Rambling Rhodes

So because he didn't accurately recall where he spent Christmas oh 35 years ago, he's a big fat liar? Incorrect recollections do not necessarily a liar make.

Its the same logic the GOP has used on WMD's. To the best of Bush's knowledge (and yes, Kerry's knowledge when he voted to support the resolution) Iraq was poised to return the USA to the stone age.

Do I think war in Iraq and misremembering Christday 35 years ago are at all similar in the scope of the damage created by the mistruth? Hell no.

Try again, Ryan. This "argument" holds about as much water as a thimble.

Whoa. Hold the sputtering there, Johnny. Kerry wrote, in detail, a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, in 1979, how he spent Christmas day in Cambodia getting shot at by partying South Vietnamese allies, and how that experience was a turning point in his view on the Vietnam war. This is not a case of fuzzy recollection. Kerry has made his war experience a cornerstone of his campaign, and now that it's exposed that he lied about a fairly important chunk of it, we're supposed to say "oh, that's okay." Look, if you're willing to let Vietnam bygones be bygones, you'd have to stop harping on the "Bush Didn't Serve" meme you so often fall back on. Are you willing to do that? No, I didn't think so. This is fair game material in an election, and I think you know it.

Ryan- If you are a member of neither party and are truly as yet undecided as to how you are going to vote, why are you not equally analyzing both presidential candidates and both campaigns? You defend the present regime and its tactics seemingly without question.

Actually, Amelia, I'm primarily vexed at how the established Big Media organizations routinely give Kerry a pass on things like this, while putting Bush through the wringer. My beef is primarily with media bias, which I think is rampant as hell during this election cycle. When 12 of 13 press reporters say they're going to vote for Kerry, and a sizable chunk of those same reporters donate to the Kerry campaign, I'm forced to question how that affects their reporting, or lack thereof in this case.

I don't think much of our sitting president, just as I don't think Kerry is much of a Democratic candidate. In my view, they're pretty much equally bad, but I think the Media is doing all it can to cheer on Kerry, despite how bad he actually is, and that's irritating to watch.

In the end, I'll probably just vote for myself as a write-in candidate.

Ryan makes a good point about the free-ride Kapt'n Komeback gets in the press. It's really not about wanting to see Bush win, as it is about wanting to see a fair shake on the matters. I'll go in a different direction than Ryan and say that I respect both candidates. It's easy to sit back and take pot-shots from a pundits's seat and tear down everything. Both candiddates are attempting to serve the country, etc. Keep in mind that the current political circumstances have good part in creating the candidates we have today.

Whatever. Ryan, you hit the nail on the head with your statement about the press. I am not positive it's a conspiracy, as much as it is lack of foresight. Images of bodies in Iraq is impactful news. No doubt. Sadly, so is the reconstruction progress and there is little play of that in the news. The media understands that our society likes to see carnage. This is our own fault. Still, some positive coverage could go a long way to helping the war effort. The media either doesn't get that, or is determined to see the war fail. I go with the former.

Ryan, you have a double-standard about your news sources. You're also pathologically incapable of admitting it or, quite possibly, of even recognizing it. You'll kvetch eloquently and at length about the "liberal bias" of reporters, but you reference FOX news on the mustard gas story without any qualification. And I didn't hear you talking shit about Disney for their ill-advised attempt to step on F911. Sure, it worked out better for Moore in the long run. But it also exposed a bias. While reporters may be voting and contributing Democrat, media owners are throwing their weight solidly behind Republican deregulation of media agglomeration. Disney, Microsoft, and AOL/Time/Warner are all in the top 25 contributors to the Republican party between 1999 and 2003.

Is the press giving Kerry more positive coverage than they're giving Bush? Yes. Your response: "media bias!"

And yet— Clinton's coverage was consistently negative all through his presidency: 72% negative during his first year in office in 1993; 62% negative after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995; 56% negative after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and 67% negative during his impeachment hearings in 1998; and 65% negative after he left office in 2001, amid controversies over last-minute pardons, according to CMPA studies of evaluations by sources and reporters on the network evening news shows.

