13 Comments

actor212:

Reading a lot of history and official reports is another.

So only der officiel reports are gut enough for der Minitermeister? It might never occur to someone that those are probably phonier than the press reports culled from news organizations around the world who are actually trying to provide information, not propaganda?

As for the Code Pink ladies, calling out women’s stick legs and watermelon tummies isn’t degrading them? Isn’t “making fun” of someone’s weight?

Maybe just saying “60 year olds dressing like Britney Spears” would have made that point without being a cheaply-minded bastard, but hey, what do I know, right?

I’m sure your mommy dresses age appropriately always, of course, and no one would dare insult her, at least to your face. So then why the cheapshots behind these women’s backs, Minimeister?

It’s not our reading comprehension you should be questioning, Dickie, but the underlying biases and loathing inherent in your posts.

I mean, you know, push away from the