Because everyone now knows that spain bows to terrorism.
Considering that a large majority of the Spanish people were opposed to the Iraq war from the start, it should surprise no one that the Aznar government was voted out. Especially when the government's dishonesty about the Madrid attacks is taken into account. It's not bowing to terrorism, it's bowing to democracy.
There will be no draft. It would be a serious political liability.
Say what you will about the Bush administration, but they know a thing or two about politics.
It is disheartening to see Badnarik claiming that "if I'm not elected you'll be drafted!" - I thought at least third party candidates could refrain from baseless scare tactics.
Without this "goverment-sponsored theft", I wouldn't be making $70K right now and contributing $20K per year to Uncle Sam... I might even be on welfare..
But if Badnarik had his way, you wouldn't get welfare either. You'd be stuck in the gutter, and he'd blame you for not being a Nietzschian superman.
That's the thing about Libertarians. Either they're coldhearted and don't give a shit, or naive and expect private charity to take care of everything.
All that being said, I would be thrilled if Badnarik were elected president. He is infinitly better than either Bush or Kerry on civil liberties and foreign policy.
I get modded down just for questioning the divinity of Kerry!
Haha yeah, I even want Kerry to win, but I got a comment modded as flamebait because I said he was "a political opportunist" and called his chest-thumping 'I am a war hero' bit "PR stunts". Seems that there is no room for criticizing the Perfect Saviour.
Of coarse it had been modded insightful at first... until the Kerry drones got to it!
but if this study is even close to correct, we are killing them at a higher rate than Saddam.
not to mention it is now a breeding ground for terrorism.
The insurgent forces and foreign terror groups both choose to hide among the civilian population... taking them hostage while claiming to be their protectors.
The insurgents and foreign terrorists should not be lumped together. They have very different goals.
The domsetic insugents want America out of Iraq. They were already part of the population, are you suggesting they should have lined up on a field to be massacred?
The foreign terrorists, on the other hand, are trying to wage Jihad. They are hoping to make Iraq a central battle in the War on America. The more people they kill, the more instability they cause, the more America is drawn into this conflict, the better for their "cause". They want us to stay the coarse and continue bombing civillians. All that will accomplish is more recruits for them, and less of the world on America's side.
How many innocents are shot every year by policemen? By your definition, "to many". Yes, too many innocents are shot by policemen. That doesn't mean we should shut down the police or military. But police should use their weapons only when threatened. And we should invade sovereign nations only when threatened.
My point is that we should not enter a war of CHOICE knowing full well there will be civillian casualties.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but it would be the same if not worse if Saddam was still in power. Now I personally believe that 1 dead civillian is 1 dead civillian to many, but if you want to get into moral relatavism, fine. he didn't kill 600,000 every couple years - it took him a while. (Also - does that statistic include deaths from the sanctions?) So to say it would be "the same or worse" is not correct. In a cold-hearted quantitative analysis, the US has murdered civillians at a higher rate than Saddam.
While we're on the subject, why is it we never had an objection to Saddam murdering his own people until he became an official enemy? We were allied with him in the 80s when he commited some of his worst atrocities (and we were well aware of them). Yet we didn't even consider invading.
We'd just be talking about how many civilians Saddam had killed instead of trying to blame every death in Iraq on America. Well we're not blaming every death on America, the study says (to paraphrase) "the largest cause of death was airstrikes". I don't see how we are not responsible.
I may not agree with the war, but that doesn't mean Iraq is in a worse place now because of America's interference. Let's see... political instability, daily violence, rampant crime, devestated infrastructure, terrorist activity, and a huge civillian death toll. I fail to see how it's better. Certainly worse for all those dead people.
Iraq had problems and we went to help Are you joking? Why didn't we help the people of North Korea or China? Oh right, they actually have weapons of mass destruction.
If by "help" you meant "kill" then you're right.
How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops? None, that's why this is a count of civillians.
How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime? And are now under the tryranny of American occupation. Your exercise in moral relativism does not make a meaningful point.
Maybe/. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something. Right, 'cause you're not a good American if you have a problem with invading a sovereign nation that DID NOT THREATEN US, and while occupying it killing loads of civillians.
Iraq Body Count only includes verified deaths reported by credible media outlets. The 100,000 stat is an estimate based on door-to-door surveys, which should be more accurate. That's why I made it my sig yesterday. Also, note this excerpt from the VOA article my sig links to:
The researchers did not include deaths in the volatile city of Fallujah in their final analysis, saying that would have skewed the death toll much higher.
If Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, why is it that John Kerry takes every opportunity he can to point out that he fought there for 4 months?
Because he is a political opportunist, and his advisors told him it would help his poll numbers. It was also a big factor in him winning the Democratic nomination. He's trying to beat Bush at his own game, playing the tough guy. I personaly don't think it's working.
Kerry's present-day bullshit PR stunts have no relation to whether or not Vietnam was a just war.
It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.
Understand that the Gaza plan (which is what I assume you are reffering to) is designed to halt negotiations. Read the Haaretz interview with Sharon advisor Weisglass to understand what's really going on here. A brief excerpt:
"The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary
so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." (my emphasis)
I'd like to also give you a huge "right on" for your point #4:
4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.
