SecState Kerry is in Geneva today to discuss the Russian suggestion that Syria voluntarily give up her stores of poison gas, rather than be plied with incendiary devices by the US. Assad asserts that his compliance is because of Russia, and not US threats:
"Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The U.S. threats did not influence the decision," Interfax quoted him as telling Russia's state-run Rossiya-24 television channel.
A version of the Russian plan that leaked to the newspaper Kommersant described four stages:Syria would join the world body that enforces a chemical weapons ban, declare production and storage sites, invite inspectors, and then decide with the inspectors how and by whom stockpiles would be destroyed.Reuters
283 comments:
1 – 200 of 283 Newer› Newest»Kerry is having a press conference right now with the Russian Foreign minister.
The Russian foreign minister is speaking first.
Seemed to suggest to go easy on the questions to Kerry.
Don't confuse him?
Its on BBC World News.
That reminds me: I should scrub the fireplace before log-burning season arrives.
When you consider the leadership of this crises is run by some of the leading candidates for President over the last few cycles, including the winning candidate; it's amazing our country exists at all today. I'm including McCain in my thoughts here.
I got you back, Mitch.
Lem, I can't find it...will you link, or is it over?
Again, aren't we all glad we ducked the bullet known as Lurch?
As for realpolitik, Lurch is having it shoved up his Botox about now.
I wonder what Romney would have done?
"Again, aren't we all glad we ducked the bullet known as Lurch?"
That would have been terrifying.
I wonder what Hillary would have done.
Like Putin's NYT letter, this is complete bullshit by Assad. Of course it was the threat of U.S. attacks that pushed him. Unfortunately, Obama allowed Russia to get the credit and gain the benefit of advancing their interests and influence, while leaving the chemical weapons still in Assad's hands probably the rest of his life. Their won't even be any unbelievably small punishment for using them, and Assad will be sufficiently helped by all this to win his war.
We lose in every single way, except our President will get a kiss by the usual sycophants who will see this complete failure as "peacemaking".
Progressive have such a hard time learning lessons no matter how old the wisdom is or how frequent it is demonstrated.
The only reason Assad even fears our military is due to the memory of previous Presidents who actually were smart enough for the job.
Thanks Ann, Cedarford, Inga, phx, Garage, Ritmo, Andy, Obama girl, Obamaphone girl, most of Hollywood, single women, hispanics, etc.
If you're a low information voter, that doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid, just lazy, but if you are well informed and still voted for Obama, well bless your heart.
Can someone be considered a well informed voter if they get their information from The New York Times and NPR?
Putin could wind up winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Others have won it for less.
Bingo, chick. Great insight. But I don't know how amenable the Nobel committee would be to that. On the other hand, they might love sticking it to Obama for having been taken in by him.
Cspan has it.
Obama is really overmatched in the game of thrones.
Obama now Joey Bishop to Putin's Sinatra
@iowahawkblog
Thanks Ann, Cedarford, Inga, phx, Garage, Ritmo, Andy, Obama girl, Obamaphone girl, most of Hollywood, single women, hispanics, etc.
Everytime I vote to keep right-wing dogmatists like yourself off the levers of political power it feels like the best vote of my life. Never had cause to regret it yet.
"We lose in every single way,"
Who the hell is "we"? I don't lose, the USA doesn't lose. I guess if you want another Cold war or you live and die by all this Foreign Policy trivia - then you lose.
I'm sure Johnny McCain is dying a little, no war for Johnny McCain. boo hoo. Guess he'll have to go back to playing video poker and pretending to care about domestic policy.
I watched a little bit of the White House Press briefing...
There are signs that things are being bungled, like when Kerry made that mistake, thinking aloud and the Russians jumping on what he said to their advantage... And then there are signs that are things are even worst than that.
Like Jay Carney coming out to "answer questions" when Obama is getting shellacked in the world stage.
Dude, just don't have anybody say anything for a few days, lay low, hope everybody will forget.
They are in such disarray, they don't have the sense to do basic PR management. Maybe there is a good chance I don't know what I'm talking about. But, I'm going by a saying that ends with "you got to stop digging".
Should I say I feel bad for them?
At some point 'decency' has to prevail.
I mean this is not right... I don't understand the smile on the face of a handler over there
"Obama now Joey Bishop to Putin's Sinatra"
So Iowahawk didn't have the stones to say Sammy Davis, Jr. After all, he is the Candy Man.
"Never had cause to regret it yet."
"Who the hell is "we"? I don't lose, the USA doesn't lose."
Like I said, some people just don't learn the lessons of history.
Putin gaining this influence in the Middle East, and use of chemical weapons without cost is gonna hurt us all eventually, but we can just have that war when we get to it. I'm sure it will be "unbelievably small".
"So Iowahawk didn't have the stones to say Sammy Davis, Jr"
That is funny, because you know he thought of it.
deborah said...
Reference: "Again, aren't we all glad we ducked the bullet known as Lurch?"
That would have been terrifying.
I was fully prepared to emigrate to Canada if Kerry had won. I will NOT live where that lying traitor reigns.
I wonder what Hillary would have done.
Wait a couple weeks then say: "At this point, what difference does it make?"
Trooper York said...
Obama is really over-matched in the game of thrones.
Obama is over matched in a circle jerk with 13 year old boys.
Culture of corruption. No enemies on the left.
phx said...
Never had cause to regret it yet.
Oh, please. You aren't trying to say that Obama has shown brilliance in this affair with Syria? He was every bit as rabid bloodthirsty mouthed as McCain until the very last moment, when Putin bitch slapped him and stole his lunch money.
We'd all be better off if 2008 had never happened, on either side, all sides...nothing but pure shit running. Bush's 2nd term was Obama-prep anyway, once he started listening to idiots like Gates, et al ...hurl.
Obama's 2nd term just proves that those getting a good fucking will return for more of the same. Sniveling prick was only too ready to drop some bombs or missiles as if that alone isn't an act of war because in his imaginary world it is all a game.
If you just must vote Democrat no matter what, then in 2016 let's hope Tammy Duckworth runs for POTUS. I disagree with her on many things, but I am stone ass in love with her for her masterful reduction of Braulio Castillo (Government contractor claiming disabled veterans' preference ($500 Million +) when his sole service was as a prep school footbal player, who sprained an ankle, who also was in junior ROTC). I could vote for her for that alone. Even Daryl Issa was impressed and said so.
I do not like war mongers who never tasted battle (Obama), and I dislike those who have when they become incoherent (McCain and Kerry).
Fools getting schooled and tooled. Some one cue up the Lee Greenwood....
Putin could wind up winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Others have won it for less.
Nice way of sliding the knife in right in the front, El Pollo!
Obama now Joey Bishop to Putin's Sinatra
@iowahawkblog
That is so unfair to Joey Bishop. And Frank Sinatra. And Vladimir Putin!
Everytime I vote to keep right-wing dogmatists like yourself off the levers of political power it feels like the best vote of my life. Never had cause to regret it yet.
Yeah, Mitt Romney was a regular John Bircher....
Note also that this means phx doesn't regret the five million full time jobs that STILL haven't ben recovered during the recovery. It's all good because, you know, Mitt Romney is a Klansman.
Bagoh, chemical weapons have ALREADY been used without consequence. Ragan and the first President Bush were okay with Saddam gassing his own people, in numbers that make Assad's alleged crime look small-time. (And yes, we don't really know who used what at this point, or who gave the orders. The Russians and the Turks both have compelling evidence that shows the rebels at least have access to chemical weapons.)
The Chinese have probably used chemical weapons in recent decades on some of their minorities (the Uighars, IIRC), and the Russians quite likely used such weapons on the Chechens.
And again, Reagan and the first Bush made no real issue of Saddam gassing his own people.
I knew Sammy Davis Jr. I saw Sammy Davis Jr. live in Vegas. You Mr. Obama are no Sammy Davis Jr.
Finally (I love coming to threads late!), Putin's influence was likely to grow whether we got involved in a war (or rather, more involved, as we are already attempting to overthrow the government through the use of mercenaries - which, BTW, is a violation of the UN charter. Thank God we've got a permanent veto.)n with Syria or not. Given the alternatives, I'd rather not get involved in another useless war, this time fighting, de facto, on the side of al Qaeda.
The ME is a quagmire, mostly composed of evil people looking to do evil things. If we don't have a direct interest there, I say let 'em do whatever the Hell they like to each other, as long as they leave us alone.
Sammy was a triple threat.
Is Obama a triple threat?
Let's see, hates his own country, lazy, incompetent. Yeah, he's at least a triple threat.
Just a reminder -- Mitt Romney Was Right: Russia Is Our Biggest Geopolitical Foe:
"...to a degree that U.S. policymakers have not really acknowledged publicly, Russia under Putin has become the chief countervailing force to U.S. power and influence around the world, even more so than China (which often follows Moscow's lead in the U.N. Security Council). Mulishness toward Washington is not just an attitude; it is today Russia's foreign policy."
and
"Putin is clearly trying to recreate some semblance of a sphere of influence in his region that resembles that of imperial Russia and the USSR--much to the approval of the Russian public."
Icepick said...
Note also that this means phx doesn't regret the five million full time jobs that STILL haven't ben recovered during the recovery. It's all good because, you know, Mitt Romney is a Klansman.
And is a neo-hitlarian that wants to suck the blood of and eat babies.
And is a neo-hitlarian that wants to suck the blood of and eat babies.
