 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 28, 2006
By: TAKES ONE... A wartime leader who speaks obvious untruths, surrounds himself with a narrow group of party ideologues who skew the information that gets to him, puts too few boots on the ground, fails to engage the international community, and may now be at the mercy of violent events beyond his control. George W. Bush? No, its Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, as described in a newly-leaked memo by NSC Director Stephen Hadley. —Paul Glastris 11:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (89)Comments
Well never mind. That's anticlimactic. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINKHow did America let another Vietnam happen? Posted by: BL on November 29, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINKI don't know whether it was intentional, but the post brings up a good point. Calling the Iraqi PM "Mr. Maliki" is, Iraqi nomenclature-wise, like calling Saddam Hussein "Mr. Tikriti." Posted by: BruceR on November 29, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINKSure, blame the puppet. I suppose we did that in Viet Nam too. BTW, Mr. Maliki is a good name for a puppet. surrounds himself with a narrow group of party ideologues who skew the information that gets to him If he had good advisers he'd never have taken the job. puts too few boots on the ground, Fund more shiite militias? fails to engage the international community, I thought he went to Iran. and may now be at the mercy of violent events beyond his control He always was at the mercy of events beyond his control. Posted by: toast on November 29, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINKWeird. Kind of reminds me of working with my clients who have mental health problems, particularly those who are institutionalized with others with similar problems. The clients are quite capable of describing and analyzing in detail the mental health problems of their fellow patients, but completely unwilling to admit that they have any problem at all. Posted by: mkultra on November 29, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINKBTW, Mr. Maliki is a good name for a puppet. Civil war's bad ummkay? Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 29, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINKMr. Mackey! Drugs are bay-ad, mmmkay? Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINKI sneak cartoons into my lesson plans. When I was in college, I had an anthro prof who showed fieldwork slides and there were always a few random tit-shots thrown in. He confided to me later than he did that to keep the 19-year-old guys awake and paying attention to the demonstration. I decided to hang on to that bit of info as it might be adaptable and applicable later. I don't remember how I taught about mutagens before Blinky the Fish. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINKIsn't calling him Nuri Kamal the same as calling me Brian Padraig? Is this a new, subtle form of insult? Posted by: Brian Boru on November 29, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 29, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINKDid someone say puppet? There is nothing in the memo that suggests the Bush administration is interested in replacing Mr. Maliki as prime minister. Posted by: bigcat on November 29, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINKI thought this was a democratically elected government in Iraq. My bad. Posted by: bigcat on November 29, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINKWhy would anyone read puppet into this memo? Just because engineers from Gepetto Industries will be attending the talks in Jordan, ..... Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINKIt seems NATO is spitting in Bush's face too. Baker is sending the brat out to do man's job. From Bloomberg.com: Prodi Rejects Bush on Afghanistan Troop Redeployment (Update2) By Steve Scherer Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Romano Prodi said Italy won't allow its 1,900 troops in Kabul and Herat to be moved by NATO commanders to other parts of Afghanistan, rejecting a call by President George W. Bush. Bush yesterday urged North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to make more troops in Afghanistan available to fight the Taliban insurgency and to reduce restrictions placed by member nations that have curtailed the movement of soldiers. ``The countries there are firmly committed in areas that they're assigned to,'' Prodi told reporters in Riga, Latvia, where NATO leaders are meeting for a summit. ``The strategy has been chosen and no one can talk about changing this strategy. This is the position of other countries as well, including Germany, France and Spain.'' Poppy Bush never had these problems with NATO. Posted by: Cheryl on November 29, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINKWhy does Steven Hadley hate America? Posted by: thrashbluegrass on November 29, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINKThe leadership in Iraq is in an impossible position. They have a country divided along religdious and ethnic lines - and these ethnic and religious affiliations are more important to the average Iraqi than any sense of "nationalism". Thus - the army is virtually useless. It