#1: "Elites in much of the world hate the USA."
And so? Elites in the USA hate the USA too. |
| Posted by: JP|| 2003-06-03 15:52:52
Top||
|
| #2: The fact that the elites hate us proves we are on the right path. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi|| 2003-06-03 16:07:45
Top||
|
#3: The question is, what to do about it. Do we go the politically correct way, blame ourselves for their hatred of us, and try to make things right? Or do we give them our collective middle finger salute?
I honestly doubt that the reason they hate the US is because we are oppressing their culture and causing pain to their fellow countrymen in their view. It is more simple than that. When they look around, all they see is American culture and see it as something to yearn for. They also perceive American culture as superior to their own. They may not admit it, but they do.
In other words, they hate the US because they view Americans as being better than them. And better than their own countries and countrymen.
That's a petty reason, and for that I suggest we go with option number 2. |
| Posted by: RW|| 2003-06-03 16:59:28
Top||
|
| #4: Nice flashback Fred - I remember the Bugs and Elmer "Barber", particularly the scalp massage and barber chair lol |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 18:32:50
Top||
|
| #5: Outstanding analysis, Fred. I only have one minor quibble. Socialism did not cause zero-sum thinking. Rather it provides already zero-sum cultures with a justification for continuing the zero-sum game that has been going on for millennia in some cases. I am always reminded of the old (probably apocryphal) tale of the Peace Corps volunteer. Near the end of his tour of duty, he finds that he cannot make sense of the poverty and squalor that surround him. Confused and wanting to somehow understand the reality that that turned out to be so very different from his youthful preconceptions, he turns to a native that somehow seems wiser than all the rest. "Mahmoud," he asks, "I don't understand. The people here are as smart as Americans, and work as hard as Americans. You have plenty of land and a goodly amount of natural resources. Yet your people are stuck in squalor and poverty and ignorance and don't really seem to want to climb out of it." Mahmoud replies, "I'll explain it to you. Let's say that in America, your neighbor gets a goat. You will work hard all year and at the end you will have two goats. Here in Elbonia, if your neighbor gets a goat, you go home and prays that the goat dies." This understanding is important because eliminating socialism (of the second, third or fouth international variety) doesn't eliminate the problem. The "problem" is embedded in vocabularies and underlying cultural assumptions. I wonder if any of the game theory folks have ever created a "meta game" in which a zero-sum and non-zero-sum game clash at their boundary. I don't have the math or programming skills, but my guess is that this is an incredibly unstable combination. One must destroy the other. |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 20:15:50
Top||
|
#6: Thanks. You're right about the zero-sum thinking predating socialism. Socialism had Europeans roots. It's the land-based history that gave rise to it. When wealth is based on land ownership, it is a zero-sum game. If you get five more acres, it's because your neighbor gave it up, because they're not making any more land. America at its founding didn't have that problem, since there was lots of land for the taking.
There was something else involved in the divergence, though, and I haven't quite put my finger on it yet. Otherwise, everywhere from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego would have the same attitudes we do — but zero-sum is still the rule in Latin America... |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-06-03 20:50:32
Top||
|
| #7: Fred: It's the old theory of settlement versus exploitation colonies. The US, Canada and Australia are settlement colonies and are pretty good places to live. Most of Latin America and the Philipines were under the encomienda ( ultra exploitative) system and are therefore pretty crappy places to live. The exception is Costa Rica which was a settlement colony. I think Costa Rica is what Latin America could have looked like if the Spaniards hadn't been such rapacious bastards -- low growth but not especially violent. One could argue that California would be similar if the Franciscans had been allowed to continue their experiment. Overall, I think that the settlement/exploitation colony thing accounts for about 40% of the zero-sum mentality in Latin America. Much of the rest is correlated to the cultural revolution that occurred in England starting just before the Magna Carta: common law, political power devolved to commoners, the State more or less keeping its nose out of private enterprise. So generally, former English colonies tend to be pretty nice places, while Spanish, French, Belgian, Portuguese colonies tend to be shitholes. |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 22:40:56
Top||
|
| #1: Hope those that are calling Iraq a "quagmire" are made aware of this development. It takes a while for things to get moving, but they do eventually move after a sufficient application of force and persistence. |
| Posted by: Dar>Dar|| 2003-06-03 12:25:32
Top||
|
| #2: Khan most likely decided it was better to turn most of the money over to Karzai (bet he still "wets his beak") than to chance loosing it all. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-06-03 13:00:31
Top||
|
#3: afghanistan is not a quagmire, but it sure doesnt seem that the admin is paying it any great attention - i mean its pretty desperate that it finally had to come to this - I think with a greater commitment of money and attention, we might have gotten things a good bit further along by now, which would have helped our global strategy. I dont attribute this to Iraq - the neglect began before that.
and i still think we'd be better off paying more attention there. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 15:21:02
Top||
|
#4: "Aid to Kosovo per capita is still 25 times higher than aid to Afghanistan"
Fareed Zakharia, MSNBC |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 15:39:43
Top||
|
#5: Yeah, but the cost of living is higher in Kosovo too, LH. MUCH higher.
It took what, 16 months for Karzai to pull together a large, trained army and produce the muscle to make the warlords back down? Excellent job.
