Vote on Palestinian Statehood Looms

[Coito ergo sum]

Judging from the suspension of Aos si or whatever his name was, who was in no way any worse than seth when it comes to personal attacks, I would guess seth's suspension is just around the corner.

Oh, I think AOS Si took it to a heightened level. He would make scathing and vulgar attacks on other members, then he'd be warned about them, and then he would essentially tell the moderators to fuck off and do it again while turning up the volume. Now and again, a lot of folks can get a little saucy in their posts. Sometimes it's tit for tat, and then when warned the participants turn down the heat. In AOS Si's case, he slurred and slandered without apology, and in direct insubordination to moderator warnings.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.

It's not just me then. I don't mind debating people of opposite views, and if it's one point at a time, it can be entertaining.
Coito just produces a sheer deluge of garbage, which would take more time than is worth it to correct. And you know that if you did, each point would get another deluge of garbage in reply.
It's a fast breeding chain reaction of shite.

Garbage refuted only with the ever-convincing argument, "America! FUCK YEAH!"

I hear you folks suggesting that what I've posted is just "garbage." If it is, just pick a point that you think is the most garbage-esque and let's talk about it. Refute what I've said.

Even President Obama has lauded the success of Iraq, and we all agree that nobody would choose to go back to 2002 in Iraq. It's better now, right? Better than under Hussein?

Barack Obama said the surge of American forces in Iraq has ``succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,'' though Iraqis still haven't done enough to take responsibility for their country.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... PSq3q1shRI (September, 2008).

Joe Biden as Vice President:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... palin.html (February, 2010).

“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].

“The government that is the interim government now — a little like our interregnum period between November and January — is actually functioning in terms of security,” he said. “I am hopeful — I am confident — that in the relatively near term, they’re going to be able to work out an agreement on ... the new government.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39372.html (July, 2010)

I mean - Iraq has ultimately been a success. It is a remarkable success, so far. Whether it has been a success is, of course, a different question than the justification for starting the process in 2003 to begin with. One can rationally oppose the war having been started, and also acknowledge that ultimately it has been a success.

[pErvinalia]

I hear you folks suggesting that what I've posted is just "garbage." If it is, just pick a point that you think is the most garbage-esque and let's talk about it. Refute what I've said.

Even President Obama has lauded the success of Iraq, and we all agree that nobody would choose to go back to 2002 in Iraq.

No, we don't "all agree", and I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to even suggest it.

It's better now, right? Better than under Hussein?

How so? The place is terrorism central. Anywhere from 10's of thousands to hundreds of thousands to a million citizens have lost there lives as a consequence of our action. Is it better for these people? What about the Sunni's who have been persecuted and targeted by terrorism for the last 8 odd years?

Barack Obama said the surge of American forces in Iraq has ``succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,'' though Iraqis still haven't done enough to take responsibility for their country.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... PSq3q1shRI (September, 2008).

Joe Biden as Vice President:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... palin.html (February, 2010).

“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].

“The government that is the interim government now — a little like our interregnum period between November and January — is actually functioning in terms of security,” he said. “I am hopeful — I am confident — that in the relatively near term, they’re going to be able to work out an agreement on ... the new government.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39372.html (July, 2010)

Seriously? What do you expect the politicians to say?

[Coito ergo sum]

I hear you folks suggesting that what I've posted is just "garbage." If it is, just pick a point that you think is the most garbage-esque and let's talk about it. Refute what I've said.

Even President Obama has lauded the success of Iraq, and we all agree that nobody would choose to go back to 2002 in Iraq.

No, we don't "all agree", and I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to even suggest it.

That was the impression I got from our discussion. I apologize, and withdraw my assertion that we all agree. I thought we all agreed on that, but we apparently do not. May I assume that you do, in fact, think that Iraq was better off in 2002 under the totalitarian rule of Saddam Hussein, and that if you had your way, they would still be under that yoke?

If you think it would be preferable that we go back to 2002 Iraq, then that's your position. I haven't heard you say it, yet. But, the fact that you said "no we don't all agree that nobody would choose to go back to 2002 in Iraq" seems to imply it.

It's better now, right? Better than under Hussein?

How so? The place is terrorism central.

You're thinking "pre-surge." The surge was successful, and Iraq is not "terrorism central." Show the evidence of reports of rampant terrorism in Iraq now. Sure, there are incidents here and there, but by and large, the country is becoming a Parliamentary republic.