cannot be asked to police and kill its own people - it simply will not do it. The violence created by the 2 major Islamic factions will not go away without a strong message from the Islamic leadership in Iraq. Given the repression of Shiites by the Sunni minority under Hussein, I cannot see the Sadr and others sending such a message. They, no doubt, feel entitled to run the country. Shiite militias have the tacit support of the Iranians as well. I cannot envision a scenario where the Sunni minority wins this conflict. The US is currently stuck. If we support the Shiite majority, we will anger Sunnis throughout the world of Islam and encourage further Sunni terrorism, although it has a better chance of ending the violence in Iraq itself. Supporting the Sunni minority angers the majority of the population in Iraq, and given the financial and material assistance from Iran, a Shiite faction civil war will likely never end while the US is in place while in the country. It sounds like the best option would be to divide the country along ethno-religious lines and live with the consequences. At least there would be *some* chance for eventual peace. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINKBill O'Arrogantone believes that the answer is to forego a democracy and install a strong man. al-Maliki is a puppet of the Bush Administration. What did anyone expect? That he would have a mind of his own? This Administration is through - stick a fork in it. The Democrats just need to work hard to minimize the damage they can do in their last two lame duck years in office.... Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 29, 2006 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINKShrub and the White House have given the Prime Minister a vote of confidence - The vote was 3 to 2 - Barney was either tie breaker or he abstained. Secrecy is a virtue at 1600. The last person to win such a vote of confidence was Donald Rumsfeld. Interesting how this memo was "leaked" prior to the meeting. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINKYeah, if it wasn't for the fact Iraq was full of a bunch of damned Iraqis then Bush could win this war. My last divorce would have been a lot easier too, if I hadn't been married going into it. Posted by: steve duncan on November 29, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINKWorth repeating:
Interesting article in WaPo this morning by Robin Wright, as usual, and another writer about the current wave, by Pubs and Democrats, that all of the fault lies with the Iraqis for failing to grovel appropiately and take the reins of democracy. Sort of like our building a huge Gretna Green public works project, and then blaming the tenants for the myriad of problems. Kudos to Senator-elect Webb of the 600 ship Navy of yore project. He definitely has his head screwed on correctly today. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINKjohn bolton should be appointed iraqi ambassador to the u.n. he could fix that place up. Posted by: mike adair on November 29, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKBrian Boru, "al-Maliki" is the fellow's tribal name, appended after his surname. It went out of vogue in Iraq during the Saddam years for obvious reasons, and is now coming back, also for obvious reasons. Technically, calling the guy Nuri Kamal is like calling you "Brian [insert your last name here]." Calling him Nuri al-Maliki, as most papers do now, is like calling you "Brian the Dubliner." (if I might presume.) Saying just "Prime Minister al-Maliki" is like calling you "Prime Minister The Dubliner." Posted by: BruceR on November 29, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINKBruce R, Thanks for the information - Our work order for rewiring simply said al of Maliki. Gepetto Industries - Promoting Democracy since 1632. Posted by: Gepetto Industries on November 29, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINKInteresting how a memo gets leaked out of the NSC shop, in the Bush Admin, famous for its secrecy. Gosh, I wonder if the ground is being prepared for the al-Maliki replacement operation? Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK3rdPaul - Grovel appropriately? The Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Sunnis killing Shiite and vice versa. Are we pushing the 2 militias together and then instructing to kill one another at gunpoint? Give me a break here. These are 2 religious/poliltical/tribal entities that are fighting for power in their own country. If we had simply assasinated Hussein, this would likely have been the outcome as well. If we had let Hussein die of old age, we could not have prevented these rivals from violence. Has the US inflamed the situation? Of course. But to lay all the blame at the feet of the United States is purely demagoguery. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINKpurely demagoguery Bing Bing Bing . . . You have written today's phrase of the day. Please step up and look behind door number two to see what you have won. An additional cash prize for equating the Iraq war with the natural death of the countries president. Everyone else can stop blogging till tomorrow. Posted by: Prize Patrol on November 29, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINKThis reminds me of a scene from the movie Ransome, where the leader of a gang of crooks turns on one of his lieutenants in order to escape blame and emerge as the hero. Posted by: Jon Karak on November 29, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINKTo lay the entire blame on the Iraqis is pure demagoguery - But thanks for spewing the Company line. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINKHas the US inflamed the situation? Of course. But to lay all the blame at the feet of the United States is purely demagoguery. Exactly. We're merely increasing the efficiency with which Iraq takes itself to hell in a handcart. Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKThe correct title is: Ransom. Gotta give credit to old Saddam - He may have killed a slew of folks, many of whom died by gas supplied to him by us and others because we did not back their uprisings prompted by GWHB, but, damn it all, he surely did keep the lid on the infighting. Geez, if only we could have extended his life by medical means, Iraq would have been so peaceful. By jimmity, it was soooo obvious that sectarian violence would break out, that Rumsfeld insisted on sending 500,00 troops to secure the region. Or was that a Million? Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINKIf we had simply assasinated Hussein, this would likely have been the outcome as well. If we had let Hussein die of old age, we could not have prevented these rivals from violence. Then exactly what did Bushco (and yourself?) expect to happen after we went in there? Being greeted with chocolates and flowers? A shining beacon of Democracy in the Arab world? So, was Bush dumb or lying? By jimmity, it was soooo obvious that sectarian violence would break out, that Rumsfeld insisted on sending 500,00 troops to secure the region. Or was that a Million? Actually, Rumsfeld was mainly concerned about Iraqi dental bills. If he had sent 500k or more troops, think of all of the Iraqi children who would have needed new fillings after picking up and eating all of the sweets that were tossed at the troops (to say nothing of the increased incidence of hay fever from the flowers). Fewer troops, fewer dental caries. Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINKThis leak says nothing new and may be intended to delegitimize Nuri al-Maliki. The Dawa Party, to which Nuri al-Maliki belongs, is a revolutionary Shiite Party whose politics are quite similar to those of Hizbullah. The Iraqi Dawa Party helped form Hizbullah in the 1980s during their time of exile. Back in July the Likudnik Democrats came after Nuri al-Maliki for not condemning Hizbullah, but this was just a stupid notion. Nuri al-Maliki has also been saying that Iran needs to be brought into consultation if anything is to happen in Iraq. His Shiite coalition has long ties with the Iranians. So you have a Hizbullah-Iraqi Shiite-Iran axis here that is not taking the US-Israel side. This is the major problem. The most logical ally of the US is not this group but the Sunnis, as it was in the Iran-Iraq war. But the war in Iraq, not to mention the death sentence of Saddam, have made this impossible. It is also very unlikely the Sunnis could defeat the Shiites given how much their capacity was destroyed by the American invasion. It is entirely insane to blame the situation in Iraq on what is left of the government. It was White House and Pentagon gross mismanagement that destroyed the capacity for any government to control the country. This "leak" really says they want someone in power who is more in line with the US-Israel agenda. This is part of the insanity; there is no politcal force on the ground in Iraq that will take that position and only the Shiites have a glimmer of a chance of controlling a unified country. And that can only occur after a nasty prolonged civil war. It is also very unlikely the Sunnis could defeat the Shiites given how much their capacity was destroyed by the American invasion. bellumrgio, I agree with your entire post, except for this one line. Two things: a) it's highly likely that a great portion of the Sunni insurgency is being driven by former Iraqi military personnel; they're likely to be better trained and better supplied that the various Shiite militias, and b) according to Nawaf Obaid in today's WaPo, Saudi Arabia is likely to step in at some stage to prevent a massive Sunni defeat. At this stage, the nasty prolonged civil war could go any of several ways. Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINKWhat, no blame goes to viceroy Bremer? The corrupt and incompetent Coalition Provisional Authority? I guess the wingnut talking point is pretty clear--it's time for a coup so we can get behind a strongman who will bring law and order to the Iraqi people, one bullet at a time. That fellow Chalabi would make a good dictator--hope he's available. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINKI do not now and never have felt the war in Iraq was justified. Forcing democracy on people unwilling to fight for it themselves is pointless. Lying about your motives for invading a country and then later claiming it was for the promotion of freedom is wrong. Period. I did not vote for Bush in 2004 because he is not a fiscal conservative at all, and Tomeck, Bush clearly lied to the people of the United States regarding Iraq. He may go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. That said, I think there are alot of misinformed folk that think that the US is the only reason there is violence in this region. There are folks that want to blame Bush for *everything* simply because they dislike him and his administration intensely and it flavors their judgement and objectivity. 