On that score, Clinton's first six months in office received a higher percentage of negative coverage than either Bush: 68% negative for Clinton, compared with 45% negative for Bush Sr. and 61% negative for Bush Jr.

Media bias! Media bias!

Media bias my hairy white ass.

Find another excuse.

Oh, and just another point of order, Johnny. You know that Swift Boat Veteran ad you so railed against as a cheap and unsubstantiated shot at Kerry? The one where a veteran states that John Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam? You know, that one? Well, in light of this exposed lie, at least some part of that ad is correct, isn't it? Kerry can't spin his way out of this. The man lied. Faulty recollection? How could a man have a faulty recollection about illegally being in a country he was never, ever, actually in? But, I wouldn't worry too much about this, Johnny, the Media apparently isn't interested in noticing this story, so your man should be safe.

I've already recognized that the Swift Water guys have a right to bitch publicly about Kerry, just as you and I have a right to bitch publicly about our respective foes.

The reality or disreality of those "enlightened" vets coming forward out of their own need to publicly declare that Kerry's not going to get their vote isn't relevant to me. Kerry went to war, Bush used his connections to duck it like a little bitch and couldn't even complete his service. At least Kerry has vets that can speak about his service, like his leadership or not, he was there and didn't weasel out of it.

Part of the reason so many people just want Bush out and someone, anyone to take his place is because the man is leading our nation down a path that we do not wish to travel. He isn't a uniter, he's more divisive than any leader in recent memory.

The media isn't negatively biased against Bush. Bush is negatively biased against everyone that doesn't just nod their head like a bobblehead doll.

While reporters may be voting and contributing Democrat, media owners are throwing their weight solidly behind Republican deregulation of media agglomeration.

Accepted. Only, I'm curious here how much news writing media owners actually do and how much news content they actually approve over the course of a given day. Hmmmmm. Oh, that's right, the reporters and editors do all that work. Try again, Joshua.

Is the press giving Kerry more positive coverage than they're giving Bush? Yes. Your response: "media bias!"

It's not that they're giving Kerry more positive coverage, which they most certainly are, it's also that they're skimming over items that may make him look bad, such as telling an outright lie that he conducted covert missions in Cambodia.

when has Bush been put through the wringer? Will you admit Bush has lied?

Only, I'm curious here how much news writing media owners actually do and how much news content they actually approve over the course of a given day. Hmmmmm. Oh, that's right, the reporters and editors do all that work. Try again, Joshua.

Try what again, Ryan? Try proving that the bias of owners translates into editorial policy? Don't be an asshole.

It's not that they're giving Kerry more positive coverage, which they most certainly are, it's also that they're skimming over items that may make him look bad

Hey Ryan: did George W. Bush ever use cocaine? Did he use his influence as president to try and cover it up when his daughters got popped for trying to use fake ID to get served at a bar? Did the microfiche payroll records that could have settled the question of whether or not Bush was AWOL from his air national guard unit mysteriously disappear?

And on that microfiche question, isn't it strange that a Google search for "microfiche" and "Bush" doesn't turn up one fucking hit in the foxnews.com domain? Nor does it pull a hit in the msnbc.com domain. Or cbsnews.com. Or abcnews.com.

How strange.

And yet, weirdly enough, I didn't read word one about any of that on this blog, in spite of your avowed anger over the press's tendency to skim over items that make politicians look bad.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. You said you were upset about the press's tendency to skim over items that make Kerry look bad. Given your lack of outrage over the skimming over of Bush's criminal history, I guess it's not the skimming, per se, that bothers you.

ps- Just so we're clear: given the available evidence, I think Kerry probably did lie about being in Cambodia in 1968. That's not what I take issue with here.

