Black Dog

And you don't even have any evidence. Or an opinion. In fact, what are you bringing to the table, besides juvenile insults?

Yeah, well, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. At least he's not trolling for the lurid details of gay sex. Yet.

Actually, it does mean they lied. And no, not everybody believed it. Office of Special Plans exposed

The point apologists like Dookie seem to miss is that it was not "bad intelligence". The U.S. administration, through the Office of Special Plans, sifted through the intelligence on Iraq and hand-picked information upon which to build the case for war, no matter how far-fetched the claim or unreliable the source. So to suggest the "bad intelligence" was some sort of honest mistake is disingeneuous at best. The war against Iraq was a foregone conclusion as soon as Bush took office. The "intelligence" was merely to establish the pretext.

WTF?

For heaven's sake: don't feed the trolls. Let this thread die.

Charming thread.

You know, MB, folks like you give the left a bad name. it seems for those of us who try to make their case against the neoconservative hegemony based on real events and concrete policy, there's some wingnut who todddles along spouting silly conspiracies, which really only serves to undermine whatever rational arguments the "left" might have and damages the credibility of the progressive movement as a whole. Comparing Bush to Hitler is not based on reality. It is, by your own admission, based on what you "think" Bush might, possibly do if, theoretically, he aquires the power to do so. Hardly a solid foundation upon which to base your arguments. Now you could just as easily use some of your same points (such as the dodgy elections, Patriot Act, torture of detainees, Iraq etc etc.) to make a case as to why Bush is a bad leader and bad president. But to go off and claim the man is as bad or worse than Hitler is utterly ridiculous. It not only damages the credence of your other points, it makes you look like a sterotypical left-wing whacko, which hurts us all.

Yawn. While the NDP gains are surely a good thing. this election again emphasizes the need for electoral reform. Consider this: the Tories' shar eof the popular vote plummeted to 47 per cent, yet they have 73 per cent of the seats. Gotta love FPTP. Not.

Oh, then y'all are in good company with places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt etc.: real bastions of enlightenment. One could apply the same logic to make a case for why it was wrong to depose the Taliban: sure they were backwards and intolerant, but we should just respect and tolerate that!

Nope. It's pretty simple: characterizing someone whose policies you disagree with as "evil" is ridiculous. It's ridiculous when Bush does it and it's ridiculous to do it to Bush. Why not stick to arguing real points- like why occupying Iraq was and is a bad idea, or why Bush's economic policies are failures or even why the decaying wall between church and state in America is a dangerous trend- instead of such frothy and ambiguous terms liek "evil".

Terms like "evil" are philisophical abstractions and thus, not really helpful in the context of a political discussion. Defining someone as "evil" is problematic as it serves to limit the scope of the debate to bianry terms like "good/evil". As well, by calling George Bush ecvil and comparing him to the 20th centurie's personofication of evil, Adolph Hitler, you remove the context from his actions. It's easy to say "Bush is evil" but more difficult to acknowledge the real reasons behind his policy decisions. However, that analysis is critical both to understand why thing shappen and how to counter them. I think the invalidity of the concept of evil as a rhetorical device is demonstrated by its overuse among neoconservatives. Leave the bogus definitions of evil for Bush and his crowd. Stick with the real world.

That's still conservative. IBC is doing good work, but I think they are limited because they only use reported civilian deaths. Given nature of the insurgency and the predilication of U.S. forces for inflating hostile body counts (in other words, dead Iraqis are posthumously dubbed "insurgents" and thus, would not be counted), I expect the total is far higher. If not 100,000, then at least half that. Sadly, we'll never know for sure.

Yes, how dare those nasty insurgents fight the occupiers from their own towns and cities. Those bounders should come out in the open and fight like gentlemen, wot? I mean, this guerrilla war business is hardly cricket eh, old bean?

I support the troops inasmuch as I think they should return home. So long as they are the insturments of a colonial occupation and imperialist foreign policy, I believe they are legitimate targets.

I disagree: seen any photos from Fallujah lately. Says you. Any evidence to back this up?

Yes. I think I've posted this elsewhere, but this article has a summary of the Lancet report's methodology and an evaluation.

100,000 dead Iraqis: should we believe it? Immediate military withdrawl. There's simply no way the current situation can be salvaged. Here's a fascionating article by Martin van Creveld, authour of The Transformation of War, the definitive book on what's become known as Fourth Genration warfare. Here he looks at how the lessons of Vietnam (as viewed through the lense of Israeli general and war correspondant Moshe Dyan) ar ebeing ignored in Iraq today.

So basically, kimmy, Parrish was completely off the radar for America until this week. (BTW, dude: the Freep? Couldn't you have found a real news source?)

The same military commanders who were overruled by the civilians at the Pentagon when they said that they didn't have enough troops to pacify Iraq? You have to remember, the neocon approach to foreign policy is largely faith-based: they accept a certain doctrine (remember: "Americans will be greeted in Baghdad with flowers") and will brook no dissent from infidels who know better.

Everybody now: Man those new clothes the Emperor is wearing sure are nice. For all the caterwauling from the America first factions, I've yet to see any evidence that parrish's comments ever even registered south of th eborder, let alone had any impact. If you want to blame somebody for the chill in Canada U.S. relations, look to Washington and its protectionist trade policies. That's quite a dexterous maneuver. Did you have to have some ribs removed to pull that off?

Bush's policies impact Canadians far more than Putin's. Also: I think you're full of it. Remember when Suharto (the vicious dictator the west loved to, well, love) came to Vancouver and was met with mass protests, which were met with pepper spray. Putin has no friends among the left, but don't let that keep you from abusing your favorite strawman. Because the missile sheild (if it worked) would give the U .S. first strike capability while minimizing the danger of reprisals. Russia's new program is to neutralize that advantage. As for the rest, I expect you could say the same of teh U.S.A: why doe sthe U.S. feel the need to pur billions into developing a missile sheild while millions of its people lack quality healthcare and education and while its underequipped regular forces are bogged down in Iraq? You need a new schtick.

Oh no! What are right wingers going to do now that their favorite myth has been officially discredited? Find new lies to peddle, I guess... I think the news media is a good way to guage the zeitgeist. From Fox News' overtly partisan hackery to the prevelance of "soft" news and other "infotainment", it's clear we live in stupid times.

I expect Parrish will become something of a folk-hero now. Imagine! An elected official stating a opinion and not kowtowing to the party line! The very nerve! + I'd like to think being an elected official doesn't preempt free speech. I find it telling that Martin only acted after he was criticized personally. The Bush bashing was fine, but if there's one thing the egomaniacal Martin can't stand, its criticism. Props to Parrish for continuingly calling it like it is.

A lot of us who are oppossed to the U.S.'s missile defense sheild cited concerns that the sheild would launch a renewed arms race. It seems we're being proven right. Unfortunately.