3rdPaul - Islam is a violent irrational religion. It was obvious to forward thinking folks like myself that sectarian violence in Iraq was completely predictable given its history and demographics of the population. In fact, it was not only predictable but inevitable. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINKIt is also very unlikely the Sunnis could defeat the Shiites If enough money pours in, the Sunnis could easily defeat the Shia. The history of Iraq is pretty clear on this--the Sunnis have kicked ass for decades. Keep in mind, an estimated 15-20,000 insurgents have had no trouble tying down and engaging 135,000 American troops and another 150,000 Iraqi troops/police/auxiliaries. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKSpock: Islam is a violent irrational religion. Oh, shut the fuck up with that nonsense. It most emphatically is NOT a violent religion, nor is it irrational and this is the single most ridiculous thing that I've read on this blog in a good long while. And I actually have read one or two posts by rdw. There are a billion people on this planet who follow Islam, and of that billion people, no more than a hundred thousand are clamoring for violence. If that, for crying out loud. Every religion--and, hello, Christianity? I'm looking at you--has it's own schism of "violent and irrational" followers so knock off the bullshit. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINKThat fellow Chalabi would make a good dictator--hope he's available. I wonder if it's possible to be a commuting dictator? Bet he's not too interested in giving up his groovy digs in London. Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK3rdPaul - Islam is a violent irrational religion. As opposed to Christianity, which is both peaceful (see, e.g., the Crusades, witch hunts, the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, the Holocaust, the Thirty Years War, etc.) and completely rational (what? A burning bush has never talked to you before? You've never seen a virgin give birth before? You've never seen a man walk on water before?) Posted by: Stefan on November 29, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINKI should stay away from making absolute statements about what could happen in a civil war. That said, I do find it unlikely the Shiites will go back under the boot of the Sunnis without fighting to the last man and woman. They are the majority in any case and they have powerful allies. In the condition of civil war it is hard to know which way things will turn. They could all fight on for decades and in the end they could all lose. Posted by: bellumregio on November 29, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINKStefan, Ian Paisley would be so proud of your comments. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINKThere are a billion people on this planet who follow Islam, and of that billion people, no more than a hundred thousand are clamoring for violence. I would put the number higher, but no matter, for it is still revealing to relate the violent religionists to the total number. It would make a nice graph if done across the board. -- Which religion would come up with the hightest ratio of violent compared to the total in that religion? Posted by: Bob M on November 29, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINKYeah, when Rev. Ian appeared on Dr Carl McIntyre's swill coming out of Collingswood, NJ, he was always the voice of reason from Belfast. Spoke so highly of the Pope. Posted by: stupid git on November 29, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINKI think there are alot of misinformed folk that think that the US is the only reason there is violence in this region. There are folks that want to blame Bush for *everything* simply because they dislike him and his administration intensely and it flavors their judgement and objectivity. That's an interesting theory. Since I'm sure it's sincere and not merely a straw man argument meant as a lame, vague defense of Bush's manifest incompetence and mendacity, I'm sure you, as a "forward thinking person," will have no trouble citing examples of individuals who hold these opinions and explaining why you beleive they do. Thanks in advance. Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINKAhhh....I should point out, then, that Paisley probably wouldn't be happy with my pointing out that many of the persecutions of the witch hunts, the Holocaust, the Thirty Years War, and the forcible conversions of the inhabitants of large parts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia were committed by Protestants..... I wonder at the bit of political kabuki that Sadr pulled off yesterday. Is Maliki covertly allowing Sadr to actually run the country (ie. take over the Interior Ministry, and run death-squads to commit genocide against Sunnis)? Or is Maliki simply powerless to stop Sadr? My suspicion is that Sadr is the convenient scapegoat of blame for the militias actions, who are the real "boots on the ground" for the Maliki government. But if that was the case, then Sadr had no reason for the boycott. Unless that was meant to deflect more blame from Maliki. In either case, Maliki is impotent to stop the violence. He's either secretly complicit, or incompetent. Hey, that sounds familliar! (and given the history with Negroponte involved, it still seems more likely that it's a matter of being secretly complicit - do I smell a war-crimes trial against Maliki in 15 years or so? Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 29, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of Stefan>