Sure, D, I would have no problem with admitting Bush lied, just as soon as I see concrete evidence that he did, indeed, outright and knowingly lie, without scuttering back behind the argument that he "misled" or that he acted on faulty intelligence, or that he knew about 9/11 and should have acted magically within 15 minutes to stop the second plane from hitting the WTC. You know, those types of arguments by conjecture.

As for Bush being put through the wringer, I would say the 9/11 Commission/Farce is a pretty good example.

Look. I think Bush is a bumbler at times. I don't think he's stupid. I think his faith clouds his judgement from time to time. I think he's wrong on the stem cell debate. I think his stance on gay marriage is wrong. I think his stance against abortion rights is wrong. I think, however, that when it comes to the two candidates on the War on Terror, Bush is the better choice.

Kerry, so far, seems too interested in trying to keep both sides of any issue happy and content, and that's not leadership, that's pandering. Would he change his tune if he won the election? Possibly. But I'm not sure yet if I want the world situation being dictated by a possibility. Kerry has just been exposed as a liar, and he's been exposed as a liar on the issue that has thus far been the cornerstone of his campaign. I find that a bit unsettling, but that's just me.

Well, one of your problems, Joshua, may be that you did a google search on "Bush Microfiche," since very few people use the term microFICHE. Try a search on "Bush missing MicroFILM" and see what pops up. It's interesting what comes up, including this from *gasp* Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125189,00.html

And then a little follow-up searching reveals that the great microfilm conspiracy may be nothing at all, which is what I thought initially, which is why I didn't mention it on my blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9464-2004Jul23.html

But never mind me.

Well, one of your problems, Joshua, may be that you did a google search on "Bush Microfiche," since very few people use the term microFICHE. Try a search on "Bush missing MicroFILM" and see what pops up. It's interesting what comes up, including this from *gasp* Fox News

Mea culpa on the film/fiche thing. Using microFILM gets us... let's see... 2 hits on FOX, 1 on MSNBC, and 2 on CBS.

Wow. That was a regular landslide of coverage. Quite right. My bad.

Points:

1. Given the evidence currently available, I agree that Kerry probably lied about being in Cambodia in December of 1968.

2. I will even allow that it is possible (though, in my view, unlikely) that SBVfT's negative characterizations of Kerry's service record are accurate.

3. The presence of U.S. troops in Cambodia as early as 1968 is thoroughly documented.

4. The fact that U.S. troops committed war crimes against the civilian population of Vietnam is also thoroughly documented.

Conclusion: Kerry lied about his involvement in at least one crime that did, in any event, take place. He may have mischaracterized his involvement in other events that did, in any case, happen.

Sure, D, I would have no problem with admitting Bush lied, just as soon as I see concrete evidence that he did, indeed, outright and knowingly lie, without scuttering back behind the argument that he "misled"

That's some weak-ass shit right there.

What's your thesis here, Ryan? That George W. Bush has never told a lie to the American people?

I keep kicking that damned football, but I never seem to be able to reach your goalposts. Strange, that.

I keep kicking that damned football, but I never seem to be able to reach your goalposts. Strange, that.

Oh, boo fucking hoo.

Support that metaphor, Ryan. What's the goal that I keep moving back? That I say Kerry's a douchebag? I've said it on the internet many times. That I say he flip-flops? I've said that too. That he wasn't my first, or even my second choice for President? I've said all that.

I mean, I hate to take that goalpost metaphor away from you. I know you get a lot of comfort from the belief that I'm somehow cheating at this game. But, from my end of it, if I'm going to be accused of cheating I'd like to know what fucking game we're playing.

When Bush told a reporter he was sitting in the hall of the school watching tv and saw the first plane fly into the WTC, he was lying. There was no footage of the first plane hitting its target until much later in the evening on the 11th.

Every time Bush says something like, "We gave Saddam one more chance to disarm and he refused to cooperate with the UN Inspectors, so we invaded." he is lying.

In January of 02, Bush commented to WV Speaker of House Bob Kiss, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
This is a lie. He never went to war.

