Got Chinooks?

[Kitchener]

Arab country

involved in any of the internal anti-Israel strife the mideast is famous for.

This is your definition of the Middle East?

I recommend you consult the maps and count the number of countries that fail the first part. Then count the number that fail the second part. Then ask yourself why on earth anyone would use such a definition anyhow.

Lebanon has had a confessional parliament system for over 60 years, though it was in abeyance for 15 years during the Civil War, and was damaged again by the Israeli invasion in 2006. It's a fragile democracy, no question, but hardly a newborn one.

That the PLA is a democracy in its infancy was, plausibly, just the sort of thing to which eyeball was alluding as "democracy in its infancy". To defend the claim that no such democracy exists in the PLA by saying that the PLA is a democracy in its infancy, would be a rather subtle routine of mental gymnastics, I think you'd agree.

[M.Dancer]

That's a marginally interesting fact about you. I doubt it will send geopolitical experts scrambling to revise their working definitions.

Meanwhile, there are multiple democracies in the Middle East.

Only if your definition of democracy is inherintly flawed. Both Lebanon and and the PLA can hardly be called democracies. Not when the parties field armies against each other or when the definition of a democracy might include a free vote, which is dubious in both cases as Hezbolllah does not believe in democracy and neither do Fatah or Hamas.

And Turkey is a European Nation.

[Kitchener]

Only if your definition of democracy is inherintly flawed. Both Lebanon and and the PLA can hardly be called democracies.

Both are actually called democracies, on account of actually being democracies. Both are also flawed, fragile, religiously confounded political unions beset by internal and external distortions and enemies. So were many now-stable democracies when they first began.

Again, though -- there is no question that you can make your assertion true by personally redefining the word "democracy".

And Turkey is a European Nation.

And an Asiatic one. For pete's sake, weren't you just attempting to snark about a looking a map? The internet presents you with many, and I've linked you to them. Pouting won't change the geological structure of the planet nor the borders of nations.

[M.Dancer]

Both are actually called democracies, on account of actually being democracies.

No, you are the one calling them democracies, even though they don't walk like democracies, talk like democracies or act like democracies. The only thing about them that even resembles demoxcracy is the elections, which are niether free nor fair. By that yardstick, the USSR was a democracy, Cuba is a Democracy....etc etc...

Anyway, let me know when Albania is in the mid east too...or any other European nation...

And an Asiatic one. For pete's sake, weren't you just attempting to snark about a looking a map?

Exactly. And The Western Sahara is in Africa...

Here's a map for you...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...MiddleEast2.png

It just about confirms Argus point....The "New" mid east has nothing to do with geography and even less to do with reality.

[M.Dancer]

Pouting won't change the geological structure of the planet nor the borders of nations.

Could you keep your fantasies about my good looks to yourself.

BTW...the mid east ain't a geological structure....but thanks for the irrelevancy, pointless as it is..

Kthxbye

[Kitchener]

BTW...the mid east ain't a geological structure....but thanks for the irrelevancy, pointless as it is..

Try to follow your own trail of silly falsehoods, would you? You're the one who brought up the whole business about "which continent" Turkey's in -- apparently finding it easier to embarrass yourself than to read a basic source or two and discover it's in two continents. Primarily Asia, moreover.

And continents, the issue you raised, are geological, you see.

Again, then: your whining about being wrong does not change the geological structure of the continents, nor the political fact that Turkey is in both Europe and Asia. Not a difficult point, really.

[Kitchener]

Anyway, let me know when Albania is in the mid east too...or any other European nation...

Thanks, but I think I'll just defend things I've actually said. Stuff you make up, not so much.

In my defense, I said that Turkey is Middle Eastern because it's true according to the usage of the bulk of expert sources. No doubt the definition can be debated. But your wish to have your silly claim be made true by fiat is not a particularly weighty factor in any such debate, I think you'd find.

The Western Sahara is in Africa...

As is Egypt. I guess it's not in the Middle East either.

[M.Dancer]

Try to follow your own trail of silly falsehoods, would you? You're the one who brought up the whole business about "which continent" Turkey's in -- apparently finding it easier to embarrass yourself than to read a basic source or two and discover it's in two continents. Primarily Asia, moreover.

So is..ummm....china is in Asia, is in the middle east?

...see how easy it to be a jejune as you?

[M.Dancer]

As is Egypt. I guess it's not in the Middle East either.

At last! ....the broken clock strikes true!!

I will note here, at least you're not as ridiculous as the poster who suggested the thuggish Iranians of the fifties were an emerging democracy ....but not enough to realize that the emerging despots of Lebanon and the PLA are DINOs.....