Anyone here who reads my posts knows I say that stuff consistently about Romney...and that he is a Klansman. It's only fair that we tell the truth about me.
" I say let 'em do whatever the Hell they like to each other, as long as they leave us alone."
With all due respect, that's courting disaster.
This was the purpose of 9/11. To get us to feel that way. The submissive dog gets bitten the most, and eventually gets killed. They will never leave us alone unless we are dangerous to fuck with. That's what Bush did right. Look forward to expanding attacks on our people here and abroad.
Sure, I'm war weary too, but acting weak is not a smart strategy. Nobody wants a fight, but you need your enemies to respect that you will when you say it. Obama should have either shut up or have sent in some cruise missiles to wherever the gas attacks originated, and without congressional approval.
On a serious note phx, how do you think Obama looks now that Putin stole his lunch money and gave him a wedgie?
His performance has been a mockery of a sham. At the very least.
Obama has struggled with looking ineffectual and the latest stuff can't help.
If Obama wants to stop senseless violence and cruelty he should bomb the South Side of Chicago. I bet there are more murders there than in Syria in any given year.
On a serious note phx, how do you think Obama looks now that Putin stole his lunch money and gave him a wedgie?
Trooper this story is not over just yet. I don't know how it's going to turn out. The trouble with the Obama haters here is that they always seem to want to spend their winnings before they actually win them.
I am curious phx. How do you think he can turn it around?
I don't see it but maybe you can convince me.
If you are a sports fan sometimes your team just doesn't have it. You know they can't win. No matter how hard they try they can't get over the hump. They just look increasingly desperate as they bring in high priced free agents to prop up a losing team. The Yankees do this all the time. It sucks if you are a fan.
But sometimes you just have to say your guy sucks.
Of course if you are a Packers fan you just don't mention what Aaron Rodgers sucks.
In mixed company anyways. Just sayn'
"But sometimes you just have to say your guy sucks"
Not if it makes you a racist in the eyes of your friends. Besides a battered spouse rarely admits that until it's too late.
This isn't over yet. Maybe he will get a job, maybe he will stop drinking, maybe he will stop hitting me. He loves me deep down. I know that.
5 years of waiting for the guy you imagined you voted for to appear.
And is a neo-hitlarian that wants to suck the blood of and eat babies.
Nah, a neo-Stalinist that wants to do to the American middle class what Stalin did to the Kulaks. Plus? Gulags!
Bagoh, this just isn't our fight. The only dog we have in this fight is us, and we've got no fucking business there. None. This is an internal affair of Syria. There is nothing in any international treaty we're a party to that states we can overthrow foreign governments just for the fuck of it. Hell, at least when we overthrew the Guatemalan government in 1954 it was so United Fruit could make a buck. What's so goddamned important about Syria TO US that WE need to come in on the side of people who have probably used chemical weapons themselves, and who are definitely vicious bastards that ignore all international norms of war, and oh BTW are religious zealots who are already committing religious purges.
WTF? There aren't any good guys there, or at least there are too few to matter. Why does this matter, when so many other things haven't?
(Note that in the echo chamber in recent days there have been several heated arguments between all the right-wingers who are in lock-goose-step with the Republican Party. At least according to some.)
Twenty bucks says that despite titling the post "Realpolitik", half the comments will obsess like little girls would over who was made to "look" better while completely disregarding the fact that realpolitik is all about achieving one's interests, optics be damned.
The loyal opposition has all the seriousness of a beauty pageant panel of judges. And probably, when it comes to global politics, about as much expertise. Tell us again about how you and Mr Trump's pretty little minions are going to bring about world peace, and teach the little children to read.
What a joke.
Bags has a point. A couple well-placed missile for effect, no muss no fuss, would have made a point. Talking about it made it into an issue.
So I think Putin has saved the day. Good Lord, the ME is a mess.
With current communication capabilities, gone are the days of running your mouth with no consequences. Every word is out there, ready to be pounced upon.
But the test...will Putin allow himself to be shamed into anything? No. But America is bound by her own standards to be the 'good' one.
I am curious phx. How do you think he can turn it around?
I don't know that he can. I have no idea. I don't ever count my chickens until they're hatched.
Of course I'm sure there were people asking in September 2012 "How do you think he can turn it around?"
I don't buy that this will work. Without $6 trillion and seas of blood spent to find the WMDs that Assad doesn't have, America's dick just can't be big enough. Which is what realpolitik is all about, anyway: Marketing bravado.
Bags has a point. A couple well-placed missile for effect, no muss no fuss, would have made a point. Talking about it made it into an issue.
So we're going to kill a FEW people, but not necessarily the right people, and break some stuff, just for show? Do you really think that is going to discourage a dictator in the middle of an actual war? Or peace, for that matter.
If we want to put on a show, let's paint the ships white and sail them around the world again. Dropping a couple of random bombs doesn't exactly scream deterrence, and I doubt it would make anyone else think twice about doing what they believe they need to do to REMAIN IN POWER.
If Assad did this, he did it because he thinks it will help save his skin. Any action that doesn't include removing him from power and punishing him does NOT achieve any level of deterrence. If we drop two bombs, walk away and he wins the civil war, then HE WINS.
On a serious note phx, how do you think Obama looks now that Putin stole his lunch money and gave him a wedgie?
It will go over really badly in this fantasy election of a combined U.S.-Russian/global campaign that I never realized they were running against each other for.
"If Obama wants to stop senseless violence and cruelty he should bomb the South Side of Chicago. I bet there are more murders there than in Syria in any given year"
I'd suggest bombing Beverly Hills, the Upper west side and Martha's Vineyard (in season of course) - not to stop murders, but to improve the world.
5 years of waiting for the guy you imagined you voted for to appear.
I'm not waiting on anybody. I have no expectations for anyone, anywhere at anytime. You're the one who's constantly cursed to be disappointed - all those idiots who think differently than you do, who have different opinions, lifestyles, beliefs. If only they, we, had voted the way you told them to.
It's the control freaks of the world who are bound to disappointment over and over. The Controlling Ones always seem to end up in the Republican Party. Can't stand the idea that the world isn't all homogenized according to their principles.
Ice, my point was that if he were going to do it, Obama should have done it decisively and immediately. This jabbering about it is bullshit and makes him look ineffectual. So now, yes, he should just take Putin's idea.
And Obama isn't MY GUY. He may be YOUR GUY, but not mine. I didn't vote for him. He's made Clinton and Bush II seem like FDR and Eisenhower.
I've listened to this, "we need to fall in-line and support our commander-in-chief" bullshit my entire life.
Dumb Right-wingers were even saying it during Billy Bob Clinton's Presidency!
Tell us again about how you and Mr Trump's pretty little minions are going to bring about world peace, and teach the little children to read.
First thing, you cynical little shit, I don't give a shit about Trump, world peace, or teaching little children in some hell-hole on the other side of the planet how to read.
Second, I AM concerned about the my own country and its interests. I do not see how drawing a line in the sand, and then undrawing it, and then redrawing it but claiming someone else drew it, and then saying "just kidding" accomplishes that.
Further, what great expertise has Obama shown at foreign policy? Getting an Ambassador ass-raped to death by Jihadis? And then blaming a video? Shipping weapons to rebels that are infiltrated by al Qaeda? Bombing children with drones and then bragging about it? "Resetting" relations with Russia to reach the wonderful state we're in now, in which the Russian President ignores the US President and instead lectures the American people directly about what our role in the world should be?
Perhaps his expertise comes from his ability to piss off the Brits enough so that for the first time in decades they're not with us on a major intervention.
But then he did get Albania and Estonia on our side, so WINNING! Charlie Sheen would be so proud, if we could separate him from his hookers and blow long enough for him to sober up a bit.
...
No, this whole Syrian misadventure has been characterized by careless off-the-cuff comments from senior foreign policy team members, including the President and the Secretary of State. This is a disaster.
The Controlling Ones always seem to end up in the Republican Party.
My eyes just rolled out of their sockets.
Hi, yashu. Go ahead.
Listen when Obama gets his dick caught in his zipper the loyal opposition can just sit back and laugh and laugh and laugh.
None of this is a big deal. These sand monkeys will be killing each other for hundreds of more years.
So they are using poison gas instead of carpet knives. Big whoops.
There is no reason to intervene on behalf of Al Qaeda. Obama did enough damage helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over two other countries.
Leave Syria for the Syrians.
I have no expectations for anyone, anywhere at anytime.
This is bullshit. You obviously expect anyone that isn't a Democrat to be a John Bircher, as evidenced by your earlier comment about always voting against Republicans. So clearly you have some expectations about certain people ALL the time.
I have expectations. I expect Obama to fuck it up.
Except for elections. He is a remarkably good liar and dissembler. One of the best I have ever seen.
Bubba Clinton has nothing on him.
He is the gold standard.
First thing, you cynical little shit, I don't give a shit about Trump, world peace, or teaching little children in some hell-hole on the other side of the planet how to read.
It was satire. But what you do care very much about pageantry and your confusion of that with interests.
Our only interest here is improving respect for the convention against chemical weapons, and that is exactly what Obama is doing.
It's such an important thing, that Bush lied us into a $6 trillion war on that basis.
I guess if Obama spent $6 trillion to do this and put some boots on the ground then that would make him a great president, when it comes to your fanciful, over-dramatized and exquisitely theatrical assessment of what a great presidency is all about.
