You know, it's not like Ted Turner is some sort of perpetual student right out of the mid-70's who's social life revolves around the protest-of-the-week. In plain language, he's taken aim at vertical conglomoration as anti-capitalist, and noted that it can have corrosive effects on our economy and culture. Honestly now bud, consider the source. Today it might seem neat to you to believe he's "sticking it to the man", but tomorrow it might be an anhydrous ammonia cloud in your front yard. I'll point my browser at www.arabnews.com for the scoop.
I'd like to add as an aside that in a Charlie Rose interview with Morris and McNamara, McNamara repeatedly declined to give his opinion on the war with Iraq out of political deference (i.e. he lives a "post public" life now). His silence was so steadfast, principled, and honest that it became obvious he doesn't support this war.
The U.S.'s own weapons inspectors don't agree with you and insisted that not only could no WMD be found, but that all evidence indicated that no WMD had existed in the first place.
RTFA. The opening paragraph alone, it states:... Do you have other sources, or is this the best you can come up with?
Jebus Timex where have you been? Do you not remember the congressional hearings on Dr. Kay's summation. We've vetted the place and found nothing.
The cost of setting up geosynchronous satellites over a country the size of Iraq (so that we could watch every move anyone made) would be astounding. On top of this, one would have to understand that cameras are useless unless someone is watching them, and you can probably understand the financial problems with this approach. Consider, too, the fact that nobody (no other nation) would put up with it, since it would mean that it would be possible to do that to any country, and you can probably imagine why this is not a good idea from a political standpoint.
Huh? Are you trying to claim that it's financially and politically cheaper to invade and occupy a country a propos of absolutely nothing than to park a satellite over it?
nobody seems able to come up with some real tangible proof that there was not a presence of WMDs.
Well there's a brilliant argument. While you're at it why don't you prove that the world behind your head isn't disappearing when you look away and reappearing when you turn back around.
Given the history of Saddam, I'd be safer to assume that they DID exist.
Why would you feel that when his history has never included attacking America?
I think that the tendency of some to oversimplify the problem by pegging it to "blood for oil" or a need of Bush-the-Younger to somehow avenge Bush-the-Elder's failure to "finish the job" from Gulf War I is a mistake.
I agree because I see no evidence that Iraqi oil will make this war "pay for itself" let alone lower prices at the pump. Nor do I think Bush Sr. wanted his kid to go around starting wars to protect the family name. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the elder Bush gave this war a thumbs down in the prudence department. We went there because some people really wanted to and they were hubristic (and "pumped") enough to believe it would be a cake walk.
I think I'll turn the tables here, and ask YOU: What would change YOUR mind about this whole mess? What would it take to convince you that maybe, just maybe, the US took the best approach to the problem, given the information that we had at the time?
Either Sadam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden would have to say that like each other, wanted to work together, and had planned a 9/11 scale attack on American soil slated for the summer of 2003. This plan would have to be unstoppable in every respect (including the capture of Bin Laden) unless we overthrew Iraq's dictator, physically occupied the country, and shoved flashlights up the asses of some of its citizens.
Everyone seems keen on making people believe that going there to do what we did was "wrong"...
You make it sound like "spin" is needed to make this misadventure look worse than it really is.
... but nobody seems willing to consider the other-way-around.
What are you talking about? Our civic life has been dominated by this war for nearly two years now. We got in there because those with the power to say go claimed it was the best alternative to consider.
At is funeral there was a political campaign speech at the pulpit. And the compaign speech was even quiet, the speaker was ROARING!!!!!!
I don't understand what you're describing here. I didn't follow Wellstone's funeral.
Bush's campaign merely dipped a toe into capitalising on Reagan's funeral because they know the Reagans can't stand Bush. Indeed, the most political aspect of Reagan's funeral came from his children who openly criticized the administration.
Understand that I wouldn't claim the media is incapable of political bias. I would, however, claim that when spin strikes it doesn't always (or even mostly) come from the left. Hearing about this vast conspiracy to poison the public thought-space against the will of a silent majority is getting old.