Anywhere from 10's of thousands to hundreds of thousands to a million citizens have lost there lives as a consequence of our action. Is it better for these people? What about the Sunni's who have been persecuted and targeted by terrorism for the last 8 odd years?

How many 100s of thousands to a million citizens lost their lives in the years prior to 2003? How many would have continued to be lost after 2003 with a maniacal Hussein in power, whether Saddam, Uday or Qusay.

I don't agree with your numbers, anyway. This whole "hundreds of thousands to a million citizens" who lost their lives "as a consequence" of our action is not a good number. Rather than accept the bald statement - I would like to know your basis for those figures.

Barack Obama said the surge of American forces in Iraq has ``succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,'' though Iraqis still haven't done enough to take responsibility for their country.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... PSq3q1shRI (September, 2008).

Joe Biden as Vice President:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... palin.html (February, 2010).

“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].

“The government that is the interim government now — a little like our interregnum period between November and January — is actually functioning in terms of security,” he said. “I am hopeful — I am confident — that in the relatively near term, they’re going to be able to work out an agreement on ... the new government.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39372.html (July, 2010)

Seriously? What do you expect the politicians to say?

I would expect those that opposed George Bush, and those that opposed the Iraq War to begin with, to blame George Bush for its horrid state of affairs. If, however, the state of affairs is, in fact, pretty good and improving, I would expect them to try to take some credit for it. I would expect them to say, if the news was bad, to blame it on Bush. I would expect them to say, if the news was good, that they did a great job in the last couple of years and look how well things are going, aren't we awesome, and oh yeah, Bush deserves a little bit of credit too. And, of course, the latter is what they did.

[sandinista]

One side is of the view that ONLY those specific individuals who planned or carried out the 9/11/01 events ought to have been subject to the response to it. The other side generally is of the view that not only those specific individuals, but also any international terrorist organization of global reach and those States that harbor and support state sponsors of international terrorism (particularly if they are totalitarian regimes with designs on catastrophic weapons and proliferation and have a demonstrated habit of aggression).

Yes, only those involved should have been held responsible. Harboring terrorists? The US harbors terrorists so I don't even know what to make of that statement. Bomb the US? The US also participates in state terrorism. This is where the side you are explaining falls to bits.

the larger, overarching problem (global terrorism) to not be addressed until they too commit a similar attack. The narrow response would also allow States who are harborers and sponsors of global terrorism to escape any repercussions for that involvement.

Again, the larger problem is due to many reasons and can be addressed in many different ways. If the US got OUT of the middle east AND stopped participating in terrorist activities, terrorism on the planet would be reduced greatly. Again, the US harbors terrorists as well. http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?st ... 27/5994962

I mean - Iraq has ultimately been a success. It is a remarkable success,

Lunacy. Tell that to the over a million people dead because of the invasion, or the people who lost their homes or entire cities. To the people who have to live with a foreign occupation. What a calous thing to say. I know, I know..."ooohhhh but Hussain was a bad man etc etc". Fair enough, but there are many many bad men (US presidents included) removing them by a decade long invasion/occupation is not the answer. The well doing of the Iraqi population was never the concern of the US government. Nothing but propaganda.

Seriously? What do you expect the politicians to say?

X2

No, we don't "all agree", and I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to even suggest it.

No, "we" don't all agree. Extremely arrogant thing to say. "even President Obama has lauded the success of Iraq" Even Obama!!!! What does that even mean, is that supposed to impress me...or anyone?

Oh, I think AOS Si took it to a heightened level.

I would disagree, seth is just as bad. Every one of his posts is full of name calling and abuse.

[Coito ergo sum]

One side is of the view that ONLY those specific individuals who planned or carried out the 9/11/01 events ought to have been subject to the response to it. The other side generally is of the view that not only those specific individuals, but also any international terrorist organization of global reach and those States that harbor and support state sponsors of international terrorism (particularly if they are totalitarian regimes with designs on catastrophic weapons and proliferation and have a demonstrated habit of aggression).

Yes, only those involved should have been held responsible. Harboring terrorists? The US harbors terrorists so I don't even know what to make of that statement. Bomb the US? The US also participates in state terrorism. This is where the side you are explaining falls to bits.

O.k., again, that's the key distinction. Was the war about holding people responsible for crimes, or waging war against global terrorist organizations and their State Sponsors. You think the former. Fair enough.

Except that, the US doesn't harbor terrorists, and the US wouldn't attack itself. We're talking about the terrorists that attack the US and its allies.

the larger, overarching problem (global terrorism) to not be addressed until they too commit a similar attack. The narrow response would also allow States who are harborers and sponsors of global terrorism to escape any repercussions for that involvement.

