Black Dog

Those bastards! Where do they get the idea that all men are created equal? Oh, wait... And 40 years ago it was "unnatural", "wrong and twisted" for person's with differnt coloured skin to marry. Times change. I've said it before: heteros have done a excellent job of undermining marriage on their own, thank you very much. I'm not sure how more people wanting to get married could hurt it. What the hell are you talking about? Rights aren't for governments or the public to hand out as they see fit. They're universal and unalienable. Omigod! A nipple! It's the end of the world! And yet... Just like when them uppity women hijacked the vote and them Negros hijacked their freedom from slavery, eh? So sawwy, but an amendment to the constitution outlawing gay marriage woukld trample over quite a number of existing amendments such as: Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And for those of you with a sense of humour: Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry

Paugh. Bushy is a tool, pure and simple. His lack of intelligence or, indeed, independent thought makes him the ideal president for the special interest groups represented by the likes of Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al. Yeah, and seperation of church and state be damned. After all, it's not like that's written down anywhere.... This is, bar none, the scariest, most disturbing thing I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). God forbid a leader posess intellect, perspective, compassion: nosirree, give us a smirking simpelton who can provide simple solutions to complex problems anyday.

Dag. A guy steps away for a while, and comes back to find the same old bunch going round the same old mulberry bush. Not true. F'instance, of western, industrial nations, the U.S.A has the highest number of believer. 'course it also has the largest number of folks who believe we've been visisted by space aliens, so there you go. Yeah because I'm sure a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" would have saved North America's indigineous peoples from small pox and the Colt Peacemaker.

No, but using a position of priviledge to avoid serving one's country , then leading the same nation to war and THEN crassly using the same soldiers who are dying as re-election props screams "coward" Also, i find the right's willingness to shrug off Bush's cushy service while blowing gaskets over the service record of Clinton to be a telling sign of the hypocricy inherent on the right. Aren't you tired of whipping that straw man yet? Where were you and your vile ilk? No doubt shrugging Sadddam's heinous crimes off as necessary evils in the fight against communism or islamism or whatever other ism you use to justify the cynical realpolitik games played by your nation in the past and to this day. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order. And they're right. Zoom in under a veil of secrecy, get your photo ops (those'll loook nice on the tube in the runup to next November) and get the hell out. That's Bush's M.O.

Yeah: courage from the man who hid behind his daddy's connections to secure a plum spot in the ANG to avoid serving his country in Vietnam, and who went AWOL even from that cushy post. A man who has the unmitigated gall to then drape himself in the trappings of a warrior while safe at home. Who will zip into Iraq and out again (and will, no doubt, be kept as far away from any potential danger as possible) for photo-ops and political points, even as soldiers and Iraqis continue to die. Courage from the chickenhawk administration? Puh-leeze.

KK, your criticisms of the article I linked too are so thin as to be laughable. I imagine you would say the same of any article, no matter how detailed or nuanced, simply becaus eit doesn't fit your preconcieved notion of the truth. It's a common phenomenon, really. It's known as cognitive dissonance. Can you indicate anything to say it is not an article from May 15, 2003? Also: "hoodwinked" implies that the press were fooled, whereas anyone with a rudimentary understanding of PR tactics and media management could tell you that the conditions imposed by the U.S. military during Gulf War 2 were such that the media had access to precious little linformation beyond teh official line. That the real story of Jessica Lynch emerged at all is a testament to the few media outlets and journalists still concerned with getting to the truth. Come back to me when you have some legitimate concerns with the article, rather than merely bleating "bias!" because of the source.

And yet you don't bother countering a single point. typical neocon: why argue with the issues when you can head straight for the personal attacks. I can't figure out, dispite all the dots in front of your face, why the lieks of you are incapable of connecting them. When was the last time you picked up a newspaper? This stuff is out there, but whenever ity appears, you and yours whine, cry and haul out the old "liberal media bias" chestnut. That said, just because it ain't getting reported, doesn't mean it's not happening. Unemployment not budging, Taliban regaining strength, Saddam and Osama still at large. Oh and there were no terroist attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9-11 either, so what's your point.

How so? First, U.S. forces are already stretched thin in the area, so attacking Iran would essentially open up a third front in the "war on terror". Second, invading Iran would not exactly do much for winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world. Capturing bin Laden would no doubt be a very good thing as he is a criminal that needs to be brought to justice. However, starting yet another war would only make a bad situation worse.

What a load of bullshit. The Lynch story was by-the-numbers propaganda by the Bush admin and DoD, pure and simple. Hell, even the anti-feminist diatribe you link too says as much: the issue of women in frontline combat is a sidebar, with little bearing on the actual debate. However I will say that I finid it strange that some people have reservations about sending women into situations where they could be raped have no similar qualms about sending young men into situations where they can be maimed or killed in horrific fashion. The doctors who treated her have denied any such occurrance. And he wouldn't have anything to gain from all this himself, now would he? KK, this war was themost carefully managed media event in history. Access to information was more tightly controlled than ever. the media had to take what they were given. Read this.