Bush has repeatedly claimed his relationship with Ken Lay is not that close and began in 1994. It actually began as early as 1992 when there is documented correspondence between them. Bush has also said Lay supported Ann Richards as gov. of Texas over him, again trying to downplay their relationship. In fact, Lay is on the record for supporting Bush. Lay did give some money to the Richards campaign, $12,500. But, this is nothing compared to the $47,500 Lay personally gave to the Bush campaign, along with $20,000 from the Enron PAC. I would say Bush has repeatedly lied about his relationship to Ken Lay.

Need more?

"...when it comes to the two candidates on the War on Terror, Bush is the better choice."
What are you talking about? Bush started a war in Iraq instead of putting our valuable and limited resources to use in a war on terror.

The goalposts in question had to do with with the items you found after substituting microFILM with microFICHE. I was being more silly than serious.

Amelia, the war in Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror, and I've espoused on that so much here and on other blogs, I'm in no mood to reiterate all the points why all over again.

D., when Bush said he was watching the first plane hit the WTC, don't you think it's at all possible he was referring to the footage of the aftermath of the strike? I mean, I'll often say "I saw a car accident," when in fact I didn't, I saw the aftermath of the accident. Does that make me a liar?

The U.N. thing? Give me a break. U.N. resolutions that went unenforced "one last time" stretch back to the 90s. Hardly a secret.

In January of 02, Bush commented to WV Speaker of House Bob Kiss, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
This is a lie. He never went to war.

That's funny, and here I thought 9/11 could possibly be construed as an act of war. I must have been mistaken. Or, wait, maybe the war in Afghanistan in 2001 doesn't count? Hm.

As for the Ken Lay thing, I'd ask you define "close relationship" because, here's the thing: I have a close-knit band of very close friends, the kind of friends who I can trust without question. Then I have lesser friends, the kind of friends that I may meet up with once a month or so. Then there are the friends I hook up with very infrequently. What's your definition of close as it applies to Ken Lay and Bush?

The goalposts in question had to do with with the items you found after substituting microFILM with microFICHE. I was being more silly than serious.

Yeah. That's why I specified my search parameters. Funny that.

That's funny, and here I thought 9/11 could possibly be construed as an act of war.

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I'll often say "I saw a car accident," when in fact I didn't, I saw the aftermath of the accident. Does that make me a liar?

By the standards you're applying here, yes.

The war in Iraq equals a war on terror? Oh boy...
If we put our valuable and limited resources to actually fight the terrorists instead of using them in Iraq we might have actually lessened the number of terrorists out there. Instead, we have created yet another recruiting point for the terrorist organizations... "those US infidels are invading and destroying Islamic lands - come join us in our fight against the US infidels..."
We also might actually have more support and cooperation from our allies in the war on terror if we did not make war on Iraq. But you know all this and have addressed it elsewhere.

Regarding 9/11 footage: Bush said specifically, before he entered the classroom to read "My Pet Goat" he was sitting in the hallway, waiting to go in and watching TV and saw the plane fly into the WTC. He claimed this is how he learned of the first plane hit. And he thought something like, what a bad pilot. He went into the room before 9 am. There was no footage available at this time. He didn't learn about the first plane attack by seeing it on tv, live or replayed footage either one. He didn't see this before he went into the classroom.

You can argue that Iraq didn't follow all UN Resolutions. I'll agree with you even. But, it is an out and out lie to say Saddam forced the inspectors out of the country and wouldn't let them do their job while in the country, and that he was not cooperating with the inspectors in the months leading up to the war. And Bush has said this many times, as justifcation for his decision to go ahead and invade.

You can find excuses for Bush's lies if you want. Just like people trying to excuse Kerry's lie about Cambodia. Forget what "close relationship" means. He lied about when Lay and he began said relationship and Lay's support for his campaign. Just like when he tried to distance himself from Chalabi, saying how he had never had any extensive conversation with the man who had sat in the Oval Office only months before. Yet, Bush stated he basically knew him only from shaking his hand in a line up.