[Kitchener]

So is..ummm....china is in Asia, is in the middle east?

At this point, neither you nor I has any idea what you are talking about.

Try taking it slow: Turkey is Eurasian. It is widely regarded as falling in the imprecisely defined area "the Middle East". These are simple facts that most high school graduates have been taught, and which you can confirm in a few seconds in any case.

This does not mean that other European countries are Middle Eastern. It does not mean that every other country in the Asian continent -- nor Oceania, nor Antarctica -- is Middle Eastern. Similarly, Egypt is in Africa; yet Burkina Faso is not in the Middle East.

It's very hard to fathom how one could accidentally get confused about any of this, nor why one would want to be deliberately confused about it.

...see how easy it to be a jejune as you?

Do even you seriously believe that you've just made some cogent point?

I keep saying easily confirmable true things, and you keep responding with obviously foolish false ones. Maybe you have some personal calculus of face-saving according to which that's easier than just admitting you overstated your claim about democracies, then yapped about Turkey without thinking. Apology and retraction strikes me as a more sensible course for you than this fractal pattern of howlers, misrepresentations, and digressions. But you gotta be you, I suppose.

[Kitchener]

At last! ....the broken clock strikes true!!

So now Egypt is not in the Middle East either?

I will note here, at least you're not as ridiculous as the poster who suggested the thuggish Iranians of the fifties were an emerging democracy

Ah, "thuggish". Therefore, Mossadegh was not popularly elected. It gets better and better!

Seriously, all this absurdity to avoid admitting your errors?

[M.Dancer]

So now Egypt is not in the Middle East either?

If you believe that's what I meant, that's your perogative.

Ah, "thuggish". Therefore, Mossadegh was not popularly elected. It gets better and better!

He was elected many times. So was Castro. Is there a point?

Seriously, all this absurdity to avoid admitting your errors?

What errors?

That there is only one democracy in the Mid East? That is not an error, that's a fact. Other facts are that the western Sahara has never been considered the Mid east and Turkey has always been considered part of Europe depsite efforts to include nations in the middle east that are neither the near east nor the middle east or even the far east...The only commonality I can see in the G8 definition is they are muslim.

Or perhaps you really are insisting that Lebanon with its "confessional" democracy is somehow democratic. For those who don't know what confesional democracy means, It's a system devided by France where Christians vote for christians, muslims for muslims and the offices of the government are "reserved" for Muslims and Christians. So effective it spawned over a decade of civil war.

From the first rigged election, to the civil war and Syrian hegemony, the democratic process in Lebanon has not functioned. It is a non functioning democr

[Argus]

That's a marginally interesting fact about you. I doubt it will send geopolitical experts scrambling to revise their working definitions.

Meanwhile, there are multiple democracies in the Middle East.

Drivel

[Argus]

This is your definition of the Middle East?

I recommend you consult the maps and count the number of countries that fail the first part.

Aside from Iran and Israel, none I know of.

Then count the number that fail the second part.

None I know of.

Then ask yourself why on earth anyone would use such a definition anyhow.

Realpolitik? Reality? Common usage rather than academic definitions?

Lebanon has had a confessional parliament system for over 60 years, though it was in abeyance for 15 years during the Civil War, and was damaged again by the Israeli invasion in 2006. It's a fragile democracy, no question, but hardly a newborn one.

They've had one vote in 20 years, and have tanks and armies in the streets against one another. Political opponents are regularly murdered. The whole country could dissolve into civil war again at the drop of a hat. .

That the PLA is a democracy in its infancy was, plausibly, just the sort of thing to which eyeball was alluding as "democracy in its infancy". To defend the claim that no such democracy exists in the PLA by saying that the PLA is a democracy in its infancy, would be a rather subtle routine of mental gymnastics, I think you'd agree.

Again, you appear to be taking a very strict academic's point of view that since the PLA had a supervised election they are a democracy. There is more to being a democray than simply having a vote. Russia had a vote but it's certainly not a democracy. It's in the hands of the oligarchs, much like Lebanon and the PLA are in the hands of a few powerful individuals who fight over control. The people really don't have much say in anything to speak of.

[eyeball]

Quibbles over geography and democracy aside, the fact remains - the US staged an illegal coup in Iran. The brutal dictator they installed there provoked the development of contemporary Islamic extremism. American support for other dictators from the western Sahara to Pakistan resulted in more of the same and this finally culminated with 9/11. 9/11 has and always will be deeply rooted in the pursuit of US interests.