Again, the larger problem is due to many reasons and can be addressed in many different ways. If the US got OUT of the middle east AND stopped participating in terrorist activities, terrorism on the planet would be reduced greatly. Again, the US harbors terrorists as well. http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?st ... 27/5994962

The US doesn't have the ability to "get out" of the middle east any more than the middle east is able to "get out" of the US. We are interconnected economically. Moreover, there isn't any evidence that "terrorism on the planet would be reduced greatly," given the evident expansion and aggression of Islamic forces around the world.

In fact, if the US "got out" (cut economic ties?) to the Islamic world, it would not only be detrimental to the US, but it would ruin the Islamic world, and spiral the economies of Islamic countries relying quite a bit on trade with the US into economic depressions.

I mean - Iraq has ultimately been a success. It is a remarkable success,

Lunacy. Tell that to the over a million people dead because of the invasion,

False. Once again, this "million dead" figure just basically ascribes any death for any reason to the invasion. It's silly and not true.

or the people who lost their homes or entire cities. To the people who have to live with a foreign occupation. What a calous thing to say. I know, I know..."ooohhhh but Hussain was a bad man etc etc".

Wasn't he? What of the hundreds of thousands of people who died directly because of him and his secret police and military?

Fair enough, but there are many many bad men (US presidents included) removing them by a decade long invasion/occupation is not the answer. The well doing of the Iraqi population was never the concern of the US government. Nothing but propaganda.

Creating a stable democracy in the middle east would be of great benefit to the US, and therefore the wellbeing of Iraq is consistent in that respect with US interests.

Seriously? What do you expect the politicians to say?

X2

I answered that above. I would expect them, if matters were not going well, to distance themselves from it, and simply blame Bush. Obama, by not changing a single thing about the US Iraq policy when he took office, set himself up for just that. If it went bad, he would say "we just continued the Bush policy, and so it went south...because of Bush..." However, if it succeeds, he can claim it as HIS success, and then just throw a bone to Bush in terms of an, "oh, yeah, and Bush deserves some credit too." They did the latter.

No, we don't "all agree", and I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to even suggest it.

No, "we" don't all agree. Extremely arrogant thing to say. "even President Obama has lauded the success of Iraq" Even Obama!!!! What does that even mean, is that supposed to impress me...or anyone?

Why skip over my response to that? I explained what that meant in my last post, and you just deleted my explanation. In short, because Obama is Bush's political opponent, and would only be too happy to blame something more on Bush.

Oh, I think AOS Si took it to a heightened level.

I would disagree, seth is just as bad. Every one of his posts is full of name calling and abuse.

Report them. I'm sure he'll be warned, as they have. AOS Si, IMHO, became rabidly vitriolic and wouldn't stop when asked to stop. Most everyone can get heated, but usually there is a warning and if the person drops it, then life goes on. AOS didn't drop it.

[sandinista]

the US doesn't harbor terrorists,

except that...yes it does.

We're talking about the terrorists that attack the US and its allies.

Of course, a "terrorist" is only someone or some organization that attacks the US. I know that's what you think, fair enough. I disagree.

The US doesn't have the ability to "get out" of the middle east any more than the middle east is able to "get out" of the US.

How many middle eastern military bases are spread out throughout the US?

In fact, if the US "got out" (cut economic ties?)

Not what I am talking about.

False. Once again, this "million dead" figure just basically ascribes any death for any reason to the invasion. It's silly and not true.

It is True. But, anyway, facts aren't really your strong point . What number would you attribute to the invasion? 100,000? 50,000? These are humans we are talking about remember.

Wasn't he? What of the hundreds of thousands of people who died directly because of him and his secret police and military?

Thousands, Millions die all over the planet because of corrupt leaders...many of whom have been supported by the US for decades. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Once again, the saftey and security of the citizens of Iraq have never and were never a concern for the US military industrial complex.

Obama is Bush's political opponent

In TV land.

Report them. I'm sure he'll be warned, as they have. AOS Si, IMHO, became rabidly vitriolic and wouldn't stop when asked to stop. Most everyone can get heated, but usually there is a warning and if the person drops it, then life goes on. AOS didn't drop it.

Not a big "reporter". Have a couple of times but tend not to. I have yet to see seth "drop" anything. Really though, I don't care that much, just want some kind of consistency with the rules.

[Coito ergo sum]

the US doesn't harbor terrorists,

except that...yes it does.