It'll be somewhere around the 18-24 months for similar good news to come out of Iraq. We're simply in a transition period right now...it'll be rough, but it'll work. Most Iraqis WANT it to work. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod>R. McLeod|| 2003-06-04 04:40:58
Top||
|
#2: "Beats Me"
"Hokay" |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 09:36:01
Top||
|
| #1: Yes, it's satire. But how many ROP yokels over there will swallow it hook, line, and sinker as total truth? |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 15:59:10
Top||
|
| #2: Letters, tapes. Pictures, yahoos! We want physical proof he's not worm food. None of this "Weekend at Bernie's " shit either. |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 10:38:03
Top||
|
#3: Rather than a planted letter, my initial read is that the blood covered name is that of one of the many Saudi royal family members who supports Al Qaeda.
Given Saudi's shitty history of cooperation with the FBI, I doubt we'll be getting a look. |
| Posted by: mjh>mjh|| 2003-06-03 13:02:08
Top||
|
#4: mjh - That's why I was thinking 'plant', in order for one member of the royalty to screw another.
Backstabbing is an old Arab tradition, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Raj||angrycyclist.blogspot.com]' target='_blank'> [angrycyclist.blogspot.com]|| 2003-06-03 15:26:27
Top||
|
| #1: so the tories are abandoning their principled support for Blair on Iraq to make political capital. Would the US GOP have done so differently??? Colorado Con, you listening? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 07:33:35
Top||
|
| #2: Since you ask - do you hear GOP members saying that the Yugoslav situation was a pack of lies? No. Do you hear them contending Clinton was ineffectual and solely trying to deflect attention from his scandals re: Bin Laden and Sudan? Yes, and I think history will bear the notion out |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 08:55:20
Top||
|
| #3: Given the Tories are not demanding an enquiry (which is usually an opposition's reaction to any perceived government failing) but simply accepting it's all but inevitable given the situation, I wouldn't regard this comment as anything more than the mininum expected of a British parliamentary opposition. It's as though Her Majesty's Oppostition were on work to rule. Look to the Labour backbenches and the Lib Dems for Blair's real enemies on the Iraq issue. |
| Posted by: Bulldog|| 2003-06-03 09:19:28
Top||
|
#4: And when dubya came into office did he attack Bin laden in afghanistan - No. There was no consensus in the US before 9-11 for an effective assault on the Taliban. And no, it wasnt to deflect attention from the scandals - it was something that he needed to try, though it did turn out to be ineffectual.
And of course Kosovo is not analogous, since there was real genocide occuring there, and graves have since been found in Serbia.
So what do you think accounts for the differences between the US GOP and the party of conservatives beloved Margaret Thatcher??? Other than the presence of Tony Blair??? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 09:24:27
Top||
|
#5: If the Guardian's report is correct and not unduly unbiased (i.e., does the majority of the Tories stand for support of the P.M. or is there a fringe minority that the Guardian tapped into), then I am truly disappointed with the Tories. Such is not a profile in courage and would be a cynical abandonment of their own policy positions for political gain.
I would hope that the GOP, if they were in an analgous situation, would side with the President and their own policy positions. (e.g., the welfare reform law, NAFTA). |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 09:48:16
Top||
|
#6: It's the opposition's job to hold the government to account and act as the main accuser of the party/ies in power. If they didn't demand an inquiry in a situation like this, they wouldn't be doing their job. The great majority of Tories supported Blair over Iraq (a significatly higher proportion than Labour MPs), but the fact is the Government's main argument in favour of war is legitimately open to question. Like it or not, the WMD issue needs to be resolved, or Blair, and whoever sided with him over Iraq, will seem to have, knowingly or unwittingly, deceived the public over the threat posed to the UK by Saddam's regime. Therefore, if WMDs, or satisfactory explanations as to what happened to them, do not come to light in the near future, an inquiry will be necessary. It's unlikely this will happen, but it's naive to think that calling for one is simply a political trick, after all, the Tories, for supporting the war, would look at best gullible for being so supportive.
Blair's spinning is an issue the Tories can capitalise on greatly, however. And I, for one, won't countenance supporting Blair at a ballot box because of his support for further European integration European - a far bigger issue for this country. |
| Posted by: Bulldog|| 2003-06-03 10:06:07
Top||
|
| #7: ...Not that I'd vote Labour before a lobotomy, anyway, but I think my views on Europe reflect those of a growing number of Britons. Blair has to be stopped from dragging Britain into the black hole of EUrostatedom. |
| Posted by: Bulldog|| 2003-06-03 10:25:08
Top||
|
| #8: bulldog - perhaps you are right it is the job of an opposition to oppose. as you may have noted, some Americans who post here dont seem to realize that, and consider the Dems virtually traitors whenever they oppose anything Bush does in foreign policy - not only genuine idiotarians, but even such stalwarts as Joe Leiberman have been criticized for positions no more "traitorous" than taken by the tories. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 10:29:41
Top||
|
#9: and its certainly possible for you to be supportive of Blair on Iraq and the WOT, and still vote against him because of the Euro, etc.