The main thing worrying Obama at this point is the damage done to his reputation. And perhaps the only thing he can do in that regard now is to take some military action.
Ryan Lizza today in the New Yorker floats something of a rationale for that:
"...given that China and Russia seem intent on blocking anything meaningful at the U.N., perhaps the diplomatic route is doomed, anyway, and perhaps Obama will soon be back to Congress asking again for authorization for a limited strike. And perhaps Putin’s shenanigans and a failure at the U.N. will buy Obama some extra support in Congress. It could even be a preferable course. A unilateral strike of the type Obama was originally considering has both less reward and less risk than what he’s trying to accomplish at the U.N."
Just saw that Assad is now saying: We'll give up chemical weapons once U.S. stops arming rebels
The diplomacy route doesn't look too promising, does it?
Listen when Obama gets his dick caught in his zipper the loyal opposition can just sit back and laugh and laugh and laugh.
Sure and when it's over and if that's the way it ends I'll join you. Hold me to it.
This is only, oh, Act III from what I can see though.
You can be a totally incompetent crook and get elected by huge majorities every year.
Marion Barry ring a bell?
Or more appropriately Coleman Young.
Barack Obama is Coleman Young on a national scale. He is trying to turn the whole country into Detroit.
This is bullshit. You obviously expect anyone that isn't a Democrat to be a John Bircher
I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out that over and over you constantly ascribe shit to others that isn't true. That's just about the dumbest shit in argumentation that anyone will ever see.
I don't think you're smart enough to participate in these discussions icepick. If you think you are, get your game up.
None of this is a big deal. These sand monkeys will be killing each other for hundreds of more years.
So they are using poison gas instead of carpet knives. Big whoops.
Trooper, are you doing acid? They can kill each other all they want. There will be no intervention. It's about the convention against chemical weapons, which IS a big deal. Which Obama IS doing. If you disagree, then I guess World War I and the 2nd world war it gave us was just a big hoot. You know, a sideshow. No great big deal in the history of the world, nothing to learn from. Just a nice little excursion in an otherwise entertaining little boat-ride down the river of time.
Of course you will say that is racist.
So he is the Abe Beame or Jimmy Walker of the new century.
In fact I think he has a lot in common with former New York Mayor Jimmy Walker. You can look it up.
Hold people accountable for what people do and say. You can't hold them accountable for your fantasies.
"It's about the convention against chemical weapons, which IS a big deal."
chemical weapons? Bullshit. Dead is dead. Poison gas isn't anymore immoral then daisy cutters or High Explosive.
If Churchill had used Poison Gas to kill Hitler would you be upset?
If Churchill had used Poison Gas to kill Hitler would you be upset?
You mean if he dropped poison gas over Berlin?
Dude this is a small potatoes. Do you really think that a piece of paper is going to stop anyone from using poison gas? Really?
It didn't help the Kurds. It didn't help these poor slobs. It won't help the Israeli's if Iran decides to use them.
The only thing that stops the use of these weapons is the fear of retaliation. Nobody fears Obama. He is an empty suit. Always has been. Always will be.
So I agree with you. It is a international Beauty pageant and the USA is represented by one ugly bitch.
I am phx. I am trying to enlighten you and Ritmo. I want you to come over to the dark side. Eat red meat. Drink red wine. Laugh at idiots even if they are minorities. Root for the Yankees. Steal things from the Indians. All American virtues that are lost in this era of tofu and equal rights.
chemical weapons? Bullshit. Dead is dead. Poison gas isn't anymore immoral then daisy cutters or High Explosive.
If Churchill had used Poison Gas to kill Hitler would you be upset?
Entertaining counterfactual given how commonplace it was for surviving Nazi war criminals to swallow cyanide gas capsules, but I digress.
The type of weapon matters for many reasons, and this many countries agree. You should consider the popularity of this convention especially in light of your WWII references, as if chemical weapons and the scale of democide had nothing to do with the conflicts of that era. They had everything to do with it. Good luck asking Churchill to buy into your opinion about the alleged pointlessness of banning chemical weapons. He would have laughed in your face, and then spat out the chewed end of his cigar.
Treaties matter. The weapons of war matter and the rules of conflict matter. You are simply saying they don't so that you can feel like a big, important brave man. Yes, we know you welcome conflict and do not fear it, or at least you say you do. But people concerned about their country don't go about finding wasteful wars, unnecessary provocation, or the deterioration of the global order, no matter how badly Obama's predecessor fucked that last bit up.
Besides you realize if they strictly enforce the sanctions against gas attacks Spinelli will never be able to ride in an elevator again?
That's just not right.
Dude this is a small potatoes. Do you really think that a piece of paper is going to stop anyone from using poison gas? Really?
Can be rephrased as:
Do you really think that the constitution is going to keep you from having to defend your constitutional rights?
If for no other reason, you should consider that treaties are important because those into which the U.S. enters achieve the force of constitutional law.
A more chaotic world is simply not something that we should find a way to bring about. It's not in our interest to do so.
Bagoh: Thanks Ann, Cedarford, Inga, phx, Garage, Ritmo, Andy, Obama girl, Obamaphone girl, most of Hollywood, single women, hispanics, etc.
phx: Everytime I vote to keep right-wing dogmatists like yourself off the levers of political power it feels like the best vote of my life. Never had cause to regret it yet.
phx, less than four hours later: I have no expectations for anyone, anywhere at anytime.
Bagoh wasn't on the ballot last year in opposition to Obama, Romney was. So you were stating indirectly that you believe that Romney was a right-wing dogmatist. (I'll note you have never expressed a problem with left-wing dogmatists.) You were also stating clearly that you were happy to vote for Obama.
So you were clearly expressing expectations about Bagoh, Romney and Obama, at one time.
Cohere much?
And care to tell me again about how you are so much more brilliant than I am, and that I can't comprehend your brilliant writing style?
Bagoh: Thanks Ann, Cedarford, Inga, phx, Garage, Ritmo, Andy, Obama girl, Obamaphone girl, most of Hollywood, single women, hispanics, etc.
phx: Everytime I vote to keep right-wing dogmatists like yourself off the levers of political power it feels like the best vote of my life. Never had cause to regret it yet.
phx, less than four hours later: I have no expectations for anyone, anywhere at anytime.
Bagoh wasn't on the ballot last year in opposition to Obama, Romney was. So you were stating indirectly that you believe that Romney was a right-wing dogmatist. (I'll note you have never expressed a problem with left-wing dogmatists.) You were also stating clearly that you were happy to vote for Obama.
So you were clearly expressing expectations about Bagoh, Romney and Obama, at one time.
Cohere much?
And care to tell me again about how you are so much more brilliant than I am, and that I can't comprehend your brilliant writing style?
Ritmo this isn't the battle of Waterloo. The standards and practice of war mean squat. Nobody but nobody respects limitation except upon fear of massive retaliation. That is the whole reason why Israel is still around. They know that they have the atom bomb and they will use it if they have to. So they push but never too far. Because they fear. Not because they respect anything.
Like Putin's NYT letter, this is complete bullshit by Assad.
Yes. Assad's besmirching of his own credibility is sooo in our interest to avoid. Whatever.
That's on him. If he's lying, then that only weakens his standing. And again, it's not in our interest to prop him up if he does so. I'm not sure why you think it would be.
"Treaties matter" - you mean like the Atlantic charter, the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Kellogg–Briand Pact, and the Paris Peace accords?
Ritmo this isn't the battle of Waterloo. The standards and practice of war mean squat. Nobody but nobody respects limitation except upon fear of massive retaliation. That is the whole reason why Israel is still around. They know that they have the atom bomb and they will use it if they have to. So they push but never too far. Because they fear. Not because they respect anything.
Making everyone fear you will only go so far, and encourages others to find other ways of making everyone else, and possibly us, fear them as well. You have to conclude that other things also matter. The global order matters is one of those things that matter. There is more than one interest that people have in the world, and freedom from fear is one of them. Not everyone lives in the chaos of the Big Apple and more people appreciate stability than I think you'd acknowledge.
Obama needs to look tough in the eyes of the world and affect real change. Perhaps he should announce a boycott of the Sochi Olympics in Russia to really stick it to Vlad. Show him who's boss.
Good luck asking Churchill to buy into your opinion about the alleged pointlessness of banning chemical weapons.
Yes, and the USA manufactured and shipped chemical weapons to the European theatre of war DURING WWII. In fact, those chemical weapons were even released, via Nazi bombing attack, although the US government covered it up for 13 or 14 years afterwards. Yep, the only chemical weapons used during WWII were US weapons. Perhaps Obama should bomb FDR's tomb. (Shades of Catch-22.)
...
I also note that it's funny that no one disputes that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people, later claimed he had them and would use them again, but people like Ritmo and phx thought that he should not be punished militarily, no matter what. But Assad has claimed he didn't use them, for a while I believe they were claiming they didn't have any chemical weapons period, and there's quite a dispute internationally about whether chemical weapons were used by the government (whom the Ritmos and phxs of the world can't wait to bomb) or by the rebels (whom Ritmo and phx can't wait to arm).
"Treaties matter" - you mean like the Atlantic charter, the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Kellogg–Briand Pact, and the Paris Peace accords?
Why are you arguing this tack? You're pushing to make the CWC just as feckless and abrogated. If you want to argue that life is a defeatist exercise in nihilism, you don't have any place in the State Dep't, Pentagon, or Oval Office, but instead need to find a comfortable saddle atop Major Kong's bomb in Dr. Strangelove from which to watch Rome burn and the valkyries dance in your Wagnerian imagination.