And I don't believe "I've been to war" means he sat in the WH and declared a war that others went to fight. Believe what you want about the veracity of that statement. I don't buy it.

What is the meaning of "is"?

Hey Ryan? You're getting your ass kicked by a girl. And a girl preacher at that.

*sigh*

Amelia, perhaps you'd like to address the terrorist training camps encountered by coalition forces during the invasion of Iraq. No? Okay, then perhaps you'd like to comment on the airliner located at an Iraqi military base for the purpose of training in the conducting of hijackings. No? Then perhaps you'd like to comment on the number of known terrorists harbored by Saddam. No? Then how about all the money Saddam doled out to the families of suicide bombers. No? How about the evidence linking Iraq to the first WTC bombing. Still not good enough? I have some oceanfront property here in Minnesota I think you'd like.

"those US infidels are invading and destroying Islamic lands - come join us in our fight against the US infidels..."

Let's turn this around a little bit, shall we?

"those US infidels simply cowered like dogs when we brought down their tall buildings! They think they can just beef up their ridiculous security measure and be safe! They'll never attack us in our Islamic lands because they fear us so! - come join us in our fight against the US infidels..."

And, yes, Joshua, I do think of 9/11 as an act of war. I know you like to shake your head and say an act of war can only be conducted by a nation with an actual government, and that terrorists don't meet those requirements. Al Queda loves that line of thinking, I'm sure.

I don't know if it's so much of an ass kicking as it is rehashing old arguments we never have agreed on, and most likely never will. But, D. always does bring up good points, even though I usually think they're wrong. She's kicked my ass before though. I can't deny that.

Ah, the argumentative comment string. . . how I've missed you so. Now please stop.

And, yes, Joshua, I do think of 9/11 as an act of war. I know you like to shake your head and say an act of war can only be conducted by a nation with an actual government, and that terrorists don't meet those requirements.

Now you're just being dense on purpose. My point wasn't that 9/11 wasn't an act of war (though we've had that argument before, and I remain totally unconvinced by your reasoning). My point-- and I thought this was obvious --is that George W. Bush didn't "go to war". He hasn't "been to war", and your silly, "Oh, I thought 9/11 was an act of war," line doesn't change that. Roosevelt didn't "go to war", except insofar as that's a coloquialism for "declaring war". Which is clearly not the way Bush meant it when he said it-- using it as a point of contrast against "raising twins" he was talking about the personal experience of being in a war. That's fucking obvious.

Christ.

What is the meaning of "is" indeed.

an ass-kicking girl preacher... I can live with that.

So Ryan, you ready to admit Bush has lied?

The thing is, I believe all politicians lie. To insist Bush has never knowingly lied seems like unnecessary hyperbole.
What about broken campaign promises, and broken pledges about funding AIDS relief to the tune of $10 billion in new money and then presenting a budget that only had a $550 million dollar increase? Is that a lie? What about citing a non-existent report to bolster support for his tax cuts? Maybe he was given false data, but to never recant his statement once it was revealed that the report didn't exist, had never been written - is that a lie?

Politicians lie. Bush lies.

Joshua, I have to leave work and go home to my partner and little girl. Do you care to and/or have the energy and time to finish this?
And Ryan the way you argue the Republican side I will never believe you to be an independent voter. I hope you truly do write in your own name.

Oh, and by the way--

Al Queda loves that line of thinking, I'm sure.

Do me a favor. Print that line out on a piece of very heavy card-stock paper. Then crumple it up in a ball and shove it up your ass.

I've fucking had it with Bush supporters associating me with terrorists and mass murderers as a debating tactic. Up to a point I'm willing to chalk it up to high spirits. But we're past that point, and I'm getting to a place where I'm going to start taking that shit seriously.

amelia: hell, I can't make a dent. But D's doing great.

Go, D!

Obviously, for me to sit here and try to refute every perceived Bush lie would be time better spent picking my nose or licking a battery. Do I think the man lies and has lied? Of course. It's the human default mode to lie about SOMETHING. Do I think he lied to take us to war in Iraq? No. And we've gone back and forth in perpetuity on that, and beat the arguments to death with a hammer.

