 5% to America. I'm not sure on figures for China, but you can bet that they sell a good portion to Asia and europe as well.
It's not clear to me how you can say "What are they going to do if we tell them to piss off", and then not understand the opposite side of the coin "What will the US do if we tell them to piss off?". The point is, it's a two way street now.
As for the snide insult. I'm 37 years old. I've never seen a President more beholden to pandering to his party in opposition to the values and needs of the nation as a whole... and that includes Nixon.
The World has been watching us, and they see that our government is more than willing to do something stupid if we think we'll get some short term gain.
As for the UN. The UN doesn't care about freedom and democracy... it's purpose is to promote discussion between nations, that's all. It should not be in control of the internet at all... it shouldn't be in control of anything, as far as I'm concerned. It's a facilitation mechanism, that's it. I don't understand why conservatives keep building strawmen for what the UN is, so that they can claim it's failing.
Shall we compare free speech in the US with Europe?
You know. I frankly don't have a problem with not trusting the Sudan. But I've got a whee bit of a problem with us having a hostile relationship with our allies.
the invasion of Iraq? Yeah, because we're pretty much stuck with it.
But how many times have I heard Bushie on the TV whining about how nobody is helping us? That it's all the fault of the French, and the Germans, and the Syrians and Iranians for not helping us, and not giving us money.
We've got a Whiner for a President.
Sometimes we do have to do things ourselves, but if you make that decision take some FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY! Don't go around whining about how nobody is helping you.
This came about because of the UN sanctions upon Iraq following the Kuwait invasion. The sanctions were intended primarily to keep Hussein from redeveloping a military force. A secondary agenda was to plummet the economy of the country such that the people rose up against Hussein.
The secondary agenda did not work. Hussein maintained an iron grip, as all despots do. He kept what he needed for himself and gave little to the people who had no say by force of a gun to their head.
The Oil for Food program was setup as a way to alleviate the suffering of the people, as well as get Iraqi oil back into the system to help lower global prices.
Now there were two failures: #1. A handful of people at the UN got involved in a kickback scheme in awarding the contracts.
#2. Hussein smuggled Oil, outside of the Oil for Food program.
The first failure is that of the UN, and it's being dealt with.
The second failure is the fault of the United States and the other nations who knew all along this was going on but turned a blind eye because we were hungry for that oil. Plus, the oil was smuggled through Turkey and Jordan and we didn't want to hurt their profits either.
But now we get back to the primary purpose of the UN sanctions. To keep Hussein from redeveloping a military power.
So what's more important to you? Obviously not the oil, and not the kickbacks, because we turned a blind eye. What was important was the sanctions keeping weapons out of Husseins army.
As it turns out, The UN sanctions were a success, as proven by the invasion of Iraq finding no WMDs and nothing even anything remotely resembling a defensive military force
The complaints regarding Oil for Food are politically motivated John Birch society bullshit.
Why do I care? Simply put, we live in a global economy and as such we are heavily dependent upon our neighbors to buy and sell goods. That means we need somewhat good relations with them.
If we create purposefully hostile relations, you know what happens? They suddenly realize "hey, you know, we don't really need the US", and they go off and form their own trading partners, etc. And Frankly, we are at a time in history now that the US is more dependent upon the world than the world is upon the US. Look at our trade imbalance, and then look at what nations like China, Russia and all of Europe have been doing. They're negotiating their own deals, outside of our arena.
2. Why take their word over your own trust in your own county?
Well that's a difficult question. My country, I trust. I think our business leaders understand in the broader scheme why what I said in #1 is important, and they are putting a great effort into making this work.
Our Government? Them I don't trust. Why should I/ The President doesn't represent America, he only represents his one political party. His policy goals and actions are not determined by what is in the best interest for the nation to help it grow, but rather what is in the best interests of maintaining their political power.
Never before have I seen this in my lifetime. And you can bet, that those living outside our country see it even more vividly as has been evidenced by the US's declining popularity.
You cannot force someone to like you. You cannot force someone to love you.
The UN has been nothing but a pain for the longest time, passing resolutions that no one but the US is supposed to carry out. Then when we do carry out UN resolutions, we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers". Isn't it nice that so many countries can tell us what to do while they sit on their high horses?
It's interesting. That's what many countries say about the US... That we sit on our high horse and tell them what to do.
I agree with you on the first paragraph. Each individual country ought to have their own say and control over their little piece of the internet...
Your second paragraph, on the other hand, is fundamentally flawed. At least in the US and many democratic nations in Europe and Asia... the government is the citizens.
In the countries where the government is not the citizens, like say China... uhh, yeah, fat chance.