(whom Ritmo and phx can't wait to arm).
That's an outright lie that you couldn't resist adding in. As I said to Trooper, they can kill each other all they want. There should be no intervention in their dispute. I said exactly that, but you go on like this, so I see no point to respond to what you said about America's duplicity in WWII (AND in arming Hussein, BTW).
All you are saying is that U.S. lies and short-sighted favoritism is its own defense. That's stupid. I would never argue that a mistake in the past is a good reason to repeat it, but I guess I'm making that appeal to the wrong sort of person.
When you want to enforce the strictures in the Constitution you go to the courts. When you want to enforce the strictures in this treaty you go to the other signatory members and get their support for action. Which Obama couldn't do.
I will also point out that Syria did not sign this treaty so legally they are not bound to it.
Don't you think it significant that Obama could not get any support from anyone? Anyone? Buellar?
but people like Ritmo and phx thought that he should not be punished militarily, no matter what.
Again, I never said this, either. But with loopholes as big as "people like" who knows what Icepick is really saying. He's fighting a war in his head with "people like" me. I guess that could mean people who wore a nice pair of slacks today at work and had a refreshing glass of fresh squeezed O.J. at the end of it. Yep, you never know with "people like" me.
So you were stating indirectly that you believe that Romney was a right-wing dogmatist.
My take is that many white Dem and swing voters just perceived Romney as a dinosaur on liberal social issues. They didn't necessarily reject his foreign policy or his economic plans. But now they get the unfortunate parts of their choice (because of their priorities) and it hasn't been too pretty.
You're pushing to make the CWC just as feckless and abrogated.
That treaty was ignored by Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, where Saddam was concerned. There's been circumstantial evidence in recent decades that the Chinese have used them against the Uighars, and that the Russians have used them against the Chechens.
So, precedent has been set.
Further, if Assad needs to be punished for using those weapons, just taking those weapons away does NOT punish him. It DOES prevent him from using them again (and whether he used them or not I would call that a GOOD thing), but it doesn't punish him.
So, if YOU want the CWC to mean something, the only acceptable outcome is for regime change in Syria.
Unless, of course the rebels used the weapons. And then the only acceptable outcome is that we help Assad destroy the rebel forces.
Romney lost because he played Mr. Nice Guy. He didn't go after the Jug Eared Jesus. He didn't fire up his base.
Nice guys finish last. Or second in this case.
So, Ritmo, were you in favor of invading Iraq to remove Saddam for his various crimes, or not? You keep telling me that Bush II was awful for doing so. So which is it?
When you want to enforce the strictures in the Constitution you go to the courts. When you want to enforce the strictures in this treaty you go to the other signatory members and get their support for action. Which Obama couldn't do.
Ok, and going to this step now would make it much easier for Obama to do in the future if he needs to.
I will also point out that Syria did not sign this treaty so legally they are not bound to it.
Yes, that's a good point. Another good point is that we shouldn't encourage them to be among the lone hold-outs against it when they (or antagonists in his regime) used them so egregiously as they just had, on a humanitarian basis.
Don't you think it significant that Obama could not get any support from anyone? Anyone? Buellar?
Yo, that's what I'm saying. The French were talking tough on this, but that's the French. Provoking this extra step makes Syria easier to rein in in the future, no matter the outcome and no matter what they do. How on earth could that ever be seen as a bad thing?
but people like Ritmo and phx thought that he should not be punished militarily, no matter what.
Yes, I didn't say anything like this either.
As I said to Trooper, they can kill each other all they want. There should be no intervention in their dispute.
ATTACKING ASSAD IS A DIRECT INTERVENTION IN THE DISPUTE.
How are we supposed to attack one side in a conflict without it directly benefiting the other side?
So, precedent has been set.
You can find your own comfort in the precedent of ignoring the law, but that's on you. I don't.
So, if YOU want the CWC to mean something, the only acceptable outcome is for regime change in Syria.
Me and Trooper already discussed this. We're way ahead of you. They're not currently a signatory, so sanctions aren't legally urgent. Getting them to take steps toward their becoming a signatory or at least acting in the spirit of one is a different matter, and a good thing in any intelligent and patriotic American's calculus.
whom Ritmo and phx can't wait to arm
Okay, you're officially the dumbest person here.
I know you can do it. You made ONE good argument against me using my actual words.
What shows that you're a knucklehead is your inability to abstract what others are saying. You can't do it unless you use their actual words.
It's like you need training wheels for your arguments.
So, I've got one person telling me that they have no expectations about anyone at anytime, shortly after expressing expectations about people, and another that tells me we can drop bombs on Assad and not have that count as de facto support for the rebels in Syria.
And I'm being told that my position, which is that it isn't any of our business what Syrians do to other Syrians, doesn't make any sense. Fucking brilliant.
Second, I AM concerned about the my own country and its interests.
Exactly. And it's not about "looks" or "likes"-- not in a shallow sense.
For example. You're the leader of a nation, or a faction of a nation, or a group of nations. There's trouble, or a mess, some fuck-up or other, of short or long-standing, which you've caused, currently engaging in, or are affected by, or all the above.
Or say it's the USA (or Russia, or China) entangled in the mess, seeking a solution, requesting your co-operation (or for you to cut out the shit).
Who are you going to cozy up to-- or follow-- or ally yourself with-- or help-- or simply not fuck with, now: Putin (or China) or Obama?
Say what you like about Bush, but he was someone the world-- of allies, neutrals, enemies all alike-- could "count on," in a very significant sense, even if they disliked or hated him.
Bush was coherent and principled. And he took responsibility for his words and his actions. Allies knew he would follow up on commitments he (or the USA) had made to them; enemies knew he would follow up on threats or ultimatums made to them. (Neither-- commitments or threats-- given lightly, off the cuff, for that very reason.)
Bush wasn't "liked" by much of the world, and through worldwide media made to "look" terrible. I don't give a shit about that-- being "liked." Anti-Americanism comes with the territory, of being America. (Oh, but that's what everyone said Obama's big foreign policy achievement would be, was: now Obama's USA would be loved!)
Whatever mistakes Bush made, whether or not you think (then or in retrospect) his military interventions were the right thing to do, Bush was respected where it counts, where the rubber meets the road. I'm not talking about "image." I'm talking about real power: hard AND soft. Brutal (shock and awe) AND smart. Might AND words. Military AND diplomatic.
That means, the USA could get things done. That means, the USA had real, tactical and strategic, power & influence, in different regions of the world. That means, it could get allies on board. And non-allies would think twice before flouting us, or aiding our geopolitical foes.
At this point, Obama just isn't taken seriously. By our friends or our enemies. He's just as likely to turn around and stab you in the back (sell out a previous commitment to you, as an ally, to ingratiate himself-- "reset relations"-- with someone like Putin), as he is to engage in mindless bragadoccio ("red lines"), causing a clusterfuck that Putin would have to extricate him from-- on Putin's terms.
Is there anyone in the Middle East-- or anywhere in the world, for that matter, on either side of any conflict-- that looks upon Obama as a reliable strategic/ tactical partner? Someone whose words are to be seriously heeded?
At this point, making nice with Putin (or China) seems a better bet.
How are we supposed to attack one side in a conflict without it directly benefiting the other side?
It's a good question but I don't decide to let one gangster off the hook just because I couldn't care less about what he does to the other gangster.
Yes, I didn't say anything like this either.
Icepick is getting desperate and arguing against imagined assertions made by his imaginary enemies.
Ritmo this isn't the battle of Waterloo. The standards and practice of war mean squat. Nobody but nobody respects limitation except upon fear of massive retaliation. That is the whole reason why Israel is still around. They know that they have the atom bomb and they will use it if they have to. So they push but never too far. Because they fear. Not because they respect anything.
I tend to agree. I'd add that al Qaeda in charge of Syria (or a Sunni sympathetic regime) would be entirely more threatening to Israel. Al Qaeda fighters have shown over and over that their own deaths are insignificant for winning the cause. This is why suicide bombing & suicide tactics are venerated. It's not desperation as was the case with the Japanese. It's will to win.
Icepick is getting desperate and arguing against imagined assertions made my imaginary enemies.
You're wrong because he does that ALL the time, without fail. He doesn't know how to argue, that's all. He needs to spend an hour getting familiar with basic argumentation skills before he comes back here.
He's like some idiot saying thing, making the same mistakes in a barber chair year after year. Nobody pays him any mind, even people who like him.
The contrast between Irag and Syria could not be more stark. President Bush lined up a whole shit pot of countries and got China and Russia to back off. Obama couldn't get you Ufuckastan or even the freakin' Limeys who go along with any nonsense we think up.
Face it. Obama is a miserable failure in foreign policy and it is not the Republicans fault. It is not Putin's fault. It is not Rush Limbaugh's fault. It is his fault. Him and O'Bagoshit and the rest of his top men and women. That's right, Top Men and Woman!
So, Ritmo, were you in favor of invading Iraq to remove Saddam for his various crimes, or not? You keep telling me that Bush II was awful for doing so. So which is it?
Maybe you imagined I was against it.
In theory I had no problem with Saddam being removed for whatever reason, by whomever wanted to do it.
In practice, I don't think you can say you did it competently if you took $6 trillion U.S. dollars to do it and all the other consequences Bush undertook by going about it in the manner in which he did.