Anyone who thinks Kerry "invented" the atrocites might want to look into Tiger Force.
lol. What about the ethnic cleansing? You know, that was not exactly about washing people.
The mass murders and deportations of Albanians did not occur until after NATO bombings. There had been a conflict, ethnic in nature, but the casualties were not high until after NATO got involved. The "ethnic cleansing" was anticipated by NATO commanders as retalliation from their bombings; it is not known whether they just assumed Serbia would back down, or whether they were just indifferent.
Negotiations? Are you kidding? That just about sum's up Israel's attitude towards negotiations.
Who do you want Israel to negotiate with now? Maybe the international community? Arafat is corrupt, deals with terrorists, and is in bad health anyway, why not just comply with UN Resolution 242? Then Israel would be on the moral high ground, any terrorism would have no excuse.
And do you have any better suggestions as to how Israel should wage its war on terror? And hasn't the current strategy been such a success...
I would suggest Israel comply with 242, and leave the Palestinians to themselves (keep a security fence if they like, but on their own borders NOT cutting accross the West Bank). If there are continued terrorist attacks after a FULL WITHDRAWL, treat Palestine like they would treat any other country, go to war with full UN support.
Re:Well, since I can't get to the article...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 2, Informative
#4 Being greeted as Liberators. As far as I can see, we are.
According to a poll taken this May by the CPA (that's the US Coalition Provisional Authority, which has since been disbanded) 92% of Iraqis considered the US to be an occupying force. Only 2% saw us a liberators. I sincerly doubt it has changed much since. It's one thing to argue that we were "liberators", but it's just plain wrong to assert that Iraqis see us that way.
The poll does not render properly with when viewed with some browsers. Use IE to view it.
I think it's a wonderful comparison to make. How Clinton took care of the Bosnian problem vs how bush has totally fucked up the iraq problem.
While Clinton's Bosnia project was better handled than the current Iraq fiasco, it was still a bad thing. Lots of innocent people got killed because we decided to intervene for "humanitarian" reasons. And the resulting show trial threatens to undermine international criminal courts.
Though at least we didn't occupy another country, that's a whole other ballpark of evil.
Given his record, I would question whether he really deserves another term as Senator. He doesn't, but that's true for most Senators.
Personally, I find it sad that the Democrats could not come up with a better candidate to run against Bush You're telling me... with this loser in the White House, the race should be no contest at this point. The Democrats think if they keep compromising on every issue and stay as close to the imaginary "center" as possible they will get more votes. They are clearly wrong.
many voters want anyone but Bush. Well, we might just get that wish. Are we really sure that we want it? Yes. It's not Bush himself that is the problem, it's the people he surrounds himself with. Feith, Wolfowitz, and all the rest of those Straussian ideologues need to go. They are very dangerous people.
Slashdot Mirror
Because everyone now knows that spain bows to terrorism.
Considering that a large majority of the Spanish people were opposed to the Iraq war from the start, it should surprise no one that the Aznar government was voted out. Especially when the government's dishonesty about the Madrid attacks is taken into account. It's not bowing to terrorism, it's bowing to democracy.
Say what you will about the Bush administration, but they know a thing or two about politics.
It is disheartening to see Badnarik claiming that "if I'm not elected you'll be drafted!" - I thought at least third party candidates could refrain from baseless scare tactics.
But if Badnarik had his way, you wouldn't get welfare either. You'd be stuck in the gutter, and he'd blame you for not being a Nietzschian superman.
That's the thing about Libertarians. Either they're coldhearted and don't give a shit, or naive and expect private charity to take care of everything.
All that being said, I would be thrilled if Badnarik were elected president. He is infinitly better than either Bush or Kerry on civil liberties and foreign policy.
Which is why you should never do it unless it's absolutely nessecary.
I get modded down just for questioning the divinity of Kerry!
Haha yeah, I even want Kerry to win, but I got a comment modded as flamebait because I said he was "a political opportunist" and called his chest-thumping 'I am a war hero' bit "PR stunts". Seems that there is no room for criticizing the Perfect Saviour.
Of coarse it had been modded insightful at first... until the Kerry drones got to it!
but if this study is even close to correct, we are killing them at a higher rate than Saddam. not to mention it is now a breeding ground for terrorism.
The insurgent forces and foreign terror groups both choose to hide among the civilian population... taking them hostage while claiming to be their protectors.
The insurgents and foreign terrorists should not be lumped together. They have very different goals.
The domsetic insugents want America out of Iraq. They were already part of the population, are you suggesting they should have lined up on a field to be massacred?
The foreign terrorists, on the other hand, are trying to wage Jihad. They are hoping to make Iraq a central battle in the War on America. The more people they kill, the more instability they cause, the more America is drawn into this conflict, the better for their "cause". They want us to stay the coarse and continue bombing civillians. All that will accomplish is more recruits for them, and less of the world on America's side.
Yes, too many innocents are shot by policemen.
That doesn't mean we should shut down the police or military. But police should use their weapons only when threatened. And we should invade sovereign nations only when threatened.