David Brooks is a conservative. Hitchens is no longer the lefty he was in the 70's. I don't know where he stands exactly on the political spectrum now, but he was a forceful advocate for the war in Iraq.
Could you explain to us why you would characterize Bush II as a liberal socialist at all let alone one farther to the left than say Nancy Pelosi?
Wake up. Just wake up.
Oh yes megalonzerg, we all need to shake off the state imposed brain washing that only you can see through. Then we'd be able to see how Jimmy Carter is just like Adolph Hitler. Thank heavens you got to us before the black helicopters did.
Dear God that sucks. We're supposed to be building a democracy over there and Kurds are barred from becoming the Prime Minister? Hopefully that's just a part of the interm government. I don't know anything about the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia beyond what a layman can glean in his off hours, but of all the people over there the Kurds are the ones that have struck me as really "having their shit together". These guys have been trying to regain sovereignity over their homeland for centuries now and they keep getting dicked over. These mother fuckers fought beside us when we rolled on Baghdad and by all accounts they were excellent allies. It's too late to un-swat the hornets nest so the least we could do is salvage something to be honestly proud of by letting these guys reconstitute part of Kurdistan. The only argument I've heard against this partitioning is that it will piss off Turkey. So what?
If you know somebody had something, you know they are not trustworthy, you know they are developing the methods for mass production, is it really a good idea to believe them when they say they don't have it anymore?
No. That's why it would have been prudent to let the inspectors finish their job so we could know for sure. Letting them work would have also nullified the misgivings of the rest of the world who had reason to question the American motivation for attack. Cutting the whole thing short made the administration look like it didn't really want to find the truth. What motive could they have had for nixing Blix other than a fear that Iraq might get a clean bill of health?
The disputed info about yellowcake from Africa came to the US from British intelligence which to this day stands by their sources.
The only source I can find that stands by the claim of British Intelligence is Tony Blair's statement that the forged documents weren't the only source of information on the subject -- though he wouldn't cite the alternate verification. If MI6 actually still believes the transaction took place I have to wonder why they won't chime in with the truth since we're unable to find the 500 tons of radioactive material that was allegedly bought.
The options were fight the Saudi's(or Iran or Syria) and Sadam, or take Sadam by himself.
I couldn't disagree more since we always had the option of containment. Indeed, that strategy proved effective against a foe that had ICBMs pointed at us for decades. General Zinni, who inherited Schwartzkopf's job as commander in the Middle East has said quite plainly that we were already doing what needed to be done to neutralize the Iraqi paper tiger. As a potential American target for terrorists I wouldn't feel a whit of fear over an Iraq that were being ruled by Hussein today. The man was a dictator, not a terrorist. Those are two totally different beasts.
By taking Sadam out by himself we a:remove a future threat...
"Minority Report" technology doesn't exist. Exactly what do you think Hussein could have done to us? Keep in mind that he was so aware of our ability to kick his ass that he put dignity and self-respect aside to say "It wasn't us" right after 9/11 -- a craven answer to a question no one asked.
... b:set the stage to bring western type government to the whole middle east.
Well, considering that Iraq used to have a democracy before the West toppled it I have to wonder why they need us forcing them into it. I can't say we've set much of an example there either, now that we've led them around on dog leashes and shoved flashlights up their asses.
I've got to say that on this topic I'm a bit disappointed in Ray Bradbury. I had an immediate like for the guy when I saw him years ago on the Tom Snyder show. He struck me as being the plainspoken, earthy, common sense autodidact type. I took him to be a bit like Rod Sterling in as much as he was kind of a genre unto himself. I have to wonder if his reaction to Moore's title is purely based on a greedy artistic ego though (I don't mean that in a monetary sense at all). The man can't honestly believe he's being plagarised. Either he dislikes the politics or simply wants some cash and Art be damned. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is clearly a literary allusion and play on words. That the title can only work that way is a tribute to Bradbury's impact.