But I understand. Glory. Valor. Righteousness. Much more important things than stability and realpolitik. Except when they aren't.
The removal of Assad is the exact opposite of stability. As was the removal of the governments of Egypt and Lydia. It was just a movement to empower radical Muslims like the Muslim Brotherhood. That appears to be Obama's agenda in all of this.
The proof is in the baba ganoush.
The contrast between Irag and Syria could not be more stark. President Bush lined up a whole shit pot of countries and got China and Russia to back off. Obama couldn't get you Ufuckastan or even the freakin' Limeys who go along with any nonsense we think up.
I was in Britain when the vote occurred. They're against it probably for a few reasons, but most of all because they learned their lesson about rushing to war based on lies. Republicans haven't.
Also, there's a better contrast between Obama and Bush but you won't admit it. So the real contrast that matters is letting America get as much of its way and the benefit of the doubt post-9/11. But thanks to Bush, that will never happen again. And the circumstances are different.
Face it. Obama is a miserable failure in foreign policy and it is not the Republicans fault. It is not Putin's fault. It is not Rush Limbaugh's fault. It is his fault. Him and O'Bagoshit and the rest of his top men and women. That's right, Top Men and Woman!
Only true in Republican fantasy-land.
I know you can do it. You made ONE good argument against me using my actual words.
Yes, and given that your previously stated position was full of shit, I see no reason to have to Putin slap you again.
I still have yet to see you take ANY position on ANY matter that runs counter to Obama's position. Which, given the way the Administration has been flip-flopping in recent days, has been a real accomplishment on your part. I'm surprised you head hasn't unscrewed yet.
On Monday, Kerry made his off-the-cuff proposal. The State Department almost immediately began 'walking' it back. That evening, the President decided maybe it was a good idea after all. (And actually, the basic idea WOULD have been a good idea, if it had been a starting point on negotiations, instead of something done AFTER ultimatums had been issued AND ignored.)
On Tuesday, Kerry got up and stated that the Administration was NOT asking for the Senate to delay their vote. About eleven hours later, Obama asked for the Senate to delay their vote.
And some how, in all of this, you have been on the Administration's side at every point.
...
I will also note that the President chopping the legs out from under his Secretary of State publicly, two days in a row, is extremely bad management. If Lurch or Choom actually understood what they were doing to each other, either Lurch would resign or Obama would fire him. The President and the Secretary of State being unable to hold the same position is clear negligence.
Sorry that was Libya. Not Lydia. I am not interested in her movements.
I hope she is regular and uses that Jamie Lee Curtis yogurt that makes you poop.
Damn spell check.
In practice, I don't think you can say you did it competently if you took $6 trillion U.S. dollars to do it and all the other consequences Bush undertook by going about it in the manner in which he did.
Yes but the consequences of a pinprick assassination of Saddam (and his heirs) would have been unpredictable and potentially worse. Bush tried to follow through with stabilizing after the deposal.
The removal of Assad is the exact opposite of stability.
Who advocated removal?
Assad's announcement makes his removal less likely.
Was that chart in the swimsuit competition?
Oh and by the way it is almost the end of 2013. Don't you think those numbers might be a wee bit different today? Just sayn'
Lol.
I don't know, Trooper. You lost me after mentioning the swimsuit competition.
;-)
phx at 7:49: I know you can do it[, Icepick]. You made ONE good argument against me using my actual words.
phx at 7:52: You're wrong because [Icepick] does that ALL the time, without fail.
THAT would be: Icepick is getting desperate and arguing against imagined assertions made my imaginary enemies.
So, I made one good argument, but within three minutes you were once again claiming that I NEVER make a good argument.
Three minutes to contradict yourself again. Perhaps you should be Secretary of State.
Perhaps I'm not the one in need of a 'fresher on basic argumentation.
...
And BTW, Ritmo, every Obama voter from 2012 is my enemy. Are you telling me now that you didn't vote for Choom last year?
Frankly, I see no difference between al Qaeda and Obama voters. Both are evil and hell bent on destroying everything I believe in.
And BTW, Ritmo, every Obama voter from 2012 is my enemy.
I urge you to please, please, please send a copy of this to the FBI, along with the signature of your real name at the bottom ("Icepick" simply gives them a view into your preferred methods) and a whole laundry list of what you'd like to do to those people if only the law would let you.
Frankly, I see no difference between al Qaeda and Obama voters.
Major Kong's disquisition on the interrelation of Islamic mass terrorism and American democracy will take place at 9 PM at the Hyatt Regency, along with tea and crumpets, and offers to sign his Kaczynski-esque manifesto. (He'd offer to sign a book he might have written about the topic, but no publisher was crazy enough to take him up on it).
Ritmo said..I was in Britain when the vote occurred. They're against it probably for a few reasons, but most of all because they learned their lesson about rushing to war based on lies. Republicans haven't.
Yes we have. That's why we say no to war in Syria. What say you?
Well we have to bomb Syria...because...because...Obama!
THAT"S RIGHT OBAMA!
(Eleanor Holmes Norton, Pal of Mine)
So, I made one good argument, but within three minutes you were once again claiming that I NEVER make a good argument.
Icepick, I'm saying "all the time without fail" when you engage me in argument you make stuff up about what I think. You do do that, in every thread in which you try to take me on.
But you did make a reasonable attack on me when you quoted my words and pointed out a seeming contradiction in them. I respect that.
I'm really not just here to call you an asshole and have you call me an asshole blah blah blah. Children can do that.
But I like to argue - as fairly and correctly as I can - and argue to win, particularly against someone who isn't just being a dick.
I don't mind taking you on, arguing against you, agreeing with you when I think you're right - that's all cool. But you have to stop saying "phx sez" or "phx thinks" when I don't actually say or think those things. That's not fun for me. It's a pain in the ass.
Try to figure out what I'm really saying, and argue against THAT. And if you aren't sure what I'm saying ask me. I'll answer anything from anyone and be accountable to anyone as long as it's in good faith.
Now let's go out there and have some fun. This game's supposed to be fun, goddammit.
I urge you to please, please, please send a copy of this to the FBI, along with the signature of your real name at the bottom ("Icepick" simply gives them a view into your preferred methods) and a whole laundry list of what you'd like to do to those people if only the law would let you.
Yes, I know how you lefties like seeing people locked up unless they agree with you.
But there's nothing to be done to you bastards. You've won. Congratulations. You're decreasing employment and increasing poverty. You're overthrowing regimes willy-nilly and having a grand time doing it. Things couldn't be going better for you guys.
And BTW, I'm sure the FBI already knows who I am. After all, the NSA programs that Obama supports and that you've voted for more of are grabbing everything I write as I send it.
Yes we have. That's why we say no to war in Syria. What say you?
I think a "war" in any conventional sense would be an insanely bad idea.
I think the threat of military engagement, no matter how limited or open-ended, is a different matter.
Threats are different from promises.
Yes we have. That's why we say no to war in Syria. What say you?
So, our most important military ally says no to war with Syria. The UN hasn't even been asked, because we know they'll say NO to war with Syria. The American people have been clear that THEY say NO to war with Syria. Obama says YES. And that's all that matters....
Yes, I know how you lefties like seeing people locked up unless they agree with you.
Only people who don't understand where different opinions end and threats begin.
But there's nothing to be done to you bastards. You've won. Congratulations.
Blame yourself, dude. Others didn't MAKE Romney lose. Romney lost. Many Republican ideas lost. That's reality.
You're decreasing employment and increasing poverty. You're overthrowing regimes willy-nilly and having a grand time doing it. Things couldn't be going better for you guys.
Unemployment's decreasing, but it would be 20% lower even still had the Tea Party not denied state and municipal governments the funds necessary to keep from laying off their labor force, as we've done in EVERY other recovery.
So, blame the Tea Party.
And BTW, I'm sure the FBI already knows who I am. After all, the NSA programs that Obama supports and that you've voted for more of are grabbing everything I write as I send it.
Every president has supported this 1970s era program since it came into existence. And read Simon for a conservative's defense of how ridiculous it is to differentiate between intercepting electromagnetic signals and what they could view you doing on a street with binoculars. Not much different. They're not reading content, either. And the three thousand less dead from terrorism is something I'm fond of, too, but maybe it gives you less of something to feel energized by. God only knows why you preferred the regime that gave us that.
Icepick, I'm saying "all the time without fail" when you engage me in argument you make stuff up about what I think. You do do that, in every thread in which you try to take me on.
Every time means every time. Without fail means every time. You've already stated that I used your own words to show you were contradicting yourself previously.
Now, if you say I do something EVERY TIME, all I have to do to show you are wrong is provide ONE counter-example. This is basic logic. I have actually provided two such examples previously. Your argument that I do this EVERY TIME is full of shit.
So now you are moving the goalposts to state that you mean something other than what you stated before.
So, you are self-contradicting, unclear on the concept of counter-examples and their use in falsifying arguments, and you change the meaning of your words after the fact.
What was that about me needing a course in basic argumentation? About me not being stupid and unclear about things?
You are caught, making false arguments and now claiming that you meant something else entirely, claiming that I haven't made a case.
Care to try again?
Only people who don't understand where different opinions end and threats begin.
Where did I threaten you, Ritmo? You, on the other hand, told me to report myself to the police so that I could get locked up. Specifically, you wanted me to tell the FBI that I want to kill people with an ice pick.