Just as I can strongly support Bush on Iraq and the WOT, while intending to vote against him because of his domestic policies. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 10:31:20
Top||
|
| #10: The difference being that you would vote against Bush for lesser of two major issues facing the U.S., and Bulldog would vote against Blair for the greater of two important issues facing Btitain. Now, from where I'm sitting, it looks like your decision is influenced by politics, not genuine concern. |
| Posted by: Mike N.|| 2003-06-03 11:28:34
Top||
|
| #11: First I'll only vote dem in 2004 if they nominate a candidate i can live with on foreign affairs - and second sorry if i think domestic affairs are still an important issue facing the US. What i have a problem with is people who have scream "politics!!!" if Lieberman comes up with a reasonable criticism of, say, the progress of nation-building in Afghanistan, but can look the other way at the actions of the tories. Yes an opposition is supposed to oppose, theyre supposed to try to get elected, and theyre supposed to present genuine policy alternatives. Those are all connected in a democracy. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 12:07:49
Top||
|
#12: First, All you said was that you intended to vote against Bush, you included no stipulations. Second, I never said that domestic policy was not important. Also, I beleive that if you go back and re-read the post I replied to, you'll see why I was screaming "politics". Third, Not to knock Lieberman, but I've yet to hear him give any reasonable criticism of the Afghan nation-building project. Fourth, that could be becuase I haven't paid much attention to him since he flip-flopped on the issues when he ran with Gore.
And finally, That's why I'm afraid that your love for Lieberman seems a little out of place.
Stalwart my ass! Only if the polls support it, or he'll get the face time.
Next thing you know, he'll be asking which party will give him more time to speak on the Clinton impeachment. Oh, wait a minute....
|
| Posted by: Mike N.|| 2003-06-03 13:01:15
Top||
|
#13: pols including Dubya have positions that "evolve" - i dont hold Joes softening on affirmative action against him - he had no choice. He didnt flip on culture - yeah he fundraised in hollywood, so what. And he didnt flip on Social - he was never commited to privatization - just interested in the concept.
And all this is on domestic policy - he has been stalwart on foreign policy - more so than Dubya.
|
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 15:17:11
Top||
|
#14: Claire Claire Claire...
Put away the ganja and pay attention:
Didnt; you get severence pay? Are ya tryig to sweeten an unpaid severence? |
| Posted by: badanov>badanov||www.rkka.org]' target='_blank'> [www.rkka.org]|| 2003-06-03 20:13:49
Top||
|
| #1: Too bad in the end of the day, this guy will be better armed than the government of New Zealand. |
| Posted by: BigFire>BigFire|| 2003-06-03 09:14:31
Top||
|
| #2: Maybe we could reduce the DOD budget by buying direct from this guy? |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 09:49:29
Top||
|
#3: There are easier ways to deliver a payload of explosives. A rental truck for example can take a lot more explosives than the cruise missile he's building. A large remote controlled plane (or little blimp) could probably be constructed far quicker if you needed range for your attack. Nobody has built one because its not worth the effort, for a terrorist, that is.
It would be nice if his X-Jet works and is cheaper than standard jet engines. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-06-03 12:57:17
Top||
|
| #4: Well, the original pulse engine was just a long firing chamber with one-way louvres on the air intake. Ran on gasoline, as I recall. Wonder what he did to make his X-jet? |
| Posted by: mojo|| 2003-06-03 14:49:17
Top||
|
| #5: Is this Homer's long lost brother? You know, the rich one? |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 15:54:49
Top||
|
| #6: This is another one of those technological trends that is going to blow up on us like a wide body jet hitting a skyscraper. Processing power is so cheap, so widespread, and so easy to configure. With cheap sensors and cheap servos (and I do mean cheap) one could turn a BM-21 rocket into a precision guided munition. The right firmware running on the processor can overcome inconsistencies in the fuel density, winds, poor aerodynamic design, etc. Or how about a RPG round with a $15 heatseeker that can find the exhaust of an M-1 (the most vulnerable point) 90% of the time? The guy who first noticed this trend was a Polish science fiction writer named Stansilaw Lem. He called it unintelligence, IIRC (I can't find a citation on the web). He realized that the point wasn't to make a few expensive intelligent weapons, but to make lots of cheap weapons about as intelligent as a fly or ant, both of which are highly effective as performing simple tasks. We've crossed that threshold with JDAM. Expect more of this. |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 16:19:24
Top||
|
| #1: There was a protest in SA teh other day calling on Mbeki to sanction Mugabe, which would probably bring Mugabe down, given how much of Zimbabwe's trade goes through SA. But Mugabe is an old ally of the ANC, IIUC, and the ANC leaders are not going to join Britain and others in opposition to Mugabe, If and when the opposition takes over in Zimbabwe, that should make for interesting relations between Zim and SA. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 10:33:50
Top||
|
#1: not sure they'll get much live fire experience - most of the residual violence has been in the Sunni Arab areas north and west of Baghdad, which will remain in the hands of the 4th ID, the 1st AD, and, for the time being, the 3rd ID. The Poles and other Nato troops will be in the Shiite zone, which is politically hot, but not particularly violent thus far.
However by taking control of turf, they should relieve US troops. Not sure who will come out first, 3rd or Marines. 3rd has been over there for a long time, longer than Marines, but Pentagon cant be happy having Marines in occupation role, traditionally reserved to Army.