:-)

And, Amelia? I think you're confusing arguing for the war side as arguing for the Republican side. I believe the current policy being run on the war on terror is the right one, and Bush just happens to be the man pushing it, so I support him on that issue. Beyond that, no, I'm not a Republican, or at least I don't fall much in line with their way of thinking on most everything else.

I've fucking had it with Bush supporters associating me with terrorists and mass murderers as a debating tactic.

That wasn't my intent, and you should know that. My point was that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations exist specifically because they defy classification in the world of laws and rules that have been established for everyone else. They could exist in Afghanistan virtually unhindered thanks to an inability to deal with them through conventional "legal" channels. So, yes, Joshua, the thinking that "we can't attack Afghanistan because legally they didn't attack us" is probably music to the ears of, say, Osama bin Laden. I'm not saying you're in bed with the man, playing hide the turban. I'm saying that your "legal" approach to foreign policy in the face of illegal action is just the kind of thing OBL relies on.

they've both lied.

that's that. even if you like to redefine the world "lie", they both lied. or misled. or whatever.

all the things they are saying now pre-election cannot predict how they'll act in 2005-2009. politicians turn their backs on their statments all the time. i could care less anymore about what these dickheads are saying. i'm voting based on the issues; voting based on rhetoric will get you nowhere.

i'm not saying that paying attention and arguing about semantics isn't important - people need to be nailed when they get caught with their hands in the vault. its sure makes for amusing comment strings, anyway, and it's definitely important for people in a democratic socieity to feel engaged. if anger makes you feel engaged, fine

when people ask who i'm voting for, i respond that i'm not voting for a *person* - i'm voting on the issues. any person who's political career has led them to the Presidential nomination has some sketchiness in their past. as far as i'm concered they're all dicks.

I'm saying that your "legal" approach to foreign policy in the face of illegal action is just the kind of thing OBL relies on.

Yuh-huh. And that business about trying to codify the right of citizens to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is a big boon to criminals. Likewise that silly tradition of trial by jury.

I was referring to international law and you know it.

And the international laws that deal with waging war, in particular. But, if you think it's fun to wave the Constitution in my face in some sort of taunting, yet totally irrelevant gesture, I guess that's your thing.

Amy nails it, really. This part in particular:

when people ask who i'm voting for, i respond that i'm not voting for a *person* - i'm voting on the issues. any person who's political career has led them to the Presidential nomination has some sketchiness in their past. as far as i'm concered they're all dicks.

These guys don't represent themselves. They represent the interests that get them elected. It was true when Clinton was getting blowjobs and it's true now. Kerry's package of interests is my least favorite in the Democratic party. But I prefer it to Bush's. Simple as that. These attempts to make it about the men (and who lied, or got a blowjob, or did coke), while I often let myself get drawn into them, are totally irrelevant.

Also, I just had my first cup of coffee for the day.

Ryan, you're a lovely man with a nice ass.

See? Coffee's good.

God bless you, Juan Valdez.

I was referring to international law and you know it. ...But, if you think it's fun to wave the Constitution in my face in some sort of taunting, yet totally irrelevant gesture, I guess that's your thing.

Irrelevant, huh?

Okay. So. Ryan.

Do all nations have the right to develop and keep a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? If not, why not?

Ryan, you're a lovely man with a nice ass.

My eyes are burning. Must, find…sink.

My oh my, been a busy day in the comment threads.

Late to the party, I'm already drunk, done a quick dance with some hot chick to bad music with a heavy bass beat and stumbled on to the group of you verbally slapping each other around.

An interesting question, Joshua. Reasonably speaking, yes, nation states that govern themselves should be able to arm themselves and defend their way of life. But what if that way of life is trying to exterminate every other way of life?