Key words and themes to keep in mind...connect-the-dots...blowback...Whack-a-Mole...Occam's Razor...duh...

Who cares who's got Chinooks if they're only going to be used to help piss off more Muslims and inspire more extremism?

[M.Dancer]

Quibbles over geography and democracy aside, the fact remains - the US staged an illegal coup in Iran.

You're funny. Yes the US staged it. Actually they staged it on Broadway. No Iranians were used, wasn't their idea....

The brutal dictator they installed there provoked the development of contemporary Islamic extremism.

The brutal dictator? You mean the legal an d constutional ruler? How could they install someone who was....installed already?

....proked islamic extremism? Yeah whatever..forget your Hero the communist thug was just as ready to use the Mullahs....

American support for other dictators from the western Sahara to Pakistan resulted in more of the same and this finally culminated with 9/11. 9/11 has and always will be deeply rooted in the pursuit of US interests.

Interesting....so in effect, had we supported the other dictators like the Taliban......

Do you actually read what you write or are you just a left wing propanada bot using brainless macros to type in drivel and slogans?

[AngusThermopyle]

Who cares who's got Chinooks if they're only going to be used to help piss off more Muslims and inspire more extremism?

Hmmm, Chinooks as inspiration for extremism.

First time I've heard that one.

As for who cares. How about the guys whose lives they'll help preserve? I bet they care.

Or are you saying that because you have a different opinion and don't like current policy that their lives are beneath consideration or concern?

[eyeball]

Do you actually read what you write or are you just a left wing propanada bot using brainless macros to type in drivel and slogans?

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh."

Madeleine Albright

True or false?

[M.Dancer]

True or false?

define significant.

If Albright means, planned orchestrated and led,.....

then false.

If she meant helped aided and backed an oranian inititive....

the true.

[M.Dancer]

True or false?

define significant.

If Albright means, planned orchestrated and led,.....

then false.

If she meant helped aided and backed an oranian inititive....

the true.

[eyeball]

Hmmm, Chinooks as inspiration for extremism.

First time I've heard that one.

As for who cares. How about the guys whose lives they'll help preserve? I bet they care.

Or are you saying that because you have a different opinion and don't like current policy that their lives are beneath consideration or concern?

In addition to my contrary opinion I'm just as concerned about the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used to facilitate attacks against your enemies. More to the point I'm considering the likelihood that survivors will in turn seek vengance, which of course will be justice in their view, against Canada.

[eyeball]

And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Easy or hard?

[eyeball]

the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.

True or False?

the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.

In light of the US linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 prior to attacking Iraq its reasonable to conclude their reasons for attacking Afghanistan were equally misguided.

Our military has no business being there in our present capacity or purchasing equipment towards that end.

Edited November 8, 2008 by eyeball

[AngusThermopyle]

In addition to my contrary opinion I'm just as concerned about the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used to facilitate attacks against your enemies.

By the very wording of your statement it would appear to be false, or at least insencere.

First of all you make a broad assumption based on no facts at all, just opinion, that "the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used". On what knowledge or verifiable fact do you base this opinion? How do you know how many innocent people will be killed? For that matter how do you know how many "not innocent" people will be killed? Do you actually know what this aircraft is? Could you identify it if you saw it? Have you any idea of its capabilities and design purpose?

If the answer to all of the above is "huh" then how do you know? At least with the certainty and authority with which you make all your claims.

Next you further show your bias in making the broad assumption that you know who my enemies are. This is shown by the usage of "your enemies" in your statement. The simple fact is that you don't know who my enemies are, or if I actually have any enemies at all. This is because you know nothing about me or what I believe so you are once again making simple assumptions and stating them in a way that would indicate an absolute.

All of these are signs that indicate the weak arguement, the stubborn rebuttle and the refusal to be objective despite all information you may recieve.

Now we could continue taking a look at what you posted if you want to, but believe me you wont like anything else I have to say about it. For instance, the concern and folks part of your post. No where in what you posted does it honestly illustrate a genuine concern for the guys who will be using these machines.

As I said before, I find your post to be not entirely honest. At best it is sycophantic and at worst it is an indication of what I previously stated, the weak arguement.

[bush_cheney2004]

In addition to my contrary opinion I'm just as concerned about the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used to facilitate attacks against your enemies. More to the point I'm considering the likelihood that survivors will in turn seek vengance, which of course will be justice in their view, against Canada.

Well hell, you must be really worried about the way overdue payback from Lancaster, Bolingbroke, Mitchell, and F-18 "survivors". In comparison, Chinooks are far more benign, and a welcomed sight in a natural disaster for the very same "survivors".