I said you were just as bad as al Qaeda, but made no mention of what I plan to do, if anything. On other threads here and elsewhere I've had a running argument with edutcher and others about the futility of doing anything in the current environment. My position? You guys have won, and there's nothing to be done about it. We're all fucked.
So, that bit of defeatism is something that you will not tolerate, because I will not worship Obama's half-white ass, and proclaim the Democratic Party the Salvation of Mankind! Uh, I mean HUMANkind!
Where's the threat, and who's making it? I think you're scum, you want me in jail for thinking you're scum and saying it out loud.
Now, if you say I do something EVERY TIME, all I have to do to show you are wrong is provide ONE counter-example. This is basic logic.
All right. Never mind. You argue like a child.
Anyone not understanding the difference between anything I've said on this thread (or ever, really) and al Qaeda, is simply not worth taking seriously. At that point you've Godwinned the discussion into a place where I'd be insulting myself to continue engaging something that asinine, especially with someone wrestling with the idea of what constitutes a "threat" and the meaning of the word "enemy".
I'll leave the rest of our comment, including your interest and expertise in "scum" to you. Not worth engaging further.
All right. Never mind. You argue like a child.
He said I was as bad as al Qaeda. As is a majority of America. (But it's ok because he hasn't said he'd do to me what Americans have rightfully done to them. Nice consolation).
Chick - this might be one instance of something you could file under "Why more intelligent liberals aren't showing up as often at Comment House. Even though we say we'd like them to".
"Threats are different from promises."
That's what she said.
phx: But I like to argue - as fairly and correctly as I can - and argue to win, particularly against someone who isn't just being a dick.
How am I to assume that someone that only toes the Democratic Party line, whatever it is at the moment, is arguing in good faith?
Where are you disagreements with the Democratic Party (and I mean important disagreements) in general and with Obama in particular? Do you think Obama has done ANYTHING badly?
Despite having asked this of you on many occasions, I have yet to have you give me an answer.
Try to figure out what I'm really saying, and argue against THAT. And if you aren't sure what I'm saying ask me. I'll answer anything from anyone and be accountable to anyone as long as it's in good faith.
So on what issues do you think the President has done a bad job? The job is vast, no none partisan can possibly agree with everything a President does. So, what do you think this President has done badly?
Now let's go out there and have some fun. This game's supposed to be fun, goddammit.
This is no game. And your argument that you want to win, as opposed to be correct, indicates that you shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is a deadly business. We're arguing about whether or not to kill a bunch of people on the other side of the planet, who haven't done anything TO US, just to make a statement.
Self-governance is a dangerous, joint venture for the citizens. It isn't a game to be won. And thinking that arguing about killing people when we're actually discussing whether or not to KILL PEOPLE is fun? That is perversity itself.
Frankly, I see no difference between al Qaeda and Obama voters.
Although I said I wouldn't engage you further, on a lighter note, I think this is something upon which you and Noam Chomsky could agree, Icepick. Only he'd have something at least as bad to say about Romney voters.
In any event, it looks as though an ideological match between raucously different bedfellows has been made on Comment Home! A marriage made in, well, that depends...
Let's leave what she said out of it, Trooper. You know you can't trust what women like her say. ;-)
Rhythm and Balls said...
Blame yourself, dude. Others didn't MAKE Romney lose. Romney lost. Many Republican ideas lost. That's reality.
No, that's the Big Lie.
Others DID STEAL the "election".
Ritmo's being cute again.
He knows massive vote fraud, IRS intimidation, and NSA spying were all necessary, because the Choom Gang has been out of ideas since Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie".
Weak sauce Bitchmo, if considering people with who vote for the other team to be enemies is grounds for FBI investigation, then President Foodstamps would have been locked up after his "punish your enemies speech."
I would expect such an appeal to authority from Lawnboy or his Boxwine Twunt keeper. You should be better than that.
Get your head in the game, sport.
I'm actually bewitchingly intrigued by the outright admission of conflation between al Qaeda and Obama voters.
I'd like to see a Comment Home theme on this. Perhaps a TV series like "Beverly Hills Burka" or somesuch. We could endeavor to liken the lives of Lindsay Lohan with one of bin Laden's wives, and how Alec Baldwin is hijacking balsa-wood planes with rubber-band propellers under the feathers of whomever hates him at the FOX media-political establishment.
This is no game. And your argument that you want to win, as opposed to be correct, indicates that you shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is a deadly business. We're arguing about whether or not to kill a bunch of people on the other side of the planet, who haven't done anything TO US, just to make a statement.
Self-governance is a dangerous, joint venture for the citizens. It isn't a game to be won. And thinking that arguing about killing people when we're actually discussing whether or not to KILL PEOPLE is fun? That is perversity itself.
All right, I'll try to be less hasty. You have made some good points for your side. Respectfully, however, this part I quoted is very different from my view. I'll bet neither one of us has any influence on the actual policies or events that are now in motion - I know for sure I don't.
So yeah, there's really no reason for most of us to get into a take-no-hostages frame of mind in a silly internet discussion blog. We can lighten up. I say we relax, figure out how to have a good argument, and don't go over the deep end. Life is good, you know?
Unemployment's decreasing, but it would be 20% lower even still had the Tea Party not denied state and municipal governments the funds necessary to keep from laying off their labor force, as we've done in EVERY other recovery.
We are five million full-time jobs short of where we were six years ago. This is after over FOUR YEARS of recovery.
In recent months it has been common for more people to drop out of the workforce than to get jobs. That has been a fairly common occurrence during this recovery.
Once, a couple of years ago, I tracked government jobs. They didn't start coming down much until after the recovery had started. I stopped tracking it (through BLS numbers) because no one cared what the actual numbers were. I used to post that at Althouse and other places, and no one, not one person, cared to respond to what was happening, and certainly no liberal ever did.
If this were an average recovery, we would be a good eight to ten million jobs over the previous peak. Instead, last time I checked two months ago, we were two million jobs short. And three million of those recovered were only part-time jobs.
But please, feel free to blame this on everyone except the President and the Senate Majority. Personally I blame the majority in the House, too, both of those that have held it in recent years. And the minority in the Senate. The difference is, the President is the only one who is actually considered to represent the whole country.
No one is doing anything about this. But those that voted for the President last year clearly stated their case that they thought THIS is an acceptable economy, as long as a Democrat is President.*
* Note that there were no real primary challenges to Obama last year, despite a failed economic policy. This indicates that the Democratic Party leadership and voters think this is the best they can do, and by re-electing Obama, they reward this failure.
Weak sauce Bitchmo, if considering people with who vote for the other team to be enemies is grounds for FBI investigation, then President Foodstamps would have been locked up after his "punish your enemies speech."
What does this even mean? We were talking about how a commenter here said a majority of America's voting public is like al Qaeda. I mean, it's not like I couldn't imagine you defending a comment that perverse, but I'm just becoming increasingly curious at how one would actually go about doing that.
I guess rhetorical bombs and rhetorical strategies really are as different as tactics and strategies in other areas. I mean, it was almost as if it was a verbal grenade thrown from a foxhole closed in on at all sides, if it takes a military analogy to help poor Icepick.
The senate "majority" was filibuster-proof for months at most, Sir. You know it.
As for the rest of it, it's a shitty economy, built on the shambles of a shitty regulatory system and a shitty attitude toward aiding those who could help it the best. "Helping" a top whose demand hasn't suffered isn't the answer, and you believe it is. So we have a difference of opinion, economists agree with mine, and that's that. How on earth al Qaeda has anything to do with that is just such an incredible leap as to challenge one's understanding of reality on too many levels to proceed further.
The only question is, whose opinion is more amenable to influence by objective facts? I'm not wagering that's one you'd care to bet on, is it?
I'll bet neither one of us has any influence on the actual policies or events that are now in motion - I know for sure I don't.
So, it is just a game for you. In other words, you accept that we are no longer citizens who matter, but mere subjects making sport of who the King would kill.
And this is my ultimate point. Citizenship either means something, or it doesn't. I think it doesn't anymore, and I think that is tragic. You think it doesn't, and now it's a sport to argue who the king will kill, and when he'll do it. You have no conception of how utterly contemptible I find that attitude, do you?
What I mean is, I don't see anything that Icepick said to be even remotely resembling a threat.
You can (and did) state why you think his comparison of Obama supporters is foolish. That's fine, but your comment about the FBI and later comment about where opinion ends and threats begin is not.
BTW, I just got around to watching the Putin/Blueberry Hill clip, and that's hilarious!
And just for the record, I do not think that Obama supporters and Al Qaeda are the same.
That doesn't mean that I can't hate them both and consider them both to be enemies however.
At any rate, I'm not advocating for Icepick or his comments, I'm just saying that in this NSA age of bullshit, claiming threats where there are not any is wrong.
That's fine, but your comment about the FBI and later comment about where opinion ends and threats begin is not.
But his calling the voting majority of the public an "enemy" whom he likened to al Qaeda, is?
In case it needs repeating, we've been fighting a decade-long war to the death against al Qaeda on the basis of their having declared their intention to destroy the country and having made good on it by killing three thousand Americans in targets chosen as major political and economic institutions of this country.
By what twisted logic does one attempt such a comparison by not inviting the exact same relationship, and one in which a civilized discussion is assumed? One in which Icepick sees the "human" side of al Qaeda and sympathizes with them?
Am I taking crazy pills? Are there really other CH cons who condone this talk or feel this way? Where is the hope for the country? We're al Qaeda now? What is wrong with everyone here? Where does it end?
