-
Zionista said:
Reform the culture of radical rejection and the state of war currently imposed on Israel by Iran and the 19 out of 22 Arab League member nations that still do not recognize Jewish national rights in the region, and perhaps Israel may find a reason to believe in the good intentions behind the rhetoric of a nuclear free Middle East.
eh...what?
Um, and how is their absolutist ideology different from Israel's?
Oh wait, let me guess, Israel pursues an evan handed "culture of life" and "good will", and "rule of law", right? *snicker*
Isreal has not made much of an effort to be a good neighbor to its neighbors, and it has nukes.
"The state of war currently imposed on Israel" you said. Oh was open warfare declared? I had missed that in our vaunted news media coverage. My bad. Well now all Israel's missile lobbing into populated areas can be a little more easily justified, so hey at least that's looking up for you. Such a hassle thinking up justifications all the time and looking like you are still making an effort and have some sort of moral high ground. Wouldn't you say? Every cloud has a silver lining eh zionista? Even your propoganda based zealot one. Hey keep up the "good fight" eh bro. good luck to ya.
Posted at January 25, 2006 10:29 AM in response to Bulletin: A Nuclear-Armed Iran Would Be Bad
-
Disloyal= disloyal to the republican agenda, which is itself anti-american. Repubs need to pick up a history book and read up on what "American" is supposed to mean, because from their actions they obviously don't have any idea.
Posted at November 21, 2005 9:19 AM in response to Dissent is Not Disloyalty
-
On the same vein, it was very striking to watch the Republicans clamor for an investigation of who leaked the secret prison locations, until they found out it might have been a Republican, then it was all hush-hush... not a "matter of principle" anymore, and not a big deal.
I don't know how these people live with themselves.Posted at November 18, 2005 11:44 AM in response to If It's Good Enough for the Times ...
-
verbotem eh. I think its verboten.
verbatim+ verboten = verbotem?
I was initially a little gereizt (irritated) to see all the little german phrases here and there in the posts lately of the various sites, but now that I think about it, when talking about conservative politics, its only appropriate really.. Bushies=jackbooted thug politics=nazis.
It's a toss up though-- you wonder how many of the readers read the word 'verboten' and dont have to stop for a minute to remember what thats supposed to mean... it's probably a loss of rythm and audience.Posted at November 1, 2005 11:02 AM in response to Danger Is Good!
-
I think the real question-- which has a bearing on whether we stay and for how long and in what fashion, is why were we there in the first place.
An *independent* investigation is warranted into the ideas behind the Project for a New American Century, which many of our government leaders were members of, and which called for an armed conflict in Iraq. The reasons our leaders have given us for this conflict don't stand up to even casual scrutiny, so the question of what our goals are is very relevant, and proper.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://www.newamericancentruy.org
Its digusting that-- in the face of massive American and Iraqi deaths-- no one has brought forth these questions yet in a very public manner, and asked our blessed dear leader what his real motivations are. If he has been shown to have interests beyond what he has claimed, then he has defrauaded the people, and should be removed with power, along with everyone else in the PFNAC camp. Their pursuit of their goals runs into problems of legitimacy, morality, and respect for others' soveriegnty-- not to mention their right to life. If we are to have world respect for law and order these ideas cannot be implemented in the manner they are put forth. Perhaps the United States' position in the world will decline without such draconian and illegal acts. But we cannot commit illegal acts to secure a better place for ourselves. If we do, we are no better than terrorists. Indeed, as we have an obligation as a global leader, we would be worse than terrorists.
From what I know of these people, they advocate open use of arms and warfare to secure business and political interests, with no count of what is right. Their policy papers have been largely editted or removed from their website but were available before they were officially American foreign policy. They are immoral to the core, and they just don't care. Such people must be confronted on their terms, and their influence ended utterly. These people are running our government and making our policy now, which smells to me like why we are in Iraq at all.
Posted at September 26, 2005 9:52 AM in response to So Close, and Yet So Far
-
Well, I think you answer the first question with a peice of your own question: "a government with some legitimacy has been installed"
thats right, installed. Everyone is going to look at it skeptically. Plus we have our military there, so they dont exactly feel like they are running the show themselves.
And your last question is a mess-- you say you saw all kinds of different emotions at different events, and that that means there is "emotional turmoil" there. People can see news reports about the US and think we are in "emotional turmoil" too. I mean come on, give me a break. Do you expect these people to express the same emotion all the time or they are what-- flip floppers or something? Its pretty plain that there is simmering and growing disatisfaction, if not hatred, of our presence there. Each killing of innocents fans it immensely. Is that what you wanted to hear? Iraquis are pissed.
The idea that you can connect several isolated events over different time periods and say that any differences between them means there is "turmoil" in general, is pretty silly.
Posted at September 13, 2005 11:27 AM in response to A Few Questions
-
hmm, maybe we can get in touch and ask him.
He probably means some random chain restaurant. I can't think of any good mexican here (DC), and neither can anyone else I know.
Maybe his new job will be heading up some mexican restaurant and he's getting in a last chance for a plug?
Posted at September 12, 2005 7:11 AM in response to Brown Out
-
I'm more that a little sick of Lieberman--
He has a D by his name, but he's clearly a Republican. He should change parties, and if he doesn't have the good grace to do so on his own, we should boot him out.Posted at September 9, 2005 11:26 AM in response to Brown Out
-
pretty lame and irritating analogy Larry.
Posted at September 9, 2005 8:58 AM in response to KATRINA AND THREE WOMEN IN THE KITCHEN
-
The governor of Louisiana asked for aid from the federal government, just as she was supposed to do-- on August 27th.
http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976
Thats a day BEFORE the hurricane even hit land, you ignorant twit. so saying the locals never asked for help is incorrect. They asked for help a full two days before they needed it, and it came about a week after it was asked for. nice response from the feds-- they might as well have not helped at all.Posted at September 7, 2005 9:46 AM in response to CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND KATRINA?