If the U.S wants to make the case for amending international law (for example, the UN Charter, which the U.S. is a signatory and which prohibits uinilateral acts of aggression such as the one perpatrated by teh Anglo-American alliance against Iraq) they should work to amend it in the proper forum, not simply run roghshod over it in a stunning (and precendent-setting) display of arrogance. Both Iraq and the United States viloated the '91 ceasefire repeatedly and Saddamw as never demonstrated to be a threat to the U.S's national security, nor has a link between Saddam and Al Q'aeda been conclusively demonstrated. So spare me your propagandizing.

And who can forget "liberation" "Coalition of the Willing" and the Big One: "Weapons of Mass destruction". Pay attention. most major media outlets ran with the "official version" until the truth started coming out from intervioews with the Iraqis doctors.

Whatever. Where were you? Justifying the West's support for some of these bastards by using the fallacious logic that horrible crimes against humanity were necessary to prevent theoretical crimes against humanity. So you and all like you who harp on the "left" for not standing up to tyrants in the past (a bullshit argument anyway given the tireless work of groups like Amnesty International, human Rights watch et al) should pull your heads out of your asses and take a long hard look at your own blatant hypocricy and that of the states you defend.

What a steaming pile of crap. Setting aside the baseless ad hominem that opens Taheri's tirade, I find the conservative tendancy to look for hobgoblins under every bed to be somewhat comical. Grassroots organizing is something the conservative mind simply cannot grasp. First, nice way to duck the question. Let me refesh your memory: So, where were YOU? A quote that positively reeks of fabrication (for example, no name is given, yet the individual is still cited as a spokesperson). Indeed the whole article is a mish-mash of distortions and opinion masquerading as fact. In other words: rubbish. As I pointed out already by posting the remainder of the poll mentioned by Wente, there's no iraqi consensus on the invasion/occupation.

Care to cite the reference to 400,000? Current reports have the number between 150,000 and 100,000. Which ain't too shabby. Funny thing about polls. It's all in how you spin the results. Spread the poll over the whole country and you get a different story... Wente's grown increasingly shrill and irrational since 9-11 and this piece is just another example. For example, I'd like to ask where the concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people was on the right prior to the run up to war? It certainly wasn't there when Doanld Rumsfeld was pressing the flesh with saddam on the same day he gassed the Kurds. It certainly wasn't evident in the clumsy sanctions regime that crippled everyday Iraqis while allowing Sadam to consolodate his grip. No, you can easily find anti-war people who have long stood up for the plight of the Iraqis. Finding them on the other side will take some doing.

Of course not...

Time will tell, but given the massive(untendered) reconsruction contracts being handed out to administration cronies, the slow pace of the turnover in power (still no constitution) That may be the way you view it, but if you read the content of the posts I was responiding too, the comparasons become apparrent. The Phillipines. Beats me, I'm just the messanger. But I think you're missing the point. At last some honesty. In other words, the U.S. is playing the geopolitics game, which means they will seek to protect and expand their interests by any means available and necessary. That's understandable. However, it's the characterization of the U.S. as being somehow, by it's very existence, the sole arbiter and emodiment of all that is pure and right in this world that grates. Truth is, the US is just as amoral as any other government. problem is, their reach is so much longer. Where do I indicate any hatred for America. Actually, what does that even mean? Seems to me it's the same old tired line that equates criticism of government policy as hatred for the concept of a nations existence. I have said before, but will say it again for your benefit: I don't hate America, but feel more dissapointed in the way that a nation founded on the highest ideals has been hijacked by the forces of greed, corruption , ignorance and hate.

Click.

It's not the manner of the resuce, but its portrayal and subsequent propaganda around Lynch (ie. emptied her weapon at the attackers, was beaten and raped etc. etc.) that's the issue here. the U.S. wanted a rallying point, a symbol and a hero so they tried to create one (What could be more perfect than a white, blonde haired, blue-eyed, Mid-Western, All-American girl fighting off a gang of swarth Ay-rabs single-handed?) Too bad for them the story was bogus.

