No, y9u get the opportunity (which you already had) to demonstrate why you extrapolate that the pro-peace movement, both in the US and in the great majority, is simply a Trotskyite front. Thanks for the snicker, pal. While you’re at it, you can explain what your point was in mentioning Ted Kennedy. Why not toss in Hillary and Michael Moore while you’re at it?
Would you similarly assert that the pro-war movement was simply a Klan front, then? That the Klan was running it? That its followers were Klan dupes? That’s what you’re claiming above - and it’s no wonder your readers are laughing at you.
Not to be trite, but … cite? Evidence that this particular small band of wackos, as opposed to any other small band of wackos you might have chosen, runs anything substantive at all? We know you read, and lap up, some partisan blogs, but can you explain (once again) why you
Both of them?
Once again, you are refusing to get it. You’re taking the easy, irresponsible, hateful direction of dismissing any view that differs from your own as being the result of cluelessness affecting only dupes. Don’t you have any interest at all in learning more about the world? Do you admit any possibility, ever, that you might be wrong? Why should anyone take your spoutings seriously?
Thanks for the chuckles. I need a few today. Trotskyites? John Mace, you’ve got a better way to count? Stand and deliver.
Actually, “Trotskyite” is the polite way to refer to them, a nod to their orgins (they formed out of the old Socialist Worker’s Party in disagreement over the Soviet invasion of Hungary – they supported it). They self-describe as neo-Leninist and other communists groups, for whom WWP is too extreme, tend to describe them as Stalinists. But you’d know that if you ever, ever bothered to do any research for yourself. There’s plenty of direct links in the wikipedia article John Mace cited. I know you have a long long history of intentional ignorance of facts and an almost physical aversion to citations; it’s time to get over that before directing your sorry, snarky shit at me.
I already said the very thing you said in your last sentence. Now everyone who has read this thread knows better. I’ll hold back further comment until you actually look these guys up.
Says the guy who couldn’t even be bothered to Google “workers world party.” The internets have more than one site, you know.
Um, what do you think I did in my first post on the subject? I cited the way almost everyone is following this-- monthly data. Anyway, this is so far off topic, I’m not going to continue the hijack. As I said already, taking a 2 year timeframe and reducing it to only 3 data points to find a “trend” is absurd.
As arbitrary a cutoff as any other. For instance: There were no reported deaths today but there were yesterday; has the war ended? There were more this week than the week before; is it getting worse?
The appropriate scale might be one that matches the pace of insurgent activity, but that’s a bit erratic as well. Even in a traditional army vs. army war, the deaths come in batches whenever battles are fought. Day to day or even month to month figures are less indicative of the strength and resolve of the enemy than longer time frames.
Bottom line remains: What is the evidence that the insurgency and its popular support is actually weakening substantially, as the war supporters would like to have us believe? I’m not aware of any.
Dr. Que has my sympathy and support in his opposition to an authoritarian regime. The Hanoi regime bites it, as is commonly the fact of authoritarian regimes. I might even be moved to a public protest, if I could be asssured that the organization organizing such an event had no ties to anarcho-syndicalism…
But what, precisely, does Dr. Que know about Iraq? Other than his sympathy for what he imagines are American goals and aspirations, what expertise are we to be impressed by?
I bid the doctor all the luck in the world in his efforts to transform his country. What makes him an expert on what’s happening the Middle East? The article states:
Okay, so he has at the very best, no more access than most folks have, in fact, perhaps less according to his own complaints. I’m not understanding where he gets his tremendous insight regarding America’s “rightness” in this venture. I think it would be interesting to see how he felt about the rightness of American actions in his country 30 years ago, just for some perspective.
Regardless, one reads on and sees at the bottom of the article…
Ahhh… The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. That bastion of non-partisan egalitarian human enlightenment. The newest illegitimate offspring of the Neocons. Say, manhattan, you weren’t trying to prove quixotic78 point about cherry-picking soundbites, were you?
Well, actually it seems to me that at least one person made a plausible case of how it might work. And then asked you if you had any better ideas. Which you didn’t, and as far as I can tell, still don’t.
I was never a 100% fan of the Bush/neocon doctrine. But I did realize that the people who are actually in power have to come up with an actual real-world strategy. And while there has been constructive criticism on specific tactics or methods (i.e., the mistake of disbanding the Iraqi Army), nobody that I am aware of posited a concrete, plausible alternative route, other than "remove the Taliban, and after that treat it like a criminal investigation. "
Me too. Do you think we should actually do anything to bring it about, and do you have any concrete ideas on how this might happen?
There is simply no end to the perfidy of some people. I feel compelled to condemn this latest misrepresentation of the facts by a leftish type person, otherwise I’m gonna be hearing about it twenty years from now.
“Oh, sure, when President Jenna Bush tells a widdle bitty fib, you got nuts, but when ol’ Brain Glutton tells a bald faced lie, its no big deal, you didn’t say anything about it! How come you didn’t call him a liar, huh? Howcome!?”
Ummm … perhaps I have but you’ll have to explain it. In the original thread I did indeed offer a defense of the idea. You may not accept it, but I did indeed argue it. I also offered an explanation of exactly how it might work. I then asked you what your better idea was. You said to open a new thread, and I did. You never showed up to offer your better plan.
Update from Lebanon: On Tuesday, half a million demonstrators attended a **pro-**Syrian rally in Beirut, organized by Hezbollah. They chanted, “Beirut is free! America get out!” http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1433038,00.html (Only 70,000 attended the previous day’s rally against the Syrian occupation.)
Never push over that first domino unless you’re sure which way the rest in line are going to fall.
The difference being, that the Lebanese who turned out to rally against Syria on Monday apparently were not in danger of disappearing in the middle of the night, and haven’t. But still, they were far outnumbered by Syrian sympathizers on Tuesday – who, so far as we can tell, were not forced at gunpoint to go to the rally. That doesn’t prove pro-occupation (or pro-Hezbollah) feeling is running higher in Lebanon than anti- feeling, but it does show pretty clearly that public opinion is sharply divided, and “democracy” in Lebanon might not necessarily produce a result the Bush Admin or PNAC would find pleasing.
Well, the Bush administration could take a cue from folks like Fox News’ John Gibson, and say that they can bomb the country with a clean conscience :eek: if things don’t go the way the Administration likes…
(This must be more of that weird-ass “moral values” thing the Pubbies keep boasting about)
Originally Posted by furt PatriotX asks some worthwhile questions in post #169 and elsewhere, essentially saying that whatever good may come in the ME, the only meaningful criteria of success or failure is US national interest; but I suggest a seperate thread for that.
Originally Posted by PatriotX**
Already had it’s own thread- the one you referenced in your OP**
If you’ll notice, in the OP in referenced thread, Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME, I asked, “And how will a democratic ME make the US safer, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)?”
Then in the third post in the thread I ask, “If this spread does indeed occur via whatever mechanisms, what will make the reformed ME any different than Egypt, Pakistan et al?
And most importantly, how will this make the US any safer?”
Again in post #9, “And how will democratic reform make the US safer? Particularly, if the will of the people is expressed and that will is hostile to the US?”
So, you see, your response of, “Well, actually it seems to me that at least one person made a plausible case of how it might work. And then asked you if you had any better ideas. Which you didn’t, and as far as I can tell, still don’t,” is in regard to something other.
The question of whether or not sweeping democratic reform in the ME would benefit the US, especially security-wise, hasn’t been well addressed despite having it’s own thread.