You have got to give us some examples of this behavior exhibited by the Left so we can understand your point. What hateful things are being said? In what way are they morally hypocritical? How can you claim the Right barely puts up a fight when guys like Limbaugh openly claim that people with left of center political viewpoints are flatly immoral. How can you claim the Right barely puts up a fight when Max Cleland -- who lost an arm and both legs after volunteering for Vietnam -- was unseated by ads that juxtaposed him with images of Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein despite the fact that the guy helped author the Patriot Act and his challenger had ducked Vietnam over a trick knee. That kind of political contest can't be described as polite. It's downright vicious and even a touch sick.
I've never noticed, until before, on how complicite the media is with he left.
Give us a concrete case that can reveal this. I'll give you an example to show how this might work to validate your perspective. Cheney continued to claim publicly that Hussein bought "yellow cake" Uranium from Niger a year after American and Italian intelligence had discredited the transaction as a fraud. Thus, the story shouldn't have been "Cheney says Iraq bought Uranium", but rather, "Cheney doesn't know what he's talking about", or, "Cheney is lying". Now technically this can't be an example of Rightist or Leftist bias as the slant (resulting from a lack of further investigation of his claim) is Hawkish rather than Doveish and the difference between Left and Right isn't intrinsically concerned with that. It is however, indicative of a bias nonetheless which we can detect and qualify by comparing the original media event (Cheney gave a speech. Here's what he said...) with what was assessed later (We knew this at time foo, the VP claimed this at time bar). I don't mean to hold your feet to the fire, but I'd like to understand what is making conservatives feel so beleaguered lately.
Of course not. We've already proved with can live without it.
bush didnt do it.the soldiers didnt do it because of bush.
Yes they did. Bush specifically sought the advice of three different departments when looking for ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention. He may not have initiated the directive himself, but he certainly didn't care enough to keep others (like Rumsfeld for example) from following his lead and taking it too far. You may not care about this, but John McCain feels otherwise.
I suspect enrolling... [blah blah blah]..."ingnoramus socialitus"
Stop whining. You aren't omniscient. Your opinions aren't balanced enough to stand on their own.
There are connections between Saddam and similar anti-us terrorist organizations.Good enough for me.
This is the third time you've asserted this and no believes or understands what the hell you are talking about. Could you elaborate on this point for us because it reminds me of the last time I heard someone make allegations about Iraq as a threat. They refused to offer evidence for their claims and none have yet to be found.
Sorry check the clinton administration for funding terrorists.
While you're at it, could you explain this for us too? What, specifically, are you talking about?
Who said you were owed any explaination of whats planned whats happening or why?
Thats right it was unprovoked.They flew into the world trade center.
You really are a fucking idiot. Of the 20 hijackers 19 were Saudis. Hussein and Bin Laden are completely diffent people who want nothing to do with each other. The nuclear threat was thoroughly discredited by the CIA, the FBI, and Italian intelligence in the spring of 2001. Colin Powell himself publicly recinded the bullshit he peddled for the administration because he could no longer stomach the falsity. There was never any evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. Nor was there ever any reason to suppose the two would want an association.
Good thing we went to war instead.
You can't come close to having the right to say such a thing until you're willing send a memeber of you immediate familly across the globe to lose a limb or life itself. Even then you still have to prove that war is justified because a willingness to die in combat does not grant one the right to threaten the security of civilians by picking fights ad hoc. We just invaded a country that did nothing to us and could hardly harm Israel.
Good thing we went to war instead.
Really? You think it's a good thing tough guy? If we weren't so busy draining the national coffers to fight a paper tiger we might have the time and the resources (like allies for example) to actually finish off what's left of Al Qaeda let alone deal with North Korea and Pakistan. As it stands we've left Afghanistan half ruled by warlords sympathetic to Iranian fundamentalists and done the same thing in Iraq. The only Middle Eastern antagonist that's had a nuclear program is no longer surrounded by enemies (unless you want us to keep sending soldiers to Iraq for decades). One has to wonder how that will affect the success of Iran's younger generation which has been pushing the country towards democracy until now. Of course, if you solve that problem you still have to deal with the fact that the entire region has now seen us shoving flashlights up the asses of hooded young Muslim men and leading them around on leashes. But hey, if that pisses them off so that they want to attack us again I'm sure you'll sign up and defend us all.
