Sulaco

You misunderstand. I critiquing Kengs for his claim that in a "straight up fight" the US would not "fare near as well" as people believe. Rither kangs is talking about knife fighting in which case he is correct but his comment is irrelevant, or he is talking about full deployment of assets, in which case I am not sure what to make of his statement except that it strains credulity.

Hold on. When "straight up combat" is brought up - often the declarant is speaking of a knife fight, rather than unfair use of technology.

Do you hear Topaz? It would be madness to take on the Iranian military giant and its explosive packed speed boats! The only reason not to take Iran on is that the resulting slaughter would make the road to Basra look like a peace walk. WInning too handily always makes one look bad.

It wasn't. Perhaps I am wrong but I can't remember the last time Republican turnout in that state outstripped Democrat turnout. You'd be well served to save your glee for when your party of choice trounces the other in the general election. And of course you're dealing with the hardcore. One can argue that Iowa is indicative of the fact that the Democrats in Iowa are far more left of centre than the Republicans are right of centre. THus in Iowa a lot of nuts are ready to take the time off to caucus. Or one might say something else. Or something else yet.

Yes he is amusing. I've stated my opinion elsewhere on this board. He will sink I suspect. Tin foil hat time. Sadly for me I haver come to beleive that the media is pushing him for reasons other than the attractiveness of the Dean-like narrative he presents. The same way bloggers on the right wanted Dean tot ake the nomination so they could paint all Dems with his views so doea the MSM want to nail the evangelicals by having the Huck as their whipping boy. Furthermore a strong Huck run, if in the end he loses, will in various people's hopes fracture the Republican coalition. Fortunately, I suspect, the Huck will be so discredited by the time Feb 5 rolls around that he will not be considered representative of anyone and, I suspect, few hard feelings will be held as he slowly shows himself to be the doofus he is. My hoped for result then - he is built up just enough that we hgave a debate in the Republican party about various populist dogmas and when he is destroyed these are shelved for another several election cycles. Let the dems have their John Edwardses - do we really need these cloned (in pro-life clothing) in the Republican party?

There was no India in ancient times.

I was referring to the earlier post you posted. A digression from my initial reaction which was that you remind me of another poster on another forum. But the digression is interesting. In your argument for Bhutto's sainthood you posted leaders' reactions as if they were evidence of that sainthood. I don't find such statements from world leaders upon a death of a fellow politician to be generally very credible.

You remind of someone. Hmm... The fact that world rleaders paid condolences means nothing. if Bush were assassinated tomorrw all the leaders of the world would be saying what a greeat man he was. it would be interesting to see your response to any such words.

Except that she brought Pakistan to the state it is in now. First, she worked on undermining democracy from within - if the People do not trust their elected governments to be at least somewhat virtueous they will over throw them. Or will support a military overthrow. Second, she coddled the Taliban, Kashmir terrorists and permitted the ISI to be corrupted from within. All that happened on her "watch". Musharaf for all his many failings has been dealing with the fruits of her mis-government. The idea that she should be annointed as king again so as to solve the problems she created is ridiculous.

The Taliban also believes that women should wear Burquas. Perhaps they killed her because she refused to wear one. perhaps we shouldn't use the Taliban's beliefs as representative of reality. I suspect had she gotten into power things would ahve been no worse for them and probably better. But just like western media they fell for her charm offensive. Or maybe she really was a changed woman. But there is no reason to laud her the way she is being lauded at this time. Or I should say there are reasons, but those reasons are either cynical (the left) or naive (the right).

And this is how words get devalued. Statesman, martyr, hero, SAINT!

Let's all admit it. In general the US media loved her. Once exiled she was a woman who played the west well. She made appropriate anti-Taliban comments. She dressed well. She was also a "victim" of a MONSTER named Pervez who was supported by BUSH. There was something in that for everyone. FOX boosted her on the basis of her anti-terror remarks, because she was a muslim woman "who dared speak out" and because she dressed well, other networks because they could use her as a slanted critique of Bush's policies. Heck - the Dems used her in this way explicitly. The truth is far murkier - but we do always forget the past when it's politically expedient.

Well - take it from those who paid attention to her while she actually was in power - she was not the cats pajamas that she is now made out to be. US state department was constantly complaining about Bhutto coddling Islamists. State was also aware of the fact that she riled up Kashmir to keep herself from being voted out - Kashmir in turn led to further growth in Islamic extremist militias. I guess because she is "left-of-centre" she gets a pass. Now don't get me wrong. I'd rather see democratic reform in Pakistan. But Bhutto was not the one to lead it. She was a self-serving widow of an powerful politician from a corrupt political family. As most coups in the 20th centure the army was more fed up with her corruption than anything else and the coup, as is usually the case (see Argentina, Turkey, Chile and Brazil), was supported by large segments of the middle class. Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutt...licy_on_Taliban You can quibble with the use of Wiki but there is no question that Bhutto was in power while Taliban used Pakistan as a base of operations.