Note also the French are sending some Spec forces to Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 10:39:29
Top||
|
#1: To the Dixie Chicks only: yes, SARS is rampant in Toronto, thousands dying every day, please stay away!
BTW, this wouldn't have anything to do with the F.U.T.K. thing would it? |
| Posted by: RW|| 2003-06-03 17:33:34
Top||
|
#2: She's LOST HER VOICE?? Isn't this what Robbins, Sarandon, Moore, et al said WOULD HAPPEN?? If the Chicksie Dicks can't perform, then the terrorists have won
|
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 18:34:56
Top||
|
| #3: Is this McCarthyism, the blacklist, suppression of dissent, or the cold wind? Could somebody ask Sean Penn? Or his kid? |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 21:08:40
Top||
|
| #2: I vote for Battle Mountain, Nevada. They have a large billboard outside of town that says "Voted the Armpit of America, by the Washington Post". For maximum effect, schedule it for August. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-06-03 14:24:36
Top||
|
| #4: I vote for Boston too, in July, same dates as the Democratic National Convention! |
| Posted by: Capsu78|| 2003-06-03 14:32:55
Top||
|
| #5: Seattle is definitely the place for it. After the IMF riots, the Mardi Gras riots, and now the Law Enforcement Intelligence seminar riots this weekend, they've got protesting, riots, and destruction of private property down to a fine art. It's like freakin' Mecca for nutcases... |
| Posted by: Dar>Dar|| 2003-06-03 14:33:44
Top||
|
#6: San Francisco or Berkley leap to mind.
On the other hand, Guantanamo Bay is in the United States. |
| Posted by: Chuck>Chuck||blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'> [blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-06-03 14:33:54
Top||
|
#7: I suppose it would be a waste of time if I wrote to W. and suggested that it be somewhere very near my home in Vadnais Heights, MN. (It's a suburb of St. Paul)(Which itself is kinda like a suburb of Minneapolis.)
I know a lot of people that would be willing to help out with security, and if you held it in January, most of the protesters would stay in their hotel rooms. |
| Posted by: Mike N.|| 2003-06-03 14:44:29
Top||
|
| #8: I suggest Zap, No. Dakota, sometime in mid-winter. True, it is a one-dog town, your basic wide spot in the road, with no "guest facilities" to speak of but there is a military base nearby... |
| Posted by: mojo|| 2003-06-03 14:57:11
Top||
|
| #9: Having it in Hollywood would be amusing. Rodeo Drive has plenty of shops to loot, they'd get their media coverage, and the liberal stars won't have to commute to the protests. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-06-03 15:26:02
Top||
|
| #10: I'm surprised nobody suggested Texas. Isn't it still legal to shoot trespassers there? |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-06-03 15:46:24
Top||
|
#11: That's right, somebody will be in Boston. The Dimbo 2004 convention in July. Try not to be too dazzled by Mayor Menino and don't miss his speech. I hope there will be subtitles.
One good thing? He'll probably be bussing all the bums down to the Cape. The Dems really feel for the homeless but, god forbid, they gotta deal with them face to face. |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 15:48:35
Top||
|
| #12: How about Vidor Texas? It's just down the road from Jasper... |
| Posted by: JP|| 2003-06-03 15:56:36
Top||
|
| #13: Point Barrow, Alaska |
| Posted by: PBMcL|| 2003-06-03 18:08:22
Top||
|
| #14: I'd say Phoenix, sometime in August. It'd be funny to watch them melt. But St. Paul in January would be cute, too. |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-06-03 18:57:30
Top||
|
| #15: Chicago. Local police haven't forgotten how to stage a riot against protesters. |
| Posted by: Steve White>Steve White|| 2003-06-03 19:02:26
Top||
|
| #16: Mackinac Island Michigan. Scenic and securable. Both the Ds and Rs have meetings there every year. The protesters will have to swim. |
| Posted by: rammer||198.30.156.67/blog.htm]' target='_blank'> [198.30.156.67/blog.htm]|| 2003-06-03 20:15:19
Top||
|
| #17: North Ward of Newark, NJ. The residents there don't get to bust heads of rich white boys as much as they would like too. |
| Posted by: jdhays|| 2003-06-03 20:22:02
Top||
|
| #18: Gotta be Beverly Hills. Right on Rodeo. Give the anarchists something serious to trash. Piss off the real money. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod>R. McLeod|| 2003-06-04 04:37:28
Top||
|
| #1: there is a lot of Dem infighting between the hispanic and black caucuses. They've played the race/vitimization and zero-sum cards so often that any gains by one group is seen to be at the expense of the other. Most clearly seen when multi-racial checkboxes were used in the census - they screamed bloody murder because it would diminish the clout of each racial categories' "leaders". Good luck Dems, you'll need it |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 10:52:15
Top||
|
| #2: Quite fitting that the Dems are feeling the steel of the double-edged race sword. |
| Posted by: MusicMan|| 2003-06-03 11:33:33
Top||
|
| #4: As a Democrat(Big Grin) --I'll agree about wanting someone's head on a platter--let's start with Gore, Daschle, Gephardt first--the poorest, sorry ass excuses for party leaders in history then worry about McAuliffe. And talk about a "disconnect" with minority voters!? The disconnect is with the entire Democratic base--they have NO agenda and have given Bush everything he wants without a whimper. I'm starting to feel like Bill Mohr--might as well vote for the REAL Republican instead of the faux one!! |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore|| 2003-06-03 11:55:05
Top||
|
| #5: Who's Bill Mohr? |
| Posted by: MusicMan|| 2003-06-03 12:08:27
Top||
|
| #6: Bill Mahr? the guy from Politically Incorrect |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore|| 2003-06-03 12:40:44
Top||
|
#7: So the DNC cancelled the 1.5 mil get-out-the-vote campaign, personally I think that was wise. Hispanics are more naturally aligned with the Republican party. Since GW has a track record of including them in the process as equal partners, rather than as lackeys, chances are they will vote accordingly.