And I agree with leblanc as well. My issues are far better met by Kerry. If Bush works for you then that's cool, I'll think you're wrong but that's still cool. The conversation's been interesting in any case!

"Do all nations have the right to develop and keep a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? If not, why not? "

the obvious answer to that is:

the UNITED STATES has the right to develop and stockpile WMD, but no one else is. unless, of course, you're North Korea.

outside of the US and NK - no one else had better even think of it, or we'll kick your ass.

theoretically, any nation should be able to develop whatever they want inside their own borders, as long as it keeps in line with what other nations are doing. for the US to be sitting on a stockpile of WMDs, which everyone in the world knows we are, while starting wars with other people about what they've got behind their borders is probably the most ludicrious part of this whole war.

oh, and i also really like pickles. i wonder if that recipe will ever be made public.

for the US to be sitting on a stockpile of WMDs, which everyone in the world knows we are, while starting wars with other people about what they've got behind their borders is probably the most ludicrious part of this whole war.

see, there's those UN resolutions that were written in response to iraq's invasion of kuwait. yeah, those that spoke to the limitation of iraq's weapon capabilities. ummm, the US doesn't have any resolutions against them. unless you count, or course, ABM, SALT1 or SALT2, which were mutual agreements between nations that all parties are compliant with. it's OK to have WMDs if you do not have a history of genocide, invasion, belligerent relations with national organizations, awarding of terrorism…shall i go on?

Seed:

Genocide, invasion, invasion, invasion, invasion, belligerent relations with international organizations, awarding terrorism...

Shall I go on?

that's really great, joshua, that you can go through your history books and find incidents that are totally unrelated and link them together because they happen to have the same definitions. fan-fucking-tastic.

here's the problem with that thinking: the events you have named, though they do by definition fall in to same categories as named above, happened over a course of, hmmm 200 years (give or take). the events in iraq happened in a time frame of 20ish years, all by the same dictator. i really expected better than that.

that you can go through your history books and find incidents that are totally unrelated and link them together because they happen to have the same definitions.

No history books required.

the events you have named, though they do by definition fall in to same categories as named above, happened over a course of, hmmm 200 years (give or take).

Do you ever say this stuff out loud before you write it down? Just to see what it sounds like? It might be a good idea.

Because the fact that the events I named took place over the course of 200 years of American history doesn't invalidate them in any way. In fact, the consistency of such behavior on the part of the United States would tend to suggest a problem much more systemic and deep-seated than a single dictator. As far as that goes, the difference between the United States and Iraq is that the U.S. has had one ruler for the whole span of its existence: the United States constitution. Whatever may be written in that document, it evidently fails, chronically, to prevent genocide, illegal invasions, or the acquisition of territory through conquest. That the crimes committed by the United States in the past were ordered by groups or individuals who held temporary power in the U.S. is hardly a recommendation; the system of government that allowed those people to come to power is still in place and, in some cases, has undergone no significant modification in light of the abuses of the past. It therefore follows that such things could, quite possibly, happen at some point in the future. Or perhaps they're happening right now.

i really expected better than that.

Yeah. Throw me another one underhand like that. It's a slow day at work.

Yeah. Throw me another one underhand like that. It's a slow day at work.

puh'lease. you're equating the actions of iraq with the actions of the US, or by your convenient thinking france, brittian, spain or any other country that has pursued actions in order to preserve their national interests. sure, depending on the context in which the events are viewed, they may look the same. but the larger picture is very different. your statements have me really confused here. any nation that resorts to a military action is a belligerent nation? the difference between iraq's invasion of kuwait and, since you mentioned it, the bay of pigs invasion are pretty significant. the US wanted to secure a form of gov't we felt was better—we ended up haging them out to dry—but it was never an imperial aquisition, as was the action on kuwait.

as far as the contra affair, or the native americans for that matter, the US as a state has acknowledged that these were incidents that are regrettable. the US not recognizing the ICC vs. iraq not recognizing the UN, hmmm, really, i can't speak to the differences between the two. what i think you're getting at is the fact the UN has authority over iraq, where as the US fails to recognize the authority of the ICC. the US has that luxury.

i think what you're getting at is whether or not it is prudent for the US to spend international capital the way it does. my friend, that is the great debate, do the justification for the actions, either historical or current, out weigh the recourse received because of them? that is really off-topic here, considering ryan's original post, and my wifey wants to drink wine.

and so do i.

you're equating the actions of iraq with the actions of the US, or by your convenient thinking france, brittian, spain or any other country that has pursued actions in order to preserve their national interests.