Of course, imperialism has ever draped itself in the cloak of lofty rhetoric. What we see above and in the utterances of like-minded apologists is simply a rehashing of the "white man's burden" that was the driving force behind western imperialism in the past few centuries. Of course, even then the notion that "we" were saving the benighted peoples of the world from themselves was a convenient justification for the material enrichment of the mother country through the systematic exploitation of local populations and resources, while the question of whether or not such interventionism is justified or even mandated is entirely ignored. The goals of today's neo-imperialists are very much the same, albeit with some very modern twists. For example, today’s empires are more inclined to rule by proxy, as opposed to exerting direct control. Of course, that doesn’t mean the west is disinclined to utilize force when it feels it is necessary. Iraq provides an ideal example of this pattern where the Western powers supported the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein so long as he suited the political, economic and strategic needs of the west. Indeed, in 1991, New York Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman noted that if Saddam could be toppled without a major shift in the current power structure, "Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," a return to the days when Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia." In other words, Washington and its allies abroad were content to allow the Kurds and Shiites (whose suffering is often cited as prime example off why Saddam’s inhumane regime needed to be ousted) continue to languish under conditions of terror and oppression, just so long as the such an arrangement suited their needs. This included providing material and moral support to Saddam right up until the invasion of Kuwait. The subsequent denial of support to rebel factions attempting to oust Hussein and the crippling, unprecedented, militarily enforced economic sanctions which deprived the country of medical textbooks, water purification equipment, essential medicines, and many kinds of food reinforce this point. The historical record is quite clear that, despite the continued lip-service paid to promoting abstract concepts such as “freedom” and “democracy” (with little examination of what such terms actually mean or their application), the forces of western imperialism aren’t shy about trampling the self-same concepts in the name of their own national interests and brand of realpolitik. Of course, such incidents (be it past support for repressive regimes in the name of waging the “Cold War” or the continuation of such a policy today under the guise of the war on terror) are subject to post-facto justifications that excuse any atrocity on the grounds that such action prevented a greater evil from being perpetrated. Concern, then, for human rights, for the promotion of freedom and democracy, rings hollow in light of the ongoing contempt for these concepts exhibited by the west (both in dealings abroad, as well as at home, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of, for example, the labour movement could tell you). In the instance of Iraq, the idea of that nation is to be used as a base from which to remake the Mideast in the west’s own image is patently false. Considering the close relationship enjoyed by the west with other undemocratic regimes in the region (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait come to mind), one has to wonder why such a regional reformation required subjecting the Iraqi people to brute military force when an application of economic and political pressure could, theoretically, have brought about the same results in the friendly nations of the region. Consider, for example, the case of Kuwait. In 1991, after successfully ousting Iraqi forces from the oil-rich sheikdom, the western powers (led by the U.S. and Britain) had an ideal opportunity to leverage domestic democratic reforms. Instead, the status quo was quickly restored, showing that the west’s concerns for democracy and human rights are always trumped by basic economic interests (read: oil). To close, I find the abject faith placed in the intentions of the U.S. towards Iraq and the Mideast region to be, at best, misplaced and, at worst, naïve in light of historical precedent and current actions. The conflict between what is said and what is done is so apparent, the parallels to the past so obvious that to honestly believe this “new” war is somehow anything more than a retelling of the sordid tale of empires past takes a almost willful act of ignorance or a mind-boggling ideological blindness. How many times has this been debunked already? As for the rest, links between Iraq and 9-11 has been denied at the White House level on down.Now, apparently, their words not good enough for you? As for links between Iraq and Al Q'aaeda, I would expect that the administration, which claims to have "solid evidence" of such links (evidence it has failed to produce), would certainly play up such an angel, especially in the face of growing uncertainty over America's involvement. Instead, the possible connection between the religious extremist bin Laden and the Stalnist Hussein are treated as throwaway lines, which merely casts more doubt on the claims and the credibility of the administration as a whole.

Then I suggest you find a good dictionary and look up the word "communist". In the meantime I have better things to do than waste my time wrangling your malapropisms. Red baiting is just soooo '50s...

What does 9-11 have to do with iraq? Zilch. Perhaps the nation needs to simply eat more moral oat bran. First: I'm not a communist. that you would use that term indicates you've no ability to distinguish between various left-liberal ethos or you're just doing the same thing you accuse me of later... As for the rest, wel,l I no more support "their" primitive superstisious drivel than I support the home-grown variety espoused by the likes of Fallwell, Boykin and, evidently, yourself. It's all the same crap. None of it has anything to do with values and morality and everything to do with power and control. But I digress. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

And you wonder why you guys get accussed of harbouring imperial ambitions. And why people think Yanks are arrogant pricks. Not sure what you're getting at there Nukes. What does this: Have to do with: ?I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know what you're talking about.

Again: all well and good, but it seems to me people are constantly bitching about the state of dissaray the Forces are in. What's wrong with focussing on whatever we do best. The above is a tall order. Nor is "blasting hell out of Iraqis" but you sure heard a lot of whining when we didn't do that.

Gee, that's not vague at all. Sorry, but "mission satements" don't cut it. There are serious questions to be asked, and we need to establish what kind of jobs we want our Forces to be able to do. Personally, I think the CF is plenty well-funded. It's just that there's far too much waste and inefficiency.

-Funny, I don't remember seeing anybody with horns, pitchfork and a tail hanging about New York on 9-11. Satan, contrary to the Louvin Brother's opinion, ain't real. So you're saying this is a holy war...perhaps a jihad? Funny how secular, atheist and anti-religion are used as perjoratives here. Persoanally, I take them as a compliment. It's funny how many of the ultra-rightwing Christians that are on "our" side (Boyton, for example) bear a striking resemblence to the radical Islamists" that are the 'bad guys." The rhetoric is astoundingly similar; only the names have been changed. Yes, people die in war, yet your denial of the civilian casualty figures indicates you are unwilling to face that fact yourself. Pay attention. Iraqbodycount gathers it's data from media reports of civilian casualties and is very meticulous in confirming their information and cross-checking it. They are doing this body count because the U.S. won't. Looks like someone missed their meds.