The DNC would be much wiser to spend that 1.5 million on getting out the vote from the graveyards, purchasing cigarettes for the indigent or bussing convicted felons to the polls. Who else but the dead or brain dead would vote for these fools? |
| Posted by: Becky|| 2003-06-03 13:26:21
Top||
|
| #1: We have a department of Peace. Sec'ty Rumsfeld runs it well, when they let him |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 08:56:25
Top||
|
| #2: kucinich is marginal. Kerry may hope he draws off leftie support from Dean, just as Gephardt, Edwards and Leiberman hope Dean draws off support from Kerry. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 09:18:02
Top||
|
| #3: Perhaps surprising (to some), I attend a "New Age" church. I can report confidently that Kucinich doesn't have ALL the "new age" vote tied up. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 09:40:07
Top||
|
#4: Oh please please please, let Kucinich or Dean be the top of the Demo ticket!
The huge loss this ticket would end up with will make the McGovern and Dukakis losses look like they were down to the wire, by comparison. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-06-03 10:27:50
Top||
|
| #6: He's starting to sound like Jerry Brown. |
| Posted by: duane|| 2003-06-03 11:58:45
Top||
|
| #7: Raj, Picard is a Frenchman played by an Englishman. Either way he's not eligable under US election laws. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-06-03 13:06:50
Top||
|
| #8: Now that the Cuyahoga River won't burn anymore, ol' Dennis is advocating something else to smoke. |
| Posted by: G-Man in Chicago|| 2003-06-03 13:36:01
Top||
|
| #9: Kucinich is marginal only because most Dems are pragmatic, and put winning the election above ideology. Actually, he represents the views of the new Dem. core fairly well; in affluent Democratic-voting suburbs (say, Marin County, CA), his views are absolutely mainstream. As a lifelong Democrat -- until this year -- I hope he is nominated, and then gets some 20% of the vote. The liberal Dems. need to realize how out-moded their ideology has become -- they need some political shock and awe. Maybe then they could restore their party. But until that happens, they have lost voters like me. |
| Posted by: closet neo-con|| 2003-06-03 13:54:57
Top||
|
#10: NO sorry, i doubt theres any poll that shows kucinich's views mainstream of self-identified dems or registered dems. You can define core any way you want - i doubt your statement applies particularly well to donors, campaign volunteers,etc. And Marin County is hardly representative of most affluent Dem areas. The dems were shocked and awed years ago.
|
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 14:53:13
Top||
|
| #11: I think Kucinich will bow out of the race. After Monmdale got slaughtered, I don't see the Dems putting up a candidate this easy to defeat. Again. |
| Posted by: Mike N.|| 2003-06-03 15:05:58
Top||
|
#13: He spoke about how the Eagle Nebula, a star-forming region that is 7,000 light years from Earth, reminds him of the relationship between stardust and the human spirit.
Spokesmen for the Eagle Nebula hastened to distance it from Kucinich's remarks. "The nebula is just a nebula," said Ann Astronomer, a close confidant of the gas cloud. "It's very involved in its work in the creation of stars, and has no wish to get involved in the politics of any one planet, especially one so distant."
Privately, many observers said the nebula, known as M16 to its friends, was amused that hokey speeches along the lines of "we are all stardust" could gain political traction. "This observation is good for provoking a quick frisson of wonder," reported one scientist, who wished to remain anonymous, "but it's hardly a basis for policy. The Gzh'nathortn!ns were gibbering about this 1.5 million years ago. Didn't do them any good." |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz||darkblogules.blogspot.com]' target='_blank'> [darkblogules.blogspot.com]|| 2003-06-03 20:11:24
Top||
|
#14: "a star-forming region that is 7,000 light years from Earth, reminds him of the relationship between stardust and the human spirit."
Wow!Like totally cosmic,man. |
| Posted by: Raptor>Raptor|| 2003-06-04 09:17:05
Top||
|
| #1: Wot, kufr medicine? I thought that all was in the hands of Allah, inshallah? |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 16:53:54
Top||
|
| #2: Here, Qazi, have some pork skins... they're delicious, and good for you |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 18:36:02
Top||
|
| #3: BOO!!!! |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 20:55:42
Top||
|
| #1: Liver disease maybe? |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 15:52:41
Top||
|
| #2: Osamu is a common Japanese first name. Perhaps he just got jumped. Most people in the world think that Japanese are all rich so they make perfect mugging or kidnap targets, plus they're more docile that Americans. Furthermore, they're infidels. |
| Posted by: Tokyo Taro|| 2003-06-03 20:21:25
Top||
|
| #1: Snappy turban there, Sam! Careful it's not too unislamic. We all know what happens then, and it ain't good. |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 16:09:05
Top||
|
#2: "operating in Afghanistan against American forces"
That means they're probably hiding in Sami's house. |
| Posted by: RW|| 2003-06-03 17:45:18
Top||
|
#1: Meanwhile, out of the other sidde of his mouth:
CHIRAC TRIES TO ELBOW IN ON MIDEAST
June 3, 2003 -- EVIAN, France - The European Union is considering drawing up a new Middle East "road map" for peace between Israel and its hostile neighbors Syria and Lebanon, French President Jacques Chirac said yesterday.