I was just looking at cairo and glitz last night. It's very interesting stuff with a lot of potential. We'll all have a drooling good time once everything is autotool'd as well.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet he's amassed a fortune and was recently published in the Washington Monthly. Truly, this is a land of paradoxes...
(You do know that no copyright == no GPL, right?)
I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
You know, it's not like Ted Turner is some sort of perpetual student right out of the mid-70's who's social life revolves around the protest-of-the-week. In plain language, he's taken aim at vertical conglomoration as anti-capitalist, and noted that it can have corrosive effects on our economy and culture. Honestly now bud, consider the source. Today it might seem neat to you to believe he's "sticking it to the man", but tomorrow it might be an anhydrous ammonia cloud in your front yard. I'll point my browser at www.arabnews.com for the scoop.
I'd like to add as an aside that in a Charlie Rose interview with Morris and McNamara, McNamara repeatedly declined to give his opinion on the war with Iraq out of political deference (i.e. he lives a "post public" life now). His silence was so steadfast, principled, and honest that it became obvious he doesn't support this war.
RTFA. The opening paragraph alone, it states: ... Do you have other sources, or is this the best you can come up with?
Jebus Timex where have you been? Do you not remember the congressional hearings on Dr. Kay's summation. We've vetted the place and found nothing.
Huh? Are you trying to claim that it's financially and politically cheaper to invade and occupy a country a propos of absolutely nothing than to park a satellite over it?
nobody seems able to come up with some real tangible proof that there was not a presence of WMDs.
Well there's a brilliant argument. While you're at it why don't you prove that the world behind your head isn't disappearing when you look away and reappearing when you turn back around.
Given the history of Saddam, I'd be safer to assume that they DID exist.
Why would you feel that when his history has never included attacking America?
I think that the tendency of some to oversimplify the problem by pegging it to "blood for oil" or a need of Bush-the-Younger to somehow avenge Bush-the-Elder's failure to "finish the job" from Gulf War I is a mistake.
I agree because I see no evidence that Iraqi oil will make this war "pay for itself" let alone lower prices at the pump. Nor do I think Bush Sr. wanted his kid to go around starting wars to protect the family name. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the elder Bush gave this war a thumbs down in the prudence department. We went there because some people really wanted to and they were hubristic (and "pumped") enough to believe it would be a cake walk.
I think I'll turn the tables here, and ask YOU: What would change YOUR mind about this whole mess? What would it take to convince you that maybe, just maybe, the US took the best approach to the problem, given the information that we had at the time?
Either Sadam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden would have to say that like each other, wanted to work together, and had planned a 9/11 scale attack on American soil slated for the summer of 2003. This plan would have to be unstoppable in every respect (including the capture of Bin Laden) unless we overthrew Iraq's dictator, physically occupied the country, and shoved flashlights up the asses of some of its citizens.
Everyone seems keen on making people believe that going there to do what we did was "wrong"...
You make it sound like "spin" is needed to make this misadventure look worse than it really is.
What are you talking about? Our civic life has been dominated by this war for nearly two years now. We got in there because those with the power to say go claimed it was the best alternative to consider.
Yeah, they found junk sold as scap from something that could go 185 miles. It's a good thing we dodged that bullet.
I don't understand what you're describing here. I didn't follow Wellstone's funeral.
Bush's campaign merely dipped a toe into capitalising on Reagan's funeral because they know the Reagans can't stand Bush. Indeed, the most political aspect of Reagan's funeral came from his children who openly criticized the administration.