Isn't Paisley dead yet? This firebrand maniac from the early 1970s needs to go meet his maker for some serious attitude adjustment. Captain Sensible does some minor quibbling: persecutions of the witch hunts Puritans the Holocaust Nazis were atheists, I thought the Thirty Years War Catholic vs Protestant ...the forcible conversions of the inhabitants of large parts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia were committed by Protestants.....Catholic Church had a big part in using the sword to spread Christianity as well. The Crusades predate all Protestant movements, so the Holy See gets the raspberry for starting them. Don't you see? Except for both Gulf Wars, Vietnam, Korea, World War II, World War I, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, the Mexican War, the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War, all American wars have been religious ones. I'll do some minor quibbling back: persecutions of the witch hunts: Puritans In New England, yes (and the Puritans were Protestants). But there were also active witch hunts throughout Protestant Northern Europe in England, Scotland, Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, etc., Holocaust: Nazis were atheists, I thought Well, not quite. While the Nazi movement was officially atheist, many of the ordinary followers of the Nazis were observant Protestants or Catholics, and the Nazis frequently claimed that they were protecting Western Christian civilization. Moreover, many of those who aided and abetted the Nazi Holocaust did so out of religious based anti-Semitism (as, for example, the Catholic Croatians, the Catholic Vichy French, the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainians, etc. etc.) ...the forcible conversions of the inhabitants of large parts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia were committed by Protestants.....Catholic Church had a big part in using the sword to spread Christianity as well. Yes, but so did the Protestants in the British, Dutch, and German Empires. But back to the subject of this thread.... Religion does not make people violent. Or to be more precise for the Christian audience- certain doctrines do not make people violent or cruel. People who have authoritarian personalities tend to embrace orthodox and traditional forms of everything and they are also prone to use violence to defend the authority of their orthodox traditions. In this case it is not the religion per se but a certain orientation to authority. People with authoritarian personalities are more likely to join in nationalist movements to defend a nation or a tradition. Everyone is to some degree an authoritarian, but it depends on how much insecurity they are subject to. In societies that are wealthy and prosperous, and perhaps have gone through a long institutional modernization process authoritarian attitudes are diminished. But if prosperity is disrupted intolerance will grow and more and more people will being putting their faith in some traditional authority be it a religion, a nation or a dictator. There are people at the extremes that will not be authoritarian under any circumstances and there are many more people for whom the world is always filled with trouble. In the past everyone, but a few mystics, was relatively authoritarian. No Christian would have said that they could see the humanity in other religions. Pluralism was not a legitimate way to understand the world. The perversion of other doctrines was always a reason to purge heretics with the sword. Islam is radicalizing primarily because of the oppression of the Palestinians but also because of the westernization of tradition culture (without a long modernization process) and demographic changes in the Middle East. But number of people interested in violence is tiny. Iraq, I am sure, has helped to create more. See on CNN that al-Sadr has pulled his people out of government. Really leaves the Prime Minister with virtually no hand for the Gepetto rewiring session with Shrub. Captain Sensible, you forget that ongoing War on Christmas whereby BillO's Knight Templars are fighting the good fight so Bill can play Joseph on Long Island and Michele Malkin, Mary. The Maji will of course bring falafels, loofas and myrrh. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of Stefan> So informative! Thank you!
Did not remember this; persecution of pagan people, though, forgot to mention.
Did not know, so Captain Sensible thanks you for the assistance. Would have assumed outright there was no religious aspect of Nazism, but thank you for changing Captain Sensible's mind on this subject.