No. Your facts are incorrect. And, even if we did "harbor terrorists" as your article claimed, recall that the US was interested, in the war on terrorism, in terrorist organizations of global reach and which are a threat to the US. The fact that the US protected a Cuban or two has no bearing on that.

We're talking about the terrorists that attack the US and its allies.

Of course, a "terrorist" is only someone or some organization that attacks the US. I know that's what you think, fair enough. I disagree.

No, a terrorist can be someone who attacks something other than the US, but a terrorist that we're concerned most about is one that attacks the US or its allies. So, if you're so worried about people putting words in your mouth, have the fucking god damn courtesy not to do it to others. Of course terrorists can attack things other than the US, but that doesn't mean the US has to fight every terrorist, or none at all. We are entitled as a nation to bother most about the ones that fucking attack us, or are in league with those that attack or desire to attack us.

The US doesn't have the ability to "get out" of the middle east any more than the middle east is able to "get out" of the US.

How many middle eastern military bases are spread out throughout the US?

The last time I checked, Al Qaeta was not upset because we have a base in Qatar. They were upset because we support Israel, and our dirty infidel feet trod Saudi soil in the UN endorsed Kuwait war.

In fact, if the US "got out" (cut economic ties?)

Not what I am talking about.

Sounded like it.

False. Once again, this "million dead" figure just basically ascribes any death for any reason to the invasion. It's silly and not true.

It is True.

Not. Evidence? Prove it.

But, anyway, facts aren't really your strong point .

Inventing them is yours.

What number would you attribute to the invasion? 100,000? 50,000? These are humans we are talking about remember.

You first. How many would attribute to Saddam Hussein?

Wasn't he? What of the hundreds of thousands of people who died directly because of him and his secret police and military?

Thousands, Millions die all over the planet because of corrupt leaders...

That's a shame. When we get the chance, we ought to stop it.

many of whom have been supported by the US for decades.

Not Iraq.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

You brought it up.

Once again, the saftey and security of the citizens of Iraq have never and were never a concern for the US military industrial complex.

Since the stability and democracy in Iraq has become in line with US interests, yes, it is a concern. If the US really wanted to massacre the Iraqi people, it had many chances to do so. We've instead waged what, in the grand scheme of warfare, compared to any other wars, is a very careful war, designed to minimize civilian casualties.

Obama is Bush's political opponent

In TV land.

Ah, here we go with your conspiracy theory. The amorphous and shadowy "They" are lurking ...pulling the strings...

[sandinista]

Ah, here we go with your conspiracy theory. The amorphous and shadowy "They" are lurking ...pulling the strings...

Here is the reason I won't bother with the rest of your post. To say/think that it is a "conspiracy theory" that the US government is run by corporate power is naive at best and downright ignorant or blind at worst. If you can't even see that, there is no point discussing foreign policy with you at all, it won't make any sense to you. Go on believing you have "democracy", "freedom", separation of church and state, and free speech unicorns and a utopian paradise. "They"... are ..."free"...

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah, here we go with your conspiracy theory. The amorphous and shadowy "They" are lurking ...pulling the strings...

Here is the reason I won't bother with the rest of your post. To say/think that it is a "conspiracy theory" that the US government is run by corporate power is naive at best and downright ignorant or blind at worst. If you can't even see that, there is no point discussing foreign policy with you at all, it won't make any sense to you.

Influenced by corporations, sure. Absolutely.

However, a reference to some generalized "corporate power" is just nonsense conspiracy theorizing where "They" is "corporate power." Tell us who is in control, or your best guess. The board of General Electric? Google? Ben & Jerry's? McDonalds? Or, do they hold an annual meeting with the Bildeberg Group, the CFR and the Illuminati, and send a collective memo to their minions in Washington?

I got some stuff you gotta read, man...the corporations are foolin' ya into buyin' their stuff and turnin' ya into little Eichmanns....[toke] [inhale] [hold]...yeah man, the corporations man...the corporations....

Wouldn't it be great if instead, we just lived in groups together and shared resources....you know where like [toke] [inhale] [hold] ...like.. where each person contributes to the community, and like, some people grow the food, and some other people sell it, and like different people do different services.... [toke] [inhale] [hold]...

Then there'd be no "corporations." LOL

[sandinista]

Ah, here we go with your conspiracy theory. The amorphous and shadowy "They" are lurking ...pulling the strings...

Here is the reason I won't bother with the rest of your post. To say/think that it is a "conspiracy theory" that the US government is run by corporate power is naive at best and downright ignorant or blind at worst. If you can't even see that, there is no point discussing foreign policy with you at all, it won't make any sense to you.