Chirac told journalists that EU foreign-policy chief Javier Solana thought such a move could complement the road map for Israel and the Palestinians set out by the "quartet" of the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia.
"I believe that Mr. Solana, for Europe, has thought about working out a road map for Syria and Lebanon," Chirac said at the Group of Eight summit in Evian.
"The quartet's road map hardly mentions this problem," he said. "If there is a war between Israel and the Palestinians, there is also a war between Israel and Syria and Lebanon."
Chirac stressed at a news conference that Solana was still considering the idea, which was not a French initiative but one to be proposed by the European Union.
|
| Posted by: growler|| 2003-06-03 10:31:49
Top||
|
#2: Update: Chirac's in a flutter over the forceful language re. NKor & Iran (from Ananova)
"G8 countries disagree over possible military action
The Group of Eight industrial nations has put North Korea and Iran on notice that they will not stand by and let them acquire nuclear weapons. However, there were differences over whether the G8 Summit declaration endorsed the possible use of force.
The US alleges Iran is developing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and has called on Russia to halt cooperation on the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. US officials believe technology from that project could help Iran develop nuclear weapons. Iranian state radio has blamed the US for the G8 summit's warning. Iran denies it is developing nuclear weapons.
A senior US official said the United States reads the G8 leaders' declaration as implicitly authorising the use of force against countries that violate international nonproliferation norms. But the G8 leaders insist the summit declaration does not endorse the use of military force, should Iran fail to meet its commitments on the transparency of its nuclear program.
French President Jacques Chirac said: "This interpretation seems to be extraordinarily daring. There never was any talk of using force against anyone. "We wish to have with Iran the necessary dialogue so they accept the international constraints of the IAEA which allows the containing the dangerous development of military nuclear technology."
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien answered no when asked whether the declaration would allow military action should Iran be shown to be pursuing nuclear weapons.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that all participants at the summit had ruled out the use of force. And Italy's premier, Silvio Berlusconi, said President Bush told him speculation about a US attack against Iran because of its suspected nuclear programs doesn't have any foundation."
Sounds like "..if necessary, other measures" to some sounds like "..if necessary, other ineffectual measures." What does "other measures" imply, in this context, if not ultimately, the use of force?! |
| Posted by: Bulldog|| 2003-06-03 10:57:30
Top||
|
| #3: Probably a memo. If that doesn't work, a letter, by Gawd! And if all else fails, they'll hold a meeting. |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-06-03 12:08:28
Top||
|
| #4: How much longer is this dweeb (Chiraq) going to remain in office? Can he be re-elected? Anyone know? |
| Posted by: RW|| 2003-06-03 17:03:24
Top||
|
| #2: Push a little along the disputed border and see what Washington does. Classic move by the mullahs. We did very little when they occupied several islands in the eastern Gulf years ago, and some abandoned oil platforms. One main reason the Gulf States formed their own little army. They could see Iran hop scotching across the Gulf. |
| Posted by: Chuck>Chuck||blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'> [blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-06-03 07:04:11
Top||
|
| #3: Don't we have a couple of boat loads of leftover Iraqi underwater mines? Be a shame if a few of those got loose in Iranian waters. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-06-03 07:42:22
Top||
|
#4: "US Navy soldiers drove the boats to Kuwait."
Does "US Navy soldiers" = "US Marines"? |
| Posted by: Tibor|| 2003-06-03 09:36:49
Top||
|
| #5: Perhaps a misplaced missile or two need to be sent easterly from Iraq. A lesson must be delivered on this |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 09:49:08
Top||
|
| #6: Definitely. Time to do some leaning. "Oh, sorry, was that your patrol boat our cruiser ran over? So anyway, here's your crew back...." |
| Posted by: mojo|| 2003-06-03 15:06:00
Top||
|
| #7: If I was an Iran Air pilot, I wouldn't deviate a whole lot from my flight plan. Never know what you could be mistaken for. |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 16:21:16
Top||
|
| #1: yitgadal, v'yitkadash .... |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-04 08:15:49
Top||
|
| #1: Run a PCR match on this guy before you let him into england. |
| Posted by: mojo|| 2003-06-03 15:08:50
Top||
|
#2: His autobiography, "The Devil's Double" is due out on Thursday.
