Well, good, then. Now, if we’re quite finished boring these good people with your insight into my personal failings, which are legion, perhaps we can get back to the matter at hand?
Nipples, that’s the matter at hand, Nipples…
The devastation of a nation and the death of thousands and torture and the rape of children are not subtle, hard to understand moral issues. Anyone who is not a fool or morally corrupt themselves can recognize how bad Bush is. And yes, I do think much of the American population qualifies as fools and/or morally corrupt.
No.
It isn’t but a willingness of the US government to disclose figures would certainly help subsiding the suspicions of prefidiousness. The refusal to do so legitimately arise them. Why wouldn’t they want these figures to be known if they painted a rosy picture?
As I understand it, they obey or they accept the risk of criminal prosecution. Our First Amendment has no equivalent in British constitutional law. Furthermore, in this instance the original story was based on a “leaked” Downing Street memo, and it is not clear whether the Daily Mirror or anybody else outside the Government is actually in possession of a copy, and the Brits have no equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act, either. So if the Government chooses to deny the story or put its own spin on the memo’s alleged contents – what can anyone do?
I think it’s a nickname for Minneapolis.
Nice try, but you didn’t trap me there. My answer is simply, they are ALL morons 
The “devastation of a nation” is rhetoric and you know it. You can do better. Read a paper, watch TV, whatever it takes to get a fact or two. And “death”, the last time I checked, was an inseparable part of war. You want to be anti-war, that’s fine, O Grand Judgmental One, but don’t pretend this one is any more horrendous than any other when the facts (again those nasty facts) say otherwise.
I know that just military deaths, which is the way all nations measure the cost of war, isn’t going to be good enough for you, but since they’re the only facts on the table so far, they’ll just have to do until you can expend the energy to come up with some of your own.
The torture and rape of children, no, those are not difficult moral issues to understand, nor apparently are they difficult to throw around without proof. I’ll have to try it sometime when I’m feeling superior.
As for your calling anyone who disagrees with your point of view a fool or morally corrupt, there’s that trademark humility again. If this suppose to be some sort of “enlightened” attitude on display here, I can’t help but wonder just how many degrees of difference there is between it and Sorelian elitism? Luckily, as a corrupt fool, I’m not expected to care.
And I see your last sweeping generalization as, unfortunately, one of those “fill-in-the-country-of-your-choice” kind of statements, more a comment on the state of “civilized” humanity than America. I just wonder if you’re an equal opportunity elitist.
Probably, and I’m just guessing here (like everyone else), because they know what kinds of artists there are out there, and they just may be disgusted by what passes for rosy pictures these days (see Abu Ghraib). Either way, it seems to me a bit disingenuous to belittle another for speculating while engaging in speculation; not wrong, just disingenuous.
No cite needed!
Nonetheless, its a germ of an idea, or perhaps more properly, a virus.
Lets call it, with all due honor, the Dish Proposal: those Congresscreeps who were such dimbos as to believe GeeDubya are too stupid to make their own oatmeal, much less serve in a legislative capacity. Indeed, lets replace them all with persons from the opposite political party, just to underline our displeasure! I recognize that such as this will result in a wholesale outchucking of the Democrats who were fooled, but stern duty demands!
Such Congresscreeps who were not fooled will, necessarily, be moved into positions of seniority, as the incoming crop will all be fresh. Memory fails: what would be the partisan breakdown of such a Congress? No matter! Let us proceed to implement the Dish Proposal with all haste!
Chuck out the tardos!
The “War is hell and this one isn’t as bad as some others” defense fails miserably because this war was completely unnecessary, illegal and unjustified. These lives were not sacrificed in the service of any noble cause. They were simply thrown away like garbage in furtherance of an agenda so cynical it’s painful to even talk about. If the war is unnecessary, then no cost is justified. Measuring it against WWII is meaningless.
The torture and rape of children at Abu Ghraib is on videotape. That’s right. Your brave men in uniform were getting their kicks by making kiddy porn with little boys. What a proud moment for America. What a shining example o the world.
Here’s al-Jazeera’s own recent press release on the matter (in essence, they this would be shocking if true but they’re still investigationg): http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/63190D83-F77A-4521-A5CB-FA84D672FAB7.htm
And a recent online article by Jeremy Scahill of The Nation – very informative (so far as that is yet possible, at this point): http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051123/cm_thenation/20051212scahill;_ylt=A86.I1x7_4RDMnEBjwH9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
We gotta play the cards they deal us…
you were in the room!!!
substantivelyi, (this will surprise no one) I have no problem with the story whatsoever, and I am certain that in very short order we will get a transcript that will give new meaning to the words “flailing dangerously about”
All of that’s fine, DtC, but it’s no more than your opinion, and as such, no more legitimate than anyone else’s. But, thanks for sharing. You show me how that defense fails, particularly when the nation in question was not devastated (*see more below), then maybe you’ll have something there. Otherwise, sez you.
*Definition: devastation:
(the state of being decayed or destroyed)
- (n) devastation (the feeling of being confounded or overwhelmed) “her departure left him in utter devastation”
- (n) devastation, desolation (an event that results in total destruction)
- (n) ravaging, devastation (plundering with excessive damage and destruction)
- (n) destruction, devastation (the termination of something by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists)
As you can see, not even the broadest of these definitions (#3) covers it because the supposed devastation was not alleged by Der Trihs to have been the result of plundering.
Oh, and you’ve seen this tape? OK, so maybe you haven’t actually seen it, but maybe you know somebody who has seen it? No? OK, then maybe you’ve just read about it like the rest of us. Let me know when they get that video link posted. In the meantime, since you’re so quick to jump to the worst possible conclusion about our uniformed services, let’s see if you’ve got the guts to look at hte real enemies our troops are facing every day.
http://www.rimcountry.com/av/eugene_armstrong.wmv
http://www.rimcountry.com/av/nick_berg.wmv
http://www.rimcountry.com/av/jackhensley.wmv
http://www.rimcountry.com/av/durmuskumdereli.wmv
Who are you talking to? I didn’t say anything about “devastation.” Why are you giving me definitions? I say the cost to AMERICANS was unjustified because the war served no defensive purpose. I’ve given up wasting my breath trying to convince some people that the cost to IRAQIS is even worth considering.
Give me a break. The Pentagon has acknowleged the tapes. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham specifically said the abuses at AG included “rape and murder.” There is no question of the tapes’ existence. You’re just trying to avoid the point.
I recognize some of those names and there’s no way in hell I’m going to click on any beheading videos. They’re hugely irrelevant in any case. They have nothing to do with whether invading Iraq was justified and those muders are not any worse than some of the crimes which have been committed against INNOCENT Iraqis by the US.
broke beheading links in quotes --G
Bty the way, I once WAS a uniformed troop, so spare me the sanctimonious lectures, ok?
Nope, he’s got you there, Doggy, ol’ chum. That’s the definition of “devestation”. No getting around it, its right there in the dictionary. You really can’t argue with rock solid stuff like that.
I defined “devastation” for you because that’s what Der Trihs and I were talking about. Try to keep up.
I’m not avoiding it, I’m just not conceding it. When I see our uniformed troops committing the acts you’ve described, then I’ll concede.
No way in hell, huh? OK, at least I know that your ignorance is intentional. Enjoy.