I'm sorry, did you have a point here? Other than suggesting that using military force to conquer and acquire new territory is okay if it's done in the right "context". Several international tribunals, including at least two big ones that the U.S. served on, have disagreed. The use of military force to acquire territory is referred to as a war of aggression. It's a crime that dozens of people were convicted of at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Some of them were sentenced to death. And the ruling of the courts wasn't that they didn't have a good enough reason for invading. That wasn't even a factor. It was that wars of aggression constituted a crime against humanity. But hey, that's okay— you go ahead and keep trying to dress moral depravity up as political realism. That seems to be all the rage these days.

the difference between iraq's invasion of kuwait and, since you mentioned it, the bay of pigs invasion are pretty significant. the US wanted to secure a form of gov't we felt was better—we ended up haging them out to dry—but it was never an imperial aquisition, as was the action on kuwait.

Um. No.

The Bay of Pigs invasion was an attempt to secure a form of government that would allow U.S. corporations to reassert their absolute dominion over Cuban agricultural and industrial production, and to maintain U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere under the paper-thin cover of the Monroe Doctrine.

The United States often intervenes in Latin American countries in order to maintain imperial control over their governments under the auspices of the Monroe Doctrine. These interventions have very occasionally involved the use of U.S. troops— since 1900, the United States has invaded Cuba five times, Honduras four times, Panama four times, the Dominican Republic twice, Haiti twice, Nicaragua twice, and Grenada once. USMC General Smedley Butler, who stopped a big-business coup against FDR in 1934, had this to say about his years of military service in the Western Hemisphere in 1931:

I spent 33 years and 4 months In active service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from a second lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it…

Thus I, helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…

Obviously tactics have changed since then —we now do most of our muscle work through the IMF and the World Bank— but U.S. conduct in Latin America is still flatly imperialistic.

i think what you're getting at is whether or not it is prudent for the US to spend international capital the way it does.

That's one way of putting it. Another way of saying it would be, "You know, the actions of the U.S. abroad often contradict stated U.S. foreign policy and certainly contradict U.S. domestic policy. For example, the U.S. constitution makes no provision for the U.S. federal government to maintain a protectorate or a commonwealth in Puerto Rico (or, formerly, in Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii). But also, the U.S. rhetoric about independence and self-determination wears very thin the face of blatant U.S. global imperialism and unilateralism. In either case, the U.S. is clearly applying a double standard to other nations with regard to the issue of sovereignty. This makes the U.S., at best, a benevolent dictator —but still a dictator, and only intermittently benevolent— hiding behind the hollow rhetoric of liberty."

You know those polls you keep hearing about? Like the one by Time Europe, with 706,842 hits, that found that 86.9% of respondents thought that the U.S. posed a more serious threat to world peace in 2003 than either North Korea or Iraq? Does it strike you at all that the rest of the world might be able to see something from outside our borders that you might be having some trouble coming to terms with yourself?

Please check some relevant pages dedicated to blackjack blackjack http://www.randppro-cuts.com/blackjack.html http://www.randppro-cuts.com/blackjack.html gambling gambling http://www.randppro-cuts.com/gambling.html http://www.randppro-cuts.com/gambling.html roulette roulette http://www.randppro-cuts.com/roulette.html http://www.randppro-cuts.com/roulette.html free slots free slots http://www.randppro-cuts.com/free-slots.html http://www.randppro-cuts.com/free-slots.html ... Thanks!!!