The little liar just made this up. This is all a big publicity stunt. Yeah...it's like ...my friends who know where Uday is...I just talked to them...and guess what...they gave me this really great tidbit that even the American CIA doesn't know about....just a couple of days before my book comes out...yeah....that's it...I gotta personal line to Uday....and oh yeah...buy my book. |
| Posted by: Becky|| 2003-06-03 16:44:50
Top||
|
| #3: Becky's right on. Next thing you know this assclown will be on the Today Show promoting his book. What convenient timing. |
| Posted by: Dar>Dar|| 2003-06-03 18:49:25
Top||
|
| #1: OK, they've got a trained and experienced military unit that they don't want to come home. Given the recent coups and counter coups, that figures. It would become the power broker in the islands. |
| Posted by: Chuck>Chuck||blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'> [blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-06-03 14:41:30
Top||
|
| #1: Hans Blix is like a wood tick. He burrows into the body politic and lives parasitically. And there is just no getting rid of him. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 10:43:17
Top||
|
#2: I thought I read back in December that Blix had an employment contract that ended June 1, 2003. His comments may just be part of his exit interview.
Next we could see him hired as a talking head by one of the networks... Maybe the E! network. |
| Posted by: Capsu78|| 2003-06-03 11:08:17
Top||
|
| #1: Yes, these countries have much to fear. As currently practiced, Islam is little more than theocratic dictatorship that seeks to perpetuate itself through coercion and violence - with the US and Israel as their prime targets. And, now that we are no longer simply sitting back and taking it (The Clinton Doctrine), they are expressing fear, distrust and animostiy. Waaaaaaaaah. The choice is theirs - they can stop with Islamofascist BS or wait their turn to play catch the MOAB. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi|| 2003-06-03 13:46:16
Top||
|
#2: "We hate you more today than yesterday,
But not half as much as tomorrow..." |
| Posted by: Capsu78|| 2003-06-03 14:37:06
Top||
|
#3: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who chairs the Pew project, called these results "very disheartening, and very dangerous, frankly.I hope that this is temporary and that, if there are some improvements in the situation because of the peace process, it will change," she said. There is no way Israel is going to disappear. We will just have to find some way to mitigate those feelings."
Attitudes like that are what got us to the current situation in the first place, and the amazing Albright is one of the poster children for it. I know a way to "mitigate those feelings". Crush them like bugs and we won't have to worry about their feelings. Let THEM worry about pissing US off!
|
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 16:37:48
Top||
|
| #4: Does anyone know anything about the Pew Research Center? Politics, history, axes to grind? I've looked at their website and I get the impression that they are strongly linked to the Democrats since most of their research seems like it is designed to measure reaction the current themes I see being bandied about by Democratic operatives. They appear to have been around since 1990 in one form or another, yet I never heard of them until they started doing these opinion polls in the Muslim world. Finally, since when does an "objective" polling organization have a section labelled "commentary" on their website. Call me paranoid but I have big problems with any poll that comes up with 99% numbers on a question. You wouldn't get that kind of response to the question, "Does the sun rise in the east?" |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 16:45:43
Top||
|
#5: 11A5S
PEW GIVES A LOT TO NPR.... THAT HELP? |
| Posted by: TPF>TPF|| 2003-06-03 20:49:46
Top||
|
| #6: Thanks, TPF. I think that answers it. |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 22:18:33
Top||
|
| #1: We REALLY need to rethink the $2 billion we support these a**holes with |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-06-03 13:11:25
Top||
|
#2: "Arabs stick with Yassar"
That's should work well for them. |
| Posted by: Mike N.|| 2003-06-03 13:16:40
Top||
|
| #3: As a requirement for receipt of the next aid check, the paleos (and the rest of Arabia) should have to watch that episode of Seinfeld where George decides to do the opposite of his instincts -- and for once things begin to work out right for him. |
| Posted by: Hrmf|| 2003-06-03 14:40:41
Top||
|
| #4: i see the israelis opened up borders, released prisoners as goodwill gestures, and sharon even allowed as how as many as 17 West Bank settlements could be dismantled if negotiations so indicated. did i miss the concessions/gestures made by the Arabs, the Palestinians? why is this always a one way street? |
| Posted by: m rainey|| 2003-06-03 15:58:42
Top||
|
| #5: Yasser's the status quo. Hereditary presidencies and such will always go with the status quo. |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-06-03 16:24:59
Top||
|
| #6: Keep backing those winners, fools. It's worked out really great so far. |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-06-03 21:02:03
Top||
|
#7: Oh but it HAS worked out well for the arab leaders.
They don't want to see peace with Israel, they want the Palestinians to be a running sore they can beat America and Israel with. The only Israel they want is a historical aberration razed to the ground and renamed "Palestine".
Peace is the last thing they want, so Arafat is the man for them! |
| Posted by: Anon1|| 2003-06-04 01:50:04
Top||
|
| #1: "A French citizen". Where is the outrage from Le Monde? I am afraid this is a preview for France of their own future. What happens when you coddle terrorists? Terrorism. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 10:42:21
Top||
|
| #2: Update: Moroccan authorities Tuesday arrested a French citizen suspected of being one of the main coordinators and financiers of the May 16 Casablanca bombings. Pierre has traveled to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and France. Authorities learned of his alleged involvement in the Casablanca bombings from some of the 16 people arrested and charged in the attacks. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-06-03 11:15:17
Top||
|
| #3: More details: Police had begun searching for the French man after several other suspects pointed to him, claiming he gave orders in the bombings, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Pierre converted to Islam and had been living in Tangiers since 1996. Authorities believe he traveled frequently and made several trips to Afghanistan, officials said. Public 2M television said he often went to France, Germany, Belgium and Spain to buy cars that he sold in Morocco. Officials contend Pierre was in contact with Abdelwaheb Rafiki, also known as Abou Hafs, a Moroccan Islamic cleric known for his fiery sermons and anti-Western views. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-06-03 11:29:46
Top||
|
#1: Making a nuclear bomb would require that terrorists first obtain fissile material such as enriched uranium or plutonium as fuel for creating a nuclear blast.