Influenced by corporations, sure. Absolutely.

However, a reference to some generalized "corporate power" is just nonsense conspiracy theorizing where "They" is "corporate power." Tell us who is in control, or your best guess. The board of General Electric? Google? Ben & Jerry's? McDonalds? Or, do they hold an annual meeting with the Bildeberg Group, the CFR and the Illuminati, and send a collective memo to their minions in Washington?

I got some stuff you gotta read, man...the corporations are foolin' ya into buyin' their stuff and turnin' ya into little Eichmanns....[toke] [inhale] [hold]...yeah man, the corporations man...the corporations....

Wouldn't it be great if instead, we just lived in groups together and shared resources....you know where like [toke] [inhale] [hold] ...like.. where each person contributes to the community, and like, some people grow the food, and some other people sell it, and like different people do different services.... [toke] [inhale] [hold]...

Then there'd be no "corporations." LOL

"Influenced?" fucking understatement of the year. Fuck.

Dude man, check out these books, the fucking US is number one man...gulp gulp, hold on, let me grab the keys to my 4x4 and a case of fuckin Bud dude. Yah, fuck yah America fucking rules man...yea yea, fuck the terrorists that hate our freedom....gulp gulp...wouldn't it be great if corporations could shake off government regulations? Fuck yah man...gulp gulp...fuck those commie pricks. USA USA USA!!!

[Coito ergo sum]

"Influenced?" fucking understatement of the year. Fuck.

Evidence? What's your evidence?

Dude man, check out these books, the fucking US is number one man...

I never said the US was number one. I think it's number 3, maybe 3 1/2.

gulp gulp, hold on, let me grab the keys to my 4x4 and a case of fuckin Bud dude.

I don't have a 4x4, but when I lived in a colder clime, well, a 4x4 really came in handy. I could get down the street in the winter time. I like beer, though. But, if Budweiser is one of the corporations controlling the US, then I guess Brazil in control of the US. Bud is owned by a mostly Brazilian company (or a Brazilian-Belgian conglomerate). So, now our foreign policy will reflect Belgian/Brazilian corporate power, I guess.

Yah, fuck yah America fucking rules man...yea yea, fuck the terrorists that hate our freedom....gulp gulp...wouldn't it be great if corporations could shake off government regulations? Fuck yah man...gulp gulp...fuck those commie pricks. USA USA USA!!!

I knew the "America Fuck Yea!" argument would come out.

You don't even know what the "corporate power" is, do you? It's just the amorphous "They." Some shadowy group of controlling forces that you call "corporate power" so you can pretend you even have a clue what you're talking about. But, no matter how many times you're asked, you don't even try to name which corporations are involved. It's just "The Corporations" or "Corporate Power."

[sandinista]

I knew the "America Fuck Yea!" argument would come out.

just like I knew the "conspiracy theory" "argument" would come out.

[Coito ergo sum]

I knew the "America Fuck Yea!" argument would come out.

just like I knew the "conspiracy theory" "argument" would come out.

Of course, I have never said "America fuck yea" or, "America is number one" or "America is always right" or anything of the kind.

You HAVE in fact said "America is run by 'corporate power'" and have steadfastly refused to define at all what that means. You just thing THEY - The Corporations - control it all.

Which corporations? Well, the answer to that is that I either just don't get it, or I think America is awesome, fuck yeah. Right?

So, come on. Corporate power - what is it? GE? Google? Ford? Chrysler? Ben & Jerry's? The Original Ray's Pizza, Inc.? Checker Cab? Some combination?

That's why my recognition of the INFLUENCE of corporations is the accurate statement, and not your "corporate power" controls America. If it controlled America, then we'd not have an EPA and the auto companies would never have been required, against their wishes, to build mandatory seat belts and other safety systems into vehicles. Apparently, it's not the auto companies that control the US. Must be some other corporations...

[sandinista]

Of course, I have never said "America fuck yea" or, "America is number one" or "America is always right" or anything of the kind.

Of course, I have never been a "conspiracy theorist"...whatever the fuck that is. Kind of like stating conspiracies don't exist. lala land thinking.

You want corporate names? Wall Street, the pharmaceutical lobbies, the oil lobbies, they run your government. It's not a big secret, not a conspiracy, not even really hidden unless you're willingly blind.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsWti3m ... dded#at=21[/youtube]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Contr ... tions.html

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MoneyGame.html