Yes, the evils of colonialism again. Very informative, but as you say, back on topic. Where did that poor, hateful fellow named Bob M go? Captain Sensible would like to have an exchange with someone name of Bob M so that the enlightenment can be brought into his dark and forbidding world of horror. Someone name of thethirdPaul>
An oversight. Thank Heavens there is a culture warrior out there who is ready to fight for all Americans who want to stick their head in the sand and avoid dealing with reality. Some of the pathology of those who comment here suggest that perhaps O'Reilly himself has wandered onto blogs, depserate to fight back against his perceived or imagined enemies. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 29, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKReligion is not rational - it is called "faith" for a reason. Commenting on the violent history of Christianity does not make Islam historically or now less violent. You are using a common deflection tactic to ignore this fact. I am sure the islamists in Hammas, Hezzbollah, Al-Qaeda, the Janjaweed in Sudan would all tell you how peaceful they really are..........not to mention all the militias and insurgents in Iraq. If these Iraqi militia (who are all muslims of the various sects) were all that peaceful, why not join the government and solve their problems rationally and without violence?
If these Iraqi militia (who are all muslims of the various sects) were all that peaceful, why not join the government and solve their problems rationally and without violence? Actually, they DID join the government and now one large faction--Sadr's faction--has now begun to pull out of the Maliki government. As if a dumbass like you would know that. People are not violent because of religion; they are violent in spite of religion. And to say Islam is "violent and irrational" is hypocritical and insane, what with all of the other contenders out there. Got any other insights, shithead? Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKIf these Iraqi militia (who are all muslims of the various sects) were all that peaceful, why not join the government and solve their problems rationally and without violence? Well, they sort of did join the government. SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and Sadr are the largest bloc in the government. That's why the US finds itself in the rather odd position of supporting a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy. But you've sort of retreated from your earlier claim that Islam qua Islam is violent to a claim that member of extremist militias and terrorist groups who are Muslims are violent. Well, yeah. Almost every single religion on Earth has violent adherents. That's nothing unique about Islam. Posted by: Stefan on November 29, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKHypocritical? You presume I am a religious person. Insane? When Immams and political leaders of Islamic nations call for the eradication of Israel - that it should be "wiped off the map" (quote from Ahmedinejad in October), when they question whether or not the Holocaust really happened........that is insane. Are you saying all the Iraqi militias joined the government and were peaceful? Put down the crack-pipe, brother. Reality is calling. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKReligion is not rational - it is called "faith" for a reason. You know what else isn't rational? Denigrating people who criticize the obvious damage US policy has done to the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular by claiming that "there are alot of misinformed folk that think that the US is the only reason there is violence in this region. Also irrational is countering criticism of Bush's incompetence by claiming "There are folks that want to blame Bush for *everything* simply because they dislike him and his administration intensely and it flavors their judgement and objectivity." But declining to justify those positions when asked? That's just good old fashioned dishonesty. Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKPut down the crack-pipe, brother. Reality is calling. That's a nice piece of willful projection there, asshole. Stefan is correct--why are you running away from your earlier proclamation so quickly? Oh, that's right--you have no clue as to what the fuck you're talking about. It must have seemed like a lark, huh? Wander into one of those liberal chat room blog thread type things and start throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Maybe have your co-workers have a nice laugh over what you were up to. Nah, we're not buying it. You're too stupid to be believed. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKStephan ....I backed off calling all Muslims as violent because I do not want to get into a discussion as to what the Koran actually says regarding conversion of non-believers, etc. Mohammeds earlier writings in the Koran were much more peaceful. As his influence grew, his words became more belligerent - vis-a-vis jihad and the treatment of non-believers. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKReligion is not rational... Religion is perfectly rational, given one's knowledge base, culture, belief systems, history, etc. "Irrational" is an overused term. In my view, sane people are likely to act rationally in nearly all circumstances. Decisions by people who are clinically sane may be illogical, stupid, ill-informed...but rarely "irrational." Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKI backed off calling all Muslims as violent because I do not want to get into a discussion as to what the Koran actually says regarding conversion of non-believers Shorter "Spock": I let my mouth write a check my butt couldn't cash. Meanwhile, if belligerent rhetoric is the criteria for being "insane" or "violent," I suggest "Spock" consider the words of thos who called for war with Iraq, and now, Iran. As a starting point, "Spock" -- as a "forward looking person" -- would do well to consider the history of characterizing leaders of other countries as insane. Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKScotty, Spock does not appear logical today. Do not beam him up. Posted by: Captain Kirk on November 29, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKOh yeah...a question regarding the "leaked" memo. It was a classified memo, right? And a Bush admin official provided it to a NYT reporter, who transcribed it? So, will the official get in trouble for the leak of a classified document? Did someone in the Bush admin declassify the document, in order to "leak" it? Do we still call the leak a "leak," if it's actually a sort-of press release? Okay, that's five questions, but still. Any input on this will be helpful, as I'm woefully confused. 'Preesh. Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKRe: Islam being a violent religion. First of all, just because a religion advocates violence does not mean I believe all Muslims are violent. Your assumption was that I believe such - and I do not. To ignore what Islam teaches regarding non-believers and the spread of the religion is convenient and wishful thinking. If posting the quotes here would make a difference in your position, I will gladly do so. But until you admit that such a reference will change your opinion, I don't see a reason to bother.