Putin and company have probably sold Iran enough material to make several weapons. Or maybe they are getting their toys from the Nkors. It has been my long held belief that should al Qaeda go nuclear, the terrorist states that put them in that position will probably be reduced to glowing slag by the end of the day. |
| Posted by: Douglas De BonoDouglas De Bono||www.douglasdebono.com]' target='_blank'> [www.douglasdebono.com]|| 2003-06-03 06:36:57
Top||
|
#2: I've said it before. Why would any terrorist use WMD, whose creation, transport and handling are dangerous to the terrorist before they reach their target when they can just fly a plane into a building? Low tech, inexpensive weapons are the hallmark of al Qaeda. WMD are far more likely to be used in a state sponsored act, or by cult type terrorists, if at all.
The dog video was shown on American television teo years ago. CIA is rehashing old info. |
| Posted by: Chuck>Chuck||blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'> [blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-06-03 07:01:57
Top||
|
| #4: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. |
| Posted by: ----------<<<<-|| 2003-06-03 09:11:35
Top||
|
| #5: chuck - because presumably its a lot harder to fly a plane into a building these days. Leaving aside govt and airline security steps, its widely noted that passengers are not likely to tolerate a hijacking, when they can expect it will end in death for all aboard. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 09:28:03
Top||
|
#6: liberalhawk - I didn't say a passenger plane. And, it could be an LP gas tanker, or a gasoline tanker, or a tanker of methyl ethyl bad-stuff. In twenty minutes, tops, I could improvise a serious incident with what is all around me in the city. And if I planned as well as al Qaeda usually does, it could be a big incident.
The tools of terrorism are all around us, and cannot be totally defensed. To assume that they would choose an expensive, risky, high tech option is being foolish. The CIA merely wants to justify itself, rather than produce information of any actual benefit. |
| Posted by: Chuck>Chuck||blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'> [blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-06-03 10:41:07
Top||
|
| #7: Regarding Chuck's last comment. During our wildfire season last year, we had several of this huge lumbering transport planes in the state loading up with fire-retardant slurry at regional airports. I always thought how very vulnerable it would be for terrorists to overpower one of these planes at the lightly-guarded regional airports and fly maybe 10 minutes into downtown Denver. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 10:47:26
Top||
|
| #8: Of course a plane loaded with fire retardent just doesn't have the explosive power of one filled with jet fuel. The kinetic energy of the impact would provide the only damage, since everything else would be covered in iron oxide laced water. |
| Posted by: VRWC Colorado Chapter (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)|| 2003-06-03 10:54:10
Top||
|
#9: Chuck wrote: WMD are far more likely to be used in a state sponsored act, or by cult type terrorists,...
Al Qaeda aren't cult-type terrorists? You mean all of this stuff about the US being a Great Satan and reestablishing the Caliphate aren't true. Boy, am I relieved. |
| Posted by: 11A5S|| 2003-06-03 10:58:29
Top||
|
| #10: Re: VRWC's posting. I fully realize that the fire-retardant slurry would not create a conflagration, ironically it would have a mitigating effect on any fire caused. The point is that these planes are located at regional airports close to major city centers in many cases and the effect would simply be the horror of the plane-building impact. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative|| 2003-06-03 11:02:05
Top||
|
| #11: Re: ColoradoConservative's posting. The more dangerous threat would be a Gulfstream G5 business jet traveling at 500 mph. A jet of that size traveling at that speed would probably go right through one building, and hit any ajoining building. Denver has two business airports with Gulfstreams within minutes of downtown. We hope they have adequate security to deal with any threat. |
| Posted by: VRWC Colorado Chapter (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)|| 2003-06-03 11:07:54
Top||
|
#12: gasoline tanker - you mean a truck - i thought above you were talking about planes. IIUC gasoline and chemicals are not normally transported by plane. Not to say that the issue of lightly guarded small planes isnt an issue.
I would think Al qaeeda would explore all these options - the attacks more likely to succeed as well as difficult ones that could create more damage. thats why we have to defend against them all, as well as take the war to them. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-06-03 11:20:39
Top||
|
| #13: If you had the time you could certainly replace the fire retardant with something nasty. Either explosive or deadly, to dump out. Sort of like the corp duster stories that circled around right after Sept 11. People might not even be alarmed if there was a fire and they'd seen that type of plane fly over all the time. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-06-03 13:16:12
Top||
|
| #14: Doesn't have to be one of the fire-retardant planes. Lots of others are lightly or un-guarded. Think of a UPS or Fedex plane - both have their own fleets - filled with overnight mail being delivered to the Capitol. Wonder whatever happened to that rattletrap 727 that was repo'd from Angola...? |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-06-03 13:50:10
Top||
|
|
|