Oh, I don't know. You can pretty much simply pigeon hole Janice Rogers Brown as an extremist. That is, she sees the world in black and white. She started off on one side of the spectrum, found some flaws and flipped to the other extreme side of the spectrum with no apparently thought that maybe the best approach lies somewhere in the middle.
The problem with extremists, is that they are not ideologically reliable. Once they start seeing the flaws of their new found extremism, it is their heads which blow up. They're just as likely to flip out and go to another extreme as they are to continue down your hopeful path.
I haven't said if it is a good thing or a bad thing, I've just said what it really is, and it's a question of when killing is acceptable and acknowledgement that it is someone elses body being chopped up. To stifle the _question_ because of a womans rights is curious.
I think you're confused. At no point has anybody suggested stifling the question.
What we are stifling is turning the government into a big nanny state. You want to have discussion about abortion, great... Do it. Put up big billboards and should from the rafters. That's freedom.
Getting the government to impose your ideas on others... That is repression.
if abortion is OK, why try to hide what it is? Why pretend it is only about the choice of of what a woman does with her own body as if the doctor isn't chopping up and removing another body from hers?
For the same reason that pro-lifers hide when the reality of the individual is pointed out. It's a defensive mechanism against uncomfortable arguments.
Which is again, why this matter should be left up to the individual, and not the Government.
If you support abortion, just don't be ashamed of the facts, admit it for what it is. Thats all I'm saying.
Obviously not, because you tried to distract the argument against my point about government intrusion into our lives.
It seems that if you don't like abortion, then you should not have one. If you want to advocate to others too, then you are free to do so.
Why you feel you must force your dogma on others, though, that I simply don't understand. I find that the anti-abortion dogma seems to fall apart when you start getting into the specifics of the individual. That is, it's great in principle on a broader scale but each individual case, the reasoning and such is different. That is why, while it is sad, it really should be up to the individuals involved to make that decision.
It's like the Schiavo thing early this year. It sounds great when you talk about it as a nation. But if you actually knew Terri and her husband, the situation was much more complicated. But that wasn't good enough for some, who wished to force their dogma on others whether or not it was in their best interest.
Don't get me wrong... your attitude is millenia old. Christ preached against this 2,000 years ago. Worry not about the splinter in someone elses eye, when you have a log in your own. I just find it difficult to understand why it still exists.
Assuming the woman wasn't raped, she already had her choice when she decided to have sex.
This really is the heart of the conservative argument. The conservatives believe that if they can restrict access to birth control and abortion, that this will prevent people from engaging in sex.
It never cross their mind that humans will have sex regardless, and that our access to birth control allows for people to engage in sex responsibly.
The man is supposed to know when he has sex that the woman may become pregnant, and that he may have many years of legal obligation. Why shouldn't the woman's responsibilities start at the same time?
The woman's responsibily does start at the same time. If the man walks out on her, she's stuck raising the kid.
The child support claims has to do with the man paying their fair share of that effort.
And if the pregnancy really is the woman's body and/or property, then on what basis can we hold the man responsible for what the woman chooses to do or not do with it?
It's interesting that your principle of responsibility only applies one way. That men should not be held responsible for engaging in a sexual act, but women should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you don't recall anybody speaking out, it was somehow their fault? That's not a strawman, that is exactly what you said.
Christ, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch says someone is doing something bad, they're called names. They supposedly don't say something bad, and now you're also calling them names.
You bleeding heart moonbats are all the same. Sheesh, just looking for ane excuse to make people look bad, even if that excuse is the actions of someone else. Rwanda? Get real.
Interesting... It was the Vietnamese who went into Cambodia to remove the the Khmer Rouge. You didn't know that, did ya? But you were more than willing to attack some imaginary Left, or myself.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of bleeding heart liberals like yourself who think the US should send our troops everywhere to protect and guard the world. Our troops are for defending America.
Fricking moonbats.
There's nothing wrong with the registry that a little knowledge wouldn't fix.
Huh? Are you on crack?
You're holding the Left responsible for what the Vietnamese did? Can you be any more fucked up?
What I find fascinating is that I just bought a shirt the other day and it says "Made in Vietnam". Apparently by leaving we hurt Vietnam so badly, they've turned into a capitalist nation which makes cheap products for sale in America. You know, maybe if we hadn't gotten into a war over there, this progress towards capitalism would have occured sooner. Ever think of that?
No, the mistake the Left made was getting us into Vietnam. That they recognized the mistake and pulled us out should be commended. It was never our business getting involved in their civil war.
I think it's funny that you complain of Brown being scapegoated, and then scapegoat other politicians further downstream.
This is called projection. You think that other people are scapegoating Brown because that's what you do.
Then there's also the basic fact that according to the legal systems of most European countries you only have the rights that are granted to you by the Government. In our system the Government only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution.