Someone asked me earlier to give an example of someone so filled with disgust with Bush that they "blame him for everything" (quoting myself). In my own family, my in-laws are both staunch democrats....to the point that they admitted to me that they would vote for a German Shepherd for local office before they would vote for a human republican. On the subject of George Bush....mom in-law saw Dubya and Laura get off a plane on television...my wife said "what a lovely sweater Laura's wearing". Mother-in-Law's reply: "she probably stole it off the back of a poor person" - followed quickly by "Bushie used some of his stolen oil money from Iraq to pay for it, no doubt." So filled with hate, she cannot even admit that a sweater looked nice. That is the kind of thing I was talking about. Obviously, I am not even talking about a substantial minority of folks who feel that way - that they cannot be objective about anything regarding his administration. To repeat something earlier I said: I do not support the decision to go to war with Iraq at all. I think this administration has botched up that country terribly. But Iraq was still a pretty f*&$#-ed up place before we got there. To say that the US is 100% responsible for every death and all the violence in Iraq is to completely ignore the demography and history of the region. It is equally ignorant to believe that the current violence is not the fault of the US government as well. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINKReligion is not rational - it is called "faith" for a reason. Religion and faith are two different things, and neither of them is necessarily irrational, though the latter necessarily and the former generally (through invocation of the latter) has some dependence on sources of belief other than empirically-verifiable observation. Posted by: cmdicely on November 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINKTo say that the US is 100% responsible for every death and all the violence in Iraq is to completely ignore the demography and history of the region. However, prior to our invasion of Iraq, Saddam was pretty effectively boxed in: no-fly zones to the north and south, economic sanctions that were strangling his economy. One can assume that there was a level of "background" violence associated with the routine brutality of his regime, and one can also assume that, barring any changes to the circumstances, that that background level of violence would have continued into the indefinite future. Thus, it's fair to say, I think, that any excess violence caused by our blowing the lid off of (what was an admittedly sub-optimal situation in) Iraq is entirely our fault. The fact that Sunnis and Shias are slaughtering each other now is, indeed, partially reflective of historical antagonisms, but we are the ones who lit the current fuse. Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKAnd this, from the NYT article: 'Among the concerns voiced in the memo was that Mr. Maliki was surrounded by a small group of advisers from the Shiite Dawa Party, a narrow circle that American officials worry may skew the information he receives.' Hmmm...I smell irony. (And I had a shower this morning!) Posted by: Wonderin on November 29, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINKHonestly people, I thought this might be a place for an interesting discussion of issues. Yeah, rational people don't find it interesting to put up with your ridiculous assertion that Islam is a "violent and irrational" religion when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINKSpock wrote: "Mother-in-Law's reply: 'she probably stole it off the back of a poor person'." That is exactly what happened ... then Laura ran over her with her car. To say that the US is 100% responsible for every death and all the violence in Iraq is ... Almost completely accurate. That is not to say other people are not also responsible: responsibility is not simply additive. A person or institution is completely responsible for the reasonably forseeable consequences of its actions, even if those consequences actually result from a combination of those actions with known prior or foreseeable concurrent or future actions by others, such that others are also responsible. This is, I would argue, a broadly applicable moral standard of responsibility that is in many places also reflected in the assignment of liability in the law. (Consider, particularly, joint liability.) Pale Rider - I guess you are the official troll of this blog. A shame all you do is denigrate folks rather than actually post any of this "overwhelming evidence to the contrary". I said I would gladly post quotes from the Koran regarding the violent nature of its teachings if that would make a difference in your opinion. Why not answer the question? Would posting those quotes make a difference in your opinion? If not, why not? Perhaps you would care to share with me some of your "overwhelming evidence" so I can learn and be persuaded? Or are you too busy trolling? Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKIrony! HAHAHAHA And today - together in Jordan not speaking - Bush and Maliki. Half a billion isn't nearly enough to whitewash this legacy. Posted by: bcinaz on November 29, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely - Actually, that is an excellent point. I retract my statement regarding responsibility. On the other hand - one cannot ignore that currently the vast majority of Iraqis are dying because other Iraqis are killing them. We did not create their divisions. They are not trying to teach the US a lesson by killing one another. Each side must feel that they have more to gain by violence than by negotiation. Sad. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINKOn the other hand - one cannot ignore that currently the vast majority of Iraqis are dying because other Iraqis are killing them. We did not create their divisions. Actually, when we actively recruited armed violent theocratic extremists of particular Shi'ite factions to help us with the occupation that we had failed to adequately plan for, while excluding and banning other armed extremist factions, we did, in fact, create, or at least seriously deepen, their divisions, including those between different subsets of the Shi'a community, and those between Shi'ites and Sunnis. (And, tangentially to your point but relevant to parts of the violence you aren't discussing, those between some Shi'ite factions and the US, and those between Sunnis in general and the US.)
They are not trying to teach the US a lesson by killing one another. So? Each side must feel that they have more to gain by violence than by negotiation. And the US presence may be part of why they believe that negotiation is fruitless; certainly, that would explain the widespread belief (from the polling data recently presented on this blog) among Iraqis of all factions that the US presence is exacerbating the internal violence. Who invaded Iraq and unleashed the current shit storm? I mean, can we all agree that in March 2003, the US invaded Iraq? Good lord, are the wingnuts now going to try to claim that we didn't unleash hell in that country by invading it? Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINKI said I would gladly post quotes from the Koran regarding the violent nature of its teachings... Plenty of those from the Bible, too; so that's not going to justify singling out Islam as particularly "violent" or "irrational". PR, Spook sounds a lot like Don P of old - So exceptionally fair, soooo misunderstood, soooo wanting to merely debate after changing the topic. Shame about the mixup in communication - Shrub thought he was going to treat the King and the PM at McDonalds - However, his people did not communicate well with the PM's people - So the PM went to Arbys instead and sat alone, so alone was he. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINKPR, I will confine my future replies to those willing to actually talk about issues rather than those with "witty responses". And I can absolutely agree that the US invaded Iraq and truly screwed the country up by doing so. I find it strange, however, how so many are so anxious to denigrate *any* reply that gives so much of a fraction of a percent of responsibility to the Iraqi people themselves. Yes, it was wrong to go in there. BUT FACED WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE THERE - why not try and discuss issues and try and seek solutions to problems rather than simply get angry and point fingers? Fascinating. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKI find it strange, however, how so many are so anxious to denigrate *any* reply that gives so much of a fraction of a percent of responsibility to the Iraqi people themselves. No, the problem is--you want to start laying the blame on the Iraqis to give Bush cover for the disasterous decision to go to way. You wand to "frame" this debate like this: "George Bush gave the Iraqis a chance to have democracy, but they screwed it up! And that's fucking dishonest as hell. You can't get away with framing the discussion that way because it is overly simplistic bullshit. And when you use the appelation "spock" and say things like "fascinating," I'm reminded of the Candian vice detective who made the offhand comment that 90-95% of child molesters have some type of Star Trek memorabilia in their homes. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 30, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINKPR- I refuse to reply to any more of your childish, insulting posts. When you have something intelligent to say and you say it without insulting the person you are talking to; I might take you seriously. Until such time - Adios muchacho. Posted by: Spock on December 1, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINKHi, nice site. I really like it. Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