For the record, I dress much better than bin Laden, though.
And just for the record, I do not think that Obama supporters and Al Qaeda are the same.
And not just in their personal grooming habits? Really?!
Can we at least take this a little further? Do they not at least have different focuses? Different things they are interested in?
Was Obama's presiding over the option that ended bin Laden (despite how much everyone here wants to downplay that, yes I know the footsoldiers deserve much credit) really just, like, a formality or something? Just appearances?
As far as I know, Ritmo, I am the only person here that thinks that people that voted for Obama last year are as bad as Osama bin Laden himself. I doubt that any of the people here who you consider right-wing lunatics (meaning, anyone that didn't vite for Obama last year) would make anywhere near as strong a statement.
So it wouldn't be much of a comment thread, would it?
But here's the thing: You guys voted for an abject failure last year. Obama's economic record is the pits of the world. And trying to blame everyone but Obama for it is ... ludicrous. Obama holds what is usually called the most powerful office in the world. Probably not so, that would probably be the Chinese Premier, or whatever title that worthy holds these days.
But Obama certainly holds the most powerful office in the land. And he had a Senate and House majority for two years. (Claiming the filibuster stopped him for half that time is stupid. You couldn't get one single Republican vote?)
In that time, the President's economic program consisted of a stimulus bill that was too little on time and too much too late. It did nothing, and it wasn't designed to do anything other than reward certain Obama constituencies and throw a few bones to the peons. Oh, and a refi program on houses that failed, and "cash for clunkers" deal to destroy the used car market for a couple of years.
Oh, and trillions and trillions of dollars flowing through the finance industry to prop it up. I won't even go into that here. I've been a part and parcel of such arguments in places where people actually followed the data. Ultimately it doesn't matter: People that voted for Obama thought propping up the super-rich and throwing the poor some bones was great. Many Republicans at least got sick to their stomachs realizing that Bush had done the same thing and that they had supported it. But not so the Dems, because Obama was their guy.
But that's pretty much it. He didn't do shit after that first year in office, save for a cut to FICA taxes, which he didn't want to do.
And last summer, he proposed a jobs program that would have added, if it worked as advertized, and none of his stuff ever has, it would have added about 1,000,000 jobs. Which wouldn't even be adequate to the task we're facing.
Nope, the President has failed on economic issues. He has the worst economic recovery on record, by leaps and bounds, and so far we haven't really recovered on either employment or median wages.
And what has the President busied himself with in these last couple of years? The imaginary War on Women (OMG< Rush Limbaugh called some college slut a SLUT!), BINDERS full of women, Romney's dog transport skills, teh gays and their desire to get married, NOT the Benghazi fiasco, save to blame it on a video, using the IRS to go after his political enemies, golfing, getting involved in nothing local murder investigation in Florida, and on and on and on.
He's not even trying on the economy. And this is what you consider hard and successful work on the economy.
Oh, and I forgot, now he wants to bomb another country for something they may or may not have done, but they certainly didn't do to us.
Great job picking your leader. But don't ever tell me that your guy, or his voters, give one goddamned tiny little piece of a turd about the unemployed. Because you haven't done a goddamend thing for us, except dance on the graves of our careers.
For the record, in my liberal paradise, a guy like bin Laden would probably be one of the first people in my mind that I'd take every legal option of decapitating.
I just wanted to put that out there. And yes, it's for what he did, but at least as importantly (or educationally, apparently, given the comment and ensuing silence on it here) for what he stands for.
I just wanted to put that out there. Just so you know. Kind of like what Cal Naughton Jr. admitted to Ricky Bobby during his coma. Consider it one of my deepest, heart-felt admissions. One of those really naughty things you'd never have otherwise known about me.
" I am the only person here that thinks that people that voted for Obama last year are as bad as Osama bin Laden himself."
I'll agree that they did more damage to the country than Bin Laden, but they didn't mean to do it.
Lets say Bin laden owned an airline, and he hired some pilots to fly his planes because they were Arabs and he thought there should be more Arab pilots and he kinda had a crush on them because they talked about flying in a way that gave him a thrill up his leg, and even though they never flew before and crashed every vehicle they ever controlled, he still thought they would be great at it. Then he put them in the cockpit on some flights, say Boston to L.A., but they got lost and crashed into some buildings.
Now that would be the same ethically as being an Obama voter, but still less damaging to the nation.
I am a gaseous mofo. We had hot dogs @ a stand in Bristol, Ct. called Busters. My bride took pictures of the dogs. I had the kraut dog. However, they cook the kraut slowly w/ bacon. It is better than sex. My bride had the Michigan. That is a finely chopped hamburger in a light tomato sauce. Akin to a chili dog, but not messy. Sandwiches, hot dogs, should not be messy. The dogs are foot longs, I know because I measured it w/ my foot long. And they are natural casing w/ that signature snap when you bite them. A great chocolate malt was the perfect combo.
Sorry, I know you guys are saving the world but I was summoned on the subject of gassing people. We're in a hotel and my wife is fucked. She has to wear ear plugs for my snoring. Nose plugs also tonight,
Rhythm and Balls said...
Unemployment's decreasing, but it would be 20% lower even still had the Tea Party not denied state and municipal governments the funds necessary to keep from laying off their labor force, as we've done in EVERY other recovery.
Workforce participation's the worst since Carter, so Ritmo can't even lie convincingly.
Those people are unemployed, but Ritmo thinks we're all as dumb as he has to be to buy that.
And it's the tea Party's fault?
Try ChoomCare, that's what's responsible for all the layoffs.
But Ritmo knows that.
Spinelli, You are in big trouble now. You can abuse your wife all you want with conventional weapons, but now you've gone too far. Call Putin. He'll get you out of this.
I apologize for using numbers for ed's sake, given how horribly confused he gets by them.
Actually, I don't.
1,500,000 people that the Tea Party have kept out of work.
Ed will do anything to avoid discussing numbers, or other facts. Because they're not on his side.
Try ChoomCare, that's what's responsible for all the layoffs.
Hilarious!
Look at what ed made up! It's his own arts and crafts class of the mind. Very imaginative! You get a gold star today, eddie! Yeay!
I haven't read the entire thread, maybe it was addressed later, but this is just too much...
"I have no expectations for anyone, anywhere at anytime."
What bone cold ignorance, or flat assed lying.
How about those who ensure you survive your airline flight, your short trip through a road tunnel, your trip over a bridge, the quality of the water you drink.
No expectations, really... what a fucking tool.
You get a gold star today, eddie!
Let's leave this kind of childish taunting behind, in another time & place, shall we?
I don't see what's so mockable about what ed said. Are you saying Obamacare hasn't caused any layoffs, resistance to new hiring, or shift from full-time to part-time jobs?
Indeed, XRay.
The hyperbole in this thread has mirror plane symmetry.
(By the way, been enjoying this thread. An old-school political rumble, devoid of personal nastiness. Carry on.)
"1,500,000 people that the Tea Party have kept out of work."
If someone needs your labor, they will pay you, even if the Tea Party does not agree, and Obama's stash is overdrawn. If however your pay depends on tax dollars handed out for political purposes, then you may be in danger of taxpayers needing that money for other things.
(By the way, been enjoying this thread. An old-school political rumble, devoid of personal nastiness. Carry on.)
Yashu, love your insight, care, etc. But it isn't about that any more. The Progressives are so deep in your wallet it doesn't matter.
This very thread has Reuters as a source. Yet two days ago, they reported (see, reported), on an unusual aspect of Norwegian politics thusly:
The anti-tax and anti-immigration Progress Party, which once had among its members mass killer Anders Behring Breivik, won 16 percent of votes on Monday and could be kingmaker in a new center-right coalition after eight years of center-left rule.
Anders, the individual who killed 77 people, is now headline news by Reuters for the sad ascension of the conservative party. That's all it takes.
You Must Read it to Believe this passes as journalism.
ndspinelli said...
I am a gaseous mofo.
I hope for your wife's sake that your digesting victuals undergo no gas-to-liquid phase change internally.
""I have no expectations for anyone, anywhere at anytime."
C'mon now. You did expect the oceans to stop their rise, and you knew damned well you were the ones you've been waiting for. Hey, here we are, and this is fabulous.
@Dante: Isn't Anders already out of jail?
@bagoh20: we're doing that blue-on-blue avatar alternation that confuses deborah so.
It's kinda like Meade and Inga. You can be Inga.
Wow! I just read part of this thread. Englightening.
And chick, who has definitely sucked a dick, completely and totally hates fags more than anything. Fags are sullivanist and a million years ago hung sarah palin. I have the pic of it. Do you want to see it? It is in my library and I will show it to you ASAP. Fuck my wife and kids. My motivation is fags and everything they have done to this country. I want to talk about fags constantly....and Sarah Palin...and Andrew Sullivan. This is my mission. Hopefully the hateful MSM will present this to the American public and I will be able to finally be get a hadron and ejaculate.
Move to Russia Chick and enjoy being amongst those that imprison fags! It will be fab.
Perhaps, you could follow your "dear leader" Ted Cruz and wish that the senate was composed of 100 Jesse Helms (who voted for multiple wars). Yes, that is the winning ticket! Repubican primary voter will love that shit but in the national election that won't work so great.
You are screwed white, old, fat, not working white male pubes who some happen to live in really shitty hoods surronded by hatiions and spics. How depressing BTW.
The demographics have changed and your time has come and gone.
Retire and enjoy your golden years.