In principle yes, that is the way it should work.
But the wingnut Republicans have been trying to change that. Demanding we ban certain forms of speech, and say loyalty oaths daily.
Oh, and if the courts protect us by declaring their inititiaves unconstitutional, they get branded as being "activists"... whatever that means.
And the UN as a body decided to handle the situation by inserting weapons inspectors to verify that he had dismantled his war machine.
It was the US who disagreed with that and decided to insert troops.
That's the folks you want controlling the Internet? France, Syria and Iran? Screw that.
What the hell is this strawman? Why do you idiots always see things in black and white? I don't think that is at all the case.
Oil for food was an unqualified disaster because it did *nothing* to motivate Saddam to change his bullying tune. The only thing it did was increase the poverty of the poor and give Saddam bargaining money because guess what? The food never made it to the needy.
Uhh, as opposed to prior to Oil for Food, when the people didn't get any food at all.
You have a distorted understanding of the purpose of the program. It was not to end suffering, it was not to eliminate Hussein... it was to relieve some of the suffering on the nation from the initial sanctions.
One thing I find amazing is the number of so-called conservatives who attack the UN for being impotent, and then suggest that the way to solve that is to give them more power. Why can't we just concede that the UN should be impotent, and work within that framework?
Interesting strawman, but I did not suggest that it was not a two way street. I simply point out that the US can ill afford the unilateral "piss off and accept the gruel we give you" attitude that so many now want to employ.
The management of the Internet should not be in the control of a single nation, it should be decentralized such that each nation can do what they want such that no other nation will be impacted should some nutjob take over.
I read somewhere that 95% of Russia's output is sold to Europe. Only 5% to America. I'm not sure on figures for China, but you can bet that they sell a good portion to Asia and europe as well.
It's not clear to me how you can say "What are they going to do if we tell them to piss off", and then not understand the opposite side of the coin "What will the US do if we tell them to piss off?". The point is, it's a two way street now.
As for the snide insult. I'm 37 years old. I've never seen a President more beholden to pandering to his party in opposition to the values and needs of the nation as a whole... and that includes Nixon.
It's a question of trust.
The World has been watching us, and they see that our government is more than willing to do something stupid if we think we'll get some short term gain.
As for the UN. The UN doesn't care about freedom and democracy... it's purpose is to promote discussion between nations, that's all. It should not be in control of the internet at all... it shouldn't be in control of anything, as far as I'm concerned. It's a facilitation mechanism, that's it. I don't understand why conservatives keep building strawmen for what the UN is, so that they can claim it's failing.
I do have to agree that the Internet should be outside of politics.
But I still feel the root servers should be somewhat distributed, in the event that politics does get introduced.
Shall we compare free speech in the US with Europe?
You know. I frankly don't have a problem with not trusting the Sudan. But I've got a whee bit of a problem with us having a hostile relationship with our allies.
Do what ourselves?
the invasion of Iraq? Yeah, because we're pretty much stuck with it.
But how many times have I heard Bushie on the TV whining about how nobody is helping us? That it's all the fault of the French, and the Germans, and the Syrians and Iranians for not helping us, and not giving us money.
We've got a Whiner for a President.
Sometimes we do have to do things ourselves, but if you make that decision take some FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY! Don't go around whining about how nobody is helping you.
Let's talk about Oil for Food, shall we?
This came about because of the UN sanctions upon Iraq following the Kuwait invasion. The sanctions were intended primarily to keep Hussein from redeveloping a military force. A secondary agenda was to plummet the economy of the country such that the people rose up against Hussein.
The secondary agenda did not work. Hussein maintained an iron grip, as all despots do. He kept what he needed for himself and gave little to the people who had no say by force of a gun to their head.
The Oil for Food program was setup as a way to alleviate the suffering of the people, as well as get Iraqi oil back into the system to help lower global prices.
Now there were two failures:
#1. A handful of people at the UN got involved in a kickback scheme in awarding the contracts.
#2. Hussein smuggled Oil, outside of the Oil for Food program.
The first failure is that of the UN, and it's being dealt with.
The second failure is the fault of the United States and the other nations who knew all along this was going on but turned a blind eye because we were hungry for that oil. Plus, the oil was smuggled through Turkey and Jordan and we didn't want to hurt their profits either.
But now we get back to the primary purpose of the UN sanctions. To keep Hussein from redeveloping a military power.
So what's more important to you? Obviously not the oil, and not the kickbacks, because we turned a blind eye. What was important was the sanctions keeping weapons out of Husseins army.
As it turns out, The UN sanctions were a success, as proven by the invasion of Iraq finding no WMDs and nothing even anything remotely resembling a defensive military force
The complaints regarding Oil for Food are politically motivated John Birch society bullshit.