This is where you are wrong. Fox has always viewed Bhutto for rose colored glasses. They were Bhutto-boosters. But because - because what? - because I criticize someone you like and presumably you're of the correct minded left I must be repeating FOX talking points. Yup... I guess I must. We aren't talking about a criminal case. We are talking about the fact that the main reason for Bhutto's overthrow was the curruption under her tenure. Even if she wasn't personally responsible she was in charge of a government that was viewed by its own peole as terribyl corrupt. Furthermore, as I stated, Pakistan and India were constrantly on the verge of war under her watch. Reproachment didn't begin until Musharaff took power.

But at least they aren't making these guys wear panties on their heads. (Does that answer your question AW - drills vs. panties?)

This is a silly approach. If Iran is a conduit for China and can be deterred from being such a conduit via force why should China be attacked? If China can't be attacked does that mean nothing should be done?

Because we know Bhuttos prior history. For instance during her tenure the tensions between India and Pakistan were far higher as she used Kashmir for political gain. Her administration was overthrown for corruption more than for anything else. Do you believe everything a given politician says?

I was interested in seeing the Libranos out. The tories are more consistent in acting like Canda's is a US ally. They provide moral support. I even talked to some of my family in Canada prior to election and arguably made comments that would be considered as attempts to influence. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh please - your interest has nothing to do with "America's foreign policy". No matter what America's foreign policy is any election in the US would garner a lot of international interst. If the foreign policy here was Ron Paulian isolationism millions would be pulling for non-isolationist candidates. If the current policy was of disengagement in Africa millions would be pulling for an Africanist president. If reproachment with Chine the Taiwanese would eb interested in changes. Point is - iit's American power that causes international interest. The interest would exist no matter how the power was used. Now that I've done beat up on you BM - onto BC. You can't have it both ways BC. You revel in America's power internationally, you must accept that a lot of foreigners will always be interested in American elections and will often try to influence these.

Is this some passive aggressive method of telling us you cannot be faced?

An interesting article: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html As a fellow non-believer I often share this and other stated frustrations with the arrogance of your run of the mill atheist "intellectual".

The argument appears to be that emotional reactions are irrelevant. I disagree. They are relevant in several ways. First, to argue that they have no validity in and of themselves is dangerous. They are, afterall, an evolved response to something. Secondly, the emotional responses these stories evoke will enter into discourse whether you like it or not - hoping to be able to ignore them is a hyper-rationalist utopianism. I could go on.

I guess that depends on which characteristics of this madame you're referring to.

Illinois has not banned the death penalty. Neither has New Jersey. One has abolished it as a method of punishment, the other has placed a moratorium on its use. Furthermore ,any point you may have has no logical content. Why do New Jersey and Illinois have anything to do with justifications for the death penalty in other states. Are the two states somehow more enlightened? Better exemplars of how to be? New Jersey? Really? Illinois - with its machine politics - that's a state to look up to? Neither am I sure how the fact that Moslems execute homosexuals and apostates ,after these are rapidly processed through religious court systems, has any bearing on whether Texas executes a man convicted of callously murdering multiple victims. Finally, what do jailhouse snitches have anything to do with anything. First off - without those who report crimes to the authorities, in any setting - you my friend would live in a far more dangerous society. Reporting criminal offenses is no vice. It can often be a virtue. Your use of the derogatory word is strnage, coming from one who I presume is law abiding. Do you suggest that offenses committed in prisons should not be prosecuted? In summation - your argument, if that it what that was - is empty of logical content, confused, and frankly confusing. Care to put on airs some more?

And dat's da truth. The reason? Canada is largely irrelvant. Yes, yes, it is an important trading partner, in the sense that it cannot be anything but without cutting its own throat. Sure, sure, it must cooperate with the US on multiple issues, including, for instance, continental defense. It would be insane for it not to. Thus, it lives up to the minimum expected of it. But it has been a long while since it exceeded expectations - Afghanistan excepted. And even in Afghanistan it is fulfilling its NATO obligations and that's about it, better than other nations, but perhaps merely because it still has some pride left. Point is - we can't really expect anything above and beyond from Canada - so why would it be an issue for anyone. Canada is provincial, it is a backwater. It is amazingly insular and smug in its insularity. Don't get me wrong - it may very well be fine and comfortable to live in - like a well run midwestern town. It's just that it does what is expected and very little more. But hey - you can always get on the radar by bringing in more terrorists. Just re-elect the Liberals.