You're in the wrong thread Titus. The plus-sized anger thread was earlier today.
Or should I say "olympic-sized anger"?
Breivik begins studies at University of Oslo
"The man convicted of murdering 77 people in attacks in Norway in 2011 has enrolled at the University of Oslo to study political science.
Anders Behring Breivik, who is serving a 21-year sentence, has not been admitted to a degree-granting programme, but will study modules.
The 34-year-old will study at his high security prison and will not have direct contact with university staff.
The university stressed the importance of treating Breivik fairly."
By all means, treat him fairly.
Remind me to never visit Norway.
Remind me to never visit Norway.
Norway awards the Peace Nobel--Sweden all the rest.
FYI.
Wow, Dante, that's disgusting-- but of course not surprising.
News reports on the Australian election aren't much better. Read a great fisking of that recently, can't remember where unfortunately.
Of course, the only reason anyone would vote for the not-left-wing party (in Australia, fortunately for them, conservatives still get to call themselves "liberals") must be mindless bigotry, racism, hate.
Grunt, grunt. I must be a cavewoman.
***
It's depressing, I know. But those election results, elsewhere, show that all the leftist propaganda & indoctrination in the world, blanketing media & academia worldwide, is still not so total that citizens can't apprehend & respond to empirical reality. At some point, to some extent.
Yeah, I don't know. But not ready to give in to total resignation & despair, yet.
"The university stressed the importance of treating Breivik fairly."
You mean they're gonna kill him 77 times? If he was a Muslim, he'd get 5544 virgins, which I'm sure would deplete the entire population, requiring recycling, which he could then sue Mohamad in Norwegian court for breach of contract and get millions, which the government would then take for taxes, which would piss him off an cause him to kill someone.
It seems ridiculous to call someone "gay" when they seethe with anger like a Klansman at a Parliament concert.
I deleted my last, for those few who may have read it. Not good for the blog, sorry.
You do know the history of Parliament don't you? They weren't just born with the funk?
The Funk
It was fine, XRay. No delete needed, but the concern is appreciated.
Titus, I don't get your obsession with Chick. (Who's never struck me as anti-gay, in any hateful way. Come on, you don't have to be anti-gay to despise Andrew Sullivan, e.g. for his Trig Trutherism.)
I thought you two hugged it out on the childhood memories thread. Or is it that Chick didn't respond to your invitation of a hug? I'm pro guys hugging, myself.
I thought you preferred exotic brown hog, anyway-- so why dwell on Chick's?
We can all agree, straight or gay, man or woman, that Sarah Palin's hot (tits). Kumbaya!
"The speech was left to encompass a contradiction. The president wished to reassert his credibility while engaging in a forced concession. So the beginning and end were an argument for limited military strikes based on an appeal to American exceptionalism. The rest was an explanation of why such action would not be forthcoming — and is no longer likely. A strike Obama could not effectively justify even with videos of gassed children will not be justified by news of a stalled or inconclusive inspection process.
The resulting message was boldly mixed. Assad is a moral monster — who is now our partner in negotiations. The consequences would be terrible “if we fail to act” — which now seems the most likely course. America “doesn't do pinpricks” — especially when it does not do anything. “The burdens of leadership are often heavy” — unless they are not assumed…
[T]his remains a sad moment for the United States. We have seen a Putin power play, based on a Kerry gaffe, leading to a face-saving presidential retreat — and this was apparently the best of the available options.".
~ Michael Gerson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamas-missteps-on-syria-lead-to-retreat/2013/09/11/e6fec8de-1b1d-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
Meanwhile, Vlad's on a roll:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin may be crude, but he knows how to exploit weakness. And he's sure acting like he has spotted an easy mark in President Obama.
That's the way to read Wednesday's report in the Moscow business daily Kommersant that the Russian President plans to offer Tehran a sophisticated mobile anti-aircraft missile system, along with a second nuclear reactor, at a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that begins Friday."
That's from "Putin Rules" in the WSJ (behind a paywall).
Thanks bag.
If someone needs your labor, they will pay you, even if the Tea Party does not agree, and Obama's stash is overdrawn. If however your pay depends on tax dollars handed out for political purposes, then you may be in danger of taxpayers needing that money for other things.
Seeing as how the bulk of the debt started with Ray-Gun and advanced to warp speed with Shrub, it's nice to see you rewrite history this way. IT'S ONLY DEBT WHEN DEMOCRATS SPEND IT! IT'S NOT DEBT IF USED FOR WAR OR TAX CUTS AND OVERHEATING THE CREDIT SECTOR IS LIKE THE BESTEST (TEMPORARY) JOB BUILDING MEASURE OUT THERE. GOVERNMENT JOBS ARE ONLY REALLY JOBS IN REPUBLICAN-LED RECOVERIES, UNDER DEMOCRATS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T NEED ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY SEEING AS HOW BADLY THE REPUBS WRECKED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN THEIR WAR ON COMMUNITY VALUES.
Bag, I sense your publisher thought you made a third-rate Ann Coulter (besides, you don't look as much like a tranny as she does) and recommended you write for the fiction audience instead. But your talking points were too far from credible even for a paperback novel.
Blessed are the meek for they inherit the Earth.
I love that. But I never did understand it. How, exactly does that devolve?
We collectively elected a weak president, I personally believe we did that evilly, poorly, aggressively, meanly, corruptly, strongly and wrongly, but there you go, we elected a weak president. And he is place on top of and supposedly controls the most powerful military on Earth so far, layers of armies in fact, and that is ridiculously big.
Is that how meek inherit the Earth, eventually? By electing such people all over the globe they cannot even get together to launch a strike supporting their own conventions?
So that evil kills itself and disappears, eventually, so that only meek remain?
Man, that's foresightful if that is what's happening, but it does not look like a dynamic future. It looks more like herding. Something ripe for full takeover.
Putin actually appears to be a very little man. [putin height] Ha!
This is a small man pushing around a weak man. This is so obvious it's not even funny. It's not funny.
Do you ever listen to someone speak, someone high level, even in government, people so vast in their grasp and facile that they blow you away with their insights. I hardly see that anymore. Boilerplate has replaced it.
The bit about Putin saying it is dangerous teaching people they are exceptional, that can be read different ways, he is saying it is dangerous to teach the child Obama he is exceptional and raise children on that because he is not exceptional and you end up elevating an unqualified person to high office, unlike himself who attains high office by force of one's strengths, and that is dangerous for nations.
But read also dangerous to inculcate a whole nation that they are exceptional. (as Israel being the chosen people, from Arab pov, how can you answer that?)
Really?
Even when people pour into it from other nations? Notwithstanding people also leaving? That means people must leave their country to come to this one. That means something was worth leaving and something was worth visiting. Push/pull factors. Some people stayed and some people left, both way, so give and take both ways. People who left were exceptionally dissatisfied. And mostly came here. We are largely exceptionally dissatisfied. So don't tell us we're not exceptional, Little Man.
That letter is what a little man would do.
He put on his NYT elevator shoes and stood above someone taller than himself, weaker, but taller. He didn't have to do that but he did because he is weak and little himself. We are beholding two very weak men. And the more Putin struts the weaker he appears, the weaker becomes, amongst the weak appearances are all. The meek are inheriting the Earth and it has come down to tribes gassing each other while weak leaders look on, participate at the side, and think aloud as they speak to each other through media.
Matt Drudge is reporting a breaking story on how John Boehner just convened a Republican strategy session in which it was announced that they would introduce a bill declaring that only debt incurred under Democratic presidents would count toward the official debt. All Republican raised debt would be permanently considered off-the-books. For serious.
We collectively elected a weak president, I personally believe we did that evilly, poorly, aggressively, meanly, corruptly, strongly and wrongly, but there you go, we elected a weak president.
Oh bah. Some people have weak minds and fixate too much on biker bar behavior. If you want the cartoon-version of strength go hang out in a gym already and ogle the roid-takers. Strength exists not only in the body. It's not only contained in the kind of popularity that Putin requires with an iron fist. It's not in Putin's immature camera hogging, either. Get real.
Chip, that 12:07 comment reads more like a fairy tale than anything I've read on here thus far. But the blog's only been up for, what, a few months? I'm sure at some point a story about Obama in which a cow jumps over a moon could be put to pen. I'll give it some time.
Part 1: Sorry to leave the argument, such as it was, but I had other things to do.
Here's the crux of it with Obama voters. The economy has been a disaster since the fall of 2008, and it had been bad the previous nine months.
Job losses have been staggering. But the recovery has only been in a strict technical sense. The job situation bottomed out several years ago, and there has been nominal growth. But the growth rate has not been enough to do more than keep the U-3 rate in a steady state, the growth barely enough to cover new entries into the job market.
The unemployment rate has gone down, over that time, because people have dropped out of the workforce. Some of those people have dropped out because they've retired, or gone back to school, or what have you. Most of them, most of US, have dropped out because there isn't enough work to be had. A study released about a week ago claimed at least seven million people have dropped out of the workforce though they would prefer to have jobs. These people are NOT the two million or so the government counts as Long-term Unemployed (out of work six months or longer). Add those seven million people BACK into the unemployemnt pool, and guess what the unemployment rate looks like? I mean the U-3 rate, which is the big headline number?
Blows it the fuck out of the water is what it does. Drive it up near ELEVEN PERCENT. The real unemployment situation is that about 1 in 9 adults that wants work in this country can't get it.
Post a Comment