My point is that we should not enter a war of CHOICE knowing full well there will be civillian casualties.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but it would be the same if not worse if Saddam was still in power.
Now I personally believe that 1 dead civillian is 1 dead civillian to many, but if you want to get into moral relatavism, fine. he didn't kill 600,000 every couple years - it took him a while. (Also - does that statistic include deaths from the sanctions?) So to say it would be "the same or worse" is not correct. In a cold-hearted quantitative analysis, the US has murdered civillians at a higher rate than Saddam.
While we're on the subject, why is it we never had an objection to Saddam murdering his own people until he became an official enemy? We were allied with him in the 80s when he commited some of his worst atrocities (and we were well aware of them). Yet we didn't even consider invading.
We'd just be talking about how many civilians Saddam had killed instead of trying to blame every death in Iraq on America.
Well we're not blaming every death on America, the study says (to paraphrase) "the largest cause of death was airstrikes". I don't see how we are not responsible.
I may not agree with the war, but that doesn't mean Iraq is in a worse place now because of America's interference.
Let's see... political instability, daily violence, rampant crime, devestated infrastructure, terrorist activity, and a huge civillian death toll. I fail to see how it's better. Certainly worse for all those dead people.
Iraq had problems and we went to help
/. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something.
Are you joking? Why didn't we help the people of North Korea or China? Oh right, they actually have weapons of mass destruction.
If by "help" you meant "kill" then you're right.
How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops?
None, that's why this is a count of civillians.
How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
And are now under the tryranny of American occupation. Your exercise in moral relativism does not make a meaningful point.
Maybe
Right, 'cause you're not a good American if you have a problem with invading a sovereign nation that DID NOT THREATEN US, and while occupying it killing loads of civillians.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be in a position where we are comparing ourselves to Saddam Hussein.
Because he is a political opportunist, and his advisors told him it would help his poll numbers. It was also a big factor in him winning the Democratic nomination. He's trying to beat Bush at his own game, playing the tough guy. I personaly don't think it's working.
Kerry's present-day bullshit PR stunts have no relation to whether or not Vietnam was a just war.
Understand that the Gaza plan (which is what I assume you are reffering to) is designed to halt negotiations. Read the Haaretz interview with Sharon advisor Weisglass to understand what's really going on here.
A brief excerpt:
I'd like to also give you a huge "right on" for your point #4:
4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.
Anyone who thinks Kerry "invented" the atrocites might want to look into Tiger Force.
The mass murders and deportations of Albanians did not occur until after NATO bombings. There had been a conflict, ethnic in nature, but the casualties were not high until after NATO got involved. The "ethnic cleansing" was anticipated by NATO commanders as retalliation from their bombings; it is not known whether they just assumed Serbia would back down, or whether they were just indifferent.
See Edward Herman's "The NATO-Media Lie Machine" if you are interested.
That just about sum's up Israel's attitude towards negotiations.
Who do you want Israel to negotiate with now?
Maybe the international community? Arafat is corrupt, deals with terrorists, and is in bad health anyway, why not just comply with UN Resolution 242? Then Israel would be on the moral high ground, any terrorism would have no excuse.
And do you have any better suggestions as to how Israel should wage its war on terror?
And hasn't the current strategy been such a success...
I would suggest Israel comply with 242, and leave the Palestinians to themselves (keep a security fence if they like, but on their own borders NOT cutting accross the West Bank). If there are continued terrorist attacks after a FULL WITHDRAWL, treat Palestine like they would treat any other country, go to war with full UN support.
#4 Being greeted as Liberators. As far as I can see, we are.
According to a poll taken this May by the CPA (that's the US Coalition Provisional Authority, which has since been disbanded) 92% of Iraqis considered the US to be an occupying force. Only 2% saw us a liberators. I sincerly doubt it has changed much since.
It's one thing to argue that we were "liberators", but it's just plain wrong to assert that Iraqis see us that way.
The poll does not render properly with when viewed with some browsers. Use IE to view it.
I think it's a wonderful comparison to make. How Clinton took care of the Bosnian problem vs how bush has totally fucked up the iraq problem.
While Clinton's Bosnia project was better handled than the current Iraq fiasco, it was still a bad thing. Lots of innocent people got killed because we decided to intervene for "humanitarian" reasons. And the resulting show trial threatens to undermine international criminal courts.
Though at least we didn't occupy another country, that's a whole other ballpark of evil.
Given his record, I would question whether he really deserves another term as Senator.
He doesn't, but that's true for most Senators.
Personally, I find it sad that the Democrats could not come up with a better candidate to run against Bush
You're telling me... with this loser in the White House, the race should be no contest at this point. The Democrats think if they keep compromising on every issue and stay as close to the imaginary "center" as possible they will get more votes. They are clearly wrong.
many voters want anyone but Bush. Well, we might just get that wish. Are we really sure that we want it?
Yes. It's not Bush himself that is the problem, it's the people he surrounds himself with. Feith, Wolfowitz, and all the rest of those Straussian ideologues need to go. They are very dangerous people.