I ask myself questions like this every day.
1. Why do you care?
Why do I care? Simply put, we live in a global economy and as such we are heavily dependent upon our neighbors to buy and sell goods. That means we need somewhat good relations with them.
If we create purposefully hostile relations, you know what happens? They suddenly realize "hey, you know, we don't really need the US", and they go off and form their own trading partners, etc. And Frankly, we are at a time in history now that the US is more dependent upon the world than the world is upon the US. Look at our trade imbalance, and then look at what nations like China, Russia and all of Europe have been doing. They're negotiating their own deals, outside of our arena.
2. Why take their word over your own trust in your own county?
Well that's a difficult question. My country, I trust. I think our business leaders understand in the broader scheme why what I said in #1 is important, and they are putting a great effort into making this work.
Our Government? Them I don't trust. Why should I/ The President doesn't represent America, he only represents his one political party. His policy goals and actions are not determined by what is in the best interest for the nation to help it grow, but rather what is in the best interests of maintaining their political power.
Never before have I seen this in my lifetime. And you can bet, that those living outside our country see it even more vividly as has been evidenced by the US's declining popularity.
You cannot force someone to like you. You cannot force someone to love you.
The UN has been nothing but a pain for the longest time, passing resolutions that no one but the US is supposed to carry out. Then when we do carry out UN resolutions, we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers". Isn't it nice that so many countries can tell us what to do while they sit on their high horses?
It's interesting. That's what many countries say about the US... That we sit on our high horse and tell them what to do.
I agree with you on the first paragraph. Each individual country ought to have their own say and control over their little piece of the internet...
Your second paragraph, on the other hand, is fundamentally flawed. At least in the US and many democratic nations in Europe and Asia... the government is the citizens.
In the countries where the government is not the citizens, like say China... uhh, yeah, fat chance.
The World does not trust the United States.
Oh, I don't know. You can pretty much simply pigeon hole Janice Rogers Brown as an extremist. That is, she sees the world in black and white. She started off on one side of the spectrum, found some flaws and flipped to the other extreme side of the spectrum with no apparently thought that maybe the best approach lies somewhere in the middle.
The problem with extremists, is that they are not ideologically reliable. Once they start seeing the flaws of their new found extremism, it is their heads which blow up. They're just as likely to flip out and go to another extreme as they are to continue down your hopeful path.
A fifth grade teacher once gave us a lecture on the definitions of the words possible and probable.
Possible means something may happen.
Probable means the chances of something actually happening are good.
StarOffice killing MS-Office is a possibility. It's also possible that I will win the Powerball jackpot on saturday.
Neither are very probable, though.
LOL!
And someone claims the pro-choice group is hiding behind their words...
Thanks for the laugh, dissembler.
I think you're confused. At no point has anybody suggested stifling the question.
What we are stifling is turning the government into a big nanny state. You want to have discussion about abortion, great... Do it. Put up big billboards and should from the rafters. That's freedom.
Getting the government to impose your ideas on others... That is repression.
For the same reason that pro-lifers hide when the reality of the individual is pointed out. It's a defensive mechanism against uncomfortable arguments.
Which is again, why this matter should be left up to the individual, and not the Government.
Obviously not, because you tried to distract the argument against my point about government intrusion into our lives.
It seems that if you don't like abortion, then you should not have one. If you want to advocate to others too, then you are free to do so.
Why you feel you must force your dogma on others, though, that I simply don't understand. I find that the anti-abortion dogma seems to fall apart when you start getting into the specifics of the individual. That is, it's great in principle on a broader scale but each individual case, the reasoning and such is different. That is why, while it is sad, it really should be up to the individuals involved to make that decision.
It's like the Schiavo thing early this year. It sounds great when you talk about it as a nation. But if you actually knew Terri and her husband, the situation was much more complicated. But that wasn't good enough for some, who wished to force their dogma on others whether or not it was in their best interest.
Don't get me wrong... your attitude is millenia old. Christ preached against this 2,000 years ago. Worry not about the splinter in someone elses eye, when you have a log in your own. I just find it difficult to understand why it still exists.
This really is the heart of the conservative argument. The conservatives believe that if they can restrict access to birth control and abortion, that this will prevent people from engaging in sex.
It never cross their mind that humans will have sex regardless, and that our access to birth control allows for people to engage in sex responsibly.
The woman's responsibily does start at the same time. If the man walks out on her, she's stuck raising the kid.
The child support claims has to do with the man paying their fair share of that effort.
It's interesting that your principle of responsibility only applies one way. That men should not be held responsible for engaging in a sexual act, but women should be.