Understand that I wouldn't claim the media is incapable of political bias. I would, however, claim that when spin strikes it doesn't always (or even mostly) come from the left. Hearing about this vast conspiracy to poison the public thought-space against the will of a silent majority is getting old.
We aren't doing them any favors.
David Brooks is a conservative. Hitchens is no longer the lefty he was in the 70's. I don't know where he stands exactly on the political spectrum now, but he was a forceful advocate for the war in Iraq.
Wake up. Just wake up.
Oh yes megalonzerg, we all need to shake off the state imposed brain washing that only you can see through. Then we'd be able to see how Jimmy Carter is just like Adolph Hitler. Thank heavens you got to us before the black helicopters did.
Dear God that sucks. We're supposed to be building a democracy over there and Kurds are barred from becoming the Prime Minister? Hopefully that's just a part of the interm government. I don't know anything about the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia beyond what a layman can glean in his off hours, but of all the people over there the Kurds are the ones that have struck me as really "having their shit together". These guys have been trying to regain sovereignity over their homeland for centuries now and they keep getting dicked over. These mother fuckers fought beside us when we rolled on Baghdad and by all accounts they were excellent allies. It's too late to un-swat the hornets nest so the least we could do is salvage something to be honestly proud of by letting these guys reconstitute part of Kurdistan. The only argument I've heard against this partitioning is that it will piss off Turkey. So what?
I was being facetious and doing a poor job of it. I think the war in Iraq was a stupid mistake (at best) that's had terrible consequences.
No. That's why it would have been prudent to let the inspectors finish their job so we could know for sure. Letting them work would have also nullified the misgivings of the rest of the world who had reason to question the American motivation for attack. Cutting the whole thing short made the administration look like it didn't really want to find the truth. What motive could they have had for nixing Blix other than a fear that Iraq might get a clean bill of health?
The disputed info about yellowcake from Africa came to the US from British intelligence which to this day stands by their sources.
The only source I can find that stands by the claim of British Intelligence is Tony Blair's statement that the forged documents weren't the only source of information on the subject -- though he wouldn't cite the alternate verification. If MI6 actually still believes the transaction took place I have to wonder why they won't chime in with the truth since we're unable to find the 500 tons of radioactive material that was allegedly bought.
The options were fight the Saudi's(or Iran or Syria) and Sadam, or take Sadam by himself.
I couldn't disagree more since we always had the option of containment. Indeed, that strategy proved effective against a foe that had ICBMs pointed at us for decades. General Zinni, who inherited Schwartzkopf's job as commander in the Middle East has said quite plainly that we were already doing what needed to be done to neutralize the Iraqi paper tiger. As a potential American target for terrorists I wouldn't feel a whit of fear over an Iraq that were being ruled by Hussein today. The man was a dictator, not a terrorist. Those are two totally different beasts.
By taking Sadam out by himself we a:remove a future threat...
"Minority Report" technology doesn't exist. Exactly what do you think Hussein could have done to us? Keep in mind that he was so aware of our ability to kick his ass that he put dignity and self-respect aside to say "It wasn't us" right after 9/11 -- a craven answer to a question no one asked.
Well, considering that Iraq used to have a democracy before the West toppled it I have to wonder why they need us forcing them into it. I can't say we've set much of an example there either, now that we've led them around on dog leashes and shoved flashlights up their asses.
What makes you think our troups won't be there en mass a year from now? Do you honestly think the war will be over within a week?
Yes, there is a pattern there. It's called give us another fucking base in the Middle East because the one in Saudi Arabia bit us in the ass.
I've got to say that on this topic I'm a bit disappointed in Ray Bradbury. I had an immediate like for the guy when I saw him years ago on the Tom Snyder show. He struck me as being the plainspoken, earthy, common sense autodidact type. I took him to be a bit like Rod Sterling in as much as he was kind of a genre unto himself. I have to wonder if his reaction to Moore's title is purely based on a greedy artistic ego though (I don't mean that in a monetary sense at all). The man can't honestly believe he's being plagarised. Either he dislikes the politics or simply wants some cash and Art be damned. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is clearly a literary allusion and play on words. That the title can only work that way is a tribute to Bradbury's impact.
I've never noticed, until before, on how complicite the media is with he left.
Give us a concrete case that can reveal this. I'll give you an example to show how this might work to validate your perspective. Cheney continued to claim publicly that Hussein bought "yellow cake" Uranium from Niger a year after American and Italian intelligence had discredited the transaction as a fraud. Thus, the story shouldn't have been "Cheney says Iraq bought Uranium", but rather, "Cheney doesn't know what he's talking about", or, "Cheney is lying". Now technically this can't be an example of Rightist or Leftist bias as the slant (resulting from a lack of further investigation of his claim) is Hawkish rather than Doveish and the difference between Left and Right isn't intrinsically concerned with that. It is however, indicative of a bias nonetheless which we can detect and qualify by comparing the original media event (Cheney gave a speech. Here's what he said...) with what was assessed later (We knew this at time foo, the VP claimed this at time bar). I don't mean to hold your feet to the fire, but I'd like to understand what is making conservatives feel so beleaguered lately.
Of course not. We've already proved with can live without it.
bush didnt do it.the soldiers didnt do it because of bush.
Yes they did. Bush specifically sought the advice of three different departments when looking for ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention. He may not have initiated the directive himself, but he certainly didn't care enough to keep others (like Rumsfeld for example) from following his lead and taking it too far. You may not care about this, but John McCain feels otherwise.
I suspect enrolling... [blah blah blah]..."ingnoramus socialitus"
Stop whining. You aren't omniscient. Your opinions aren't balanced enough to stand on their own.
This is the third time you've asserted this and no believes or understands what the hell you are talking about. Could you elaborate on this point for us because it reminds me of the last time I heard someone make allegations about Iraq as a threat. They refused to offer evidence for their claims and none have yet to be found.
Sorry check the clinton administration for funding terrorists.
While you're at it, could you explain this for us too? What, specifically, are you talking about?
Who said you were owed any explaination of whats planned whats happening or why?
Benjamin Franklin and James Madison to name two.
You really are a fucking idiot. Of the 20 hijackers 19 were Saudis. Hussein and Bin Laden are completely diffent people who want nothing to do with each other. The nuclear threat was thoroughly discredited by the CIA, the FBI, and Italian intelligence in the spring of 2001. Colin Powell himself publicly recinded the bullshit he peddled for the administration because he could no longer stomach the falsity. There was never any evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. Nor was there ever any reason to suppose the two would want an association.
Good thing we went to war instead.
You can't come close to having the right to say such a thing until you're willing send a memeber of you immediate familly across the globe to lose a limb or life itself. Even then you still have to prove that war is justified because a willingness to die in combat does not grant one the right to threaten the security of civilians by picking fights ad hoc. We just invaded a country that did nothing to us and could hardly harm Israel.
Good thing we went to war instead.
Really? You think it's a good thing tough guy? If we weren't so busy draining the national coffers to fight a paper tiger we might have the time and the resources (like allies for example) to actually finish off what's left of Al Qaeda let alone deal with North Korea and Pakistan. As it stands we've left Afghanistan half ruled by warlords sympathetic to Iranian fundamentalists and done the same thing in Iraq. The only Middle Eastern antagonist that's had a nuclear program is no longer surrounded by enemies (unless you want us to keep sending soldiers to Iraq for decades). One has to wonder how that will affect the success of Iran's younger generation which has been pushing the country towards democracy until now. Of course, if you solve that problem you still have to deal with the fact that the entire region has now seen us shoving flashlights up the asses of hooded young Muslim men and leading them around on leashes. But hey, if that pisses them off so that they want to attack us again I'm sure you'll sign up and defend us all.
He didn't know how to add?!
I was just looking at cairo and glitz last night. It's very interesting stuff with a lot of potential. We'll all have a drooling good time once everything is autotool'd as well.
How is the blind voter's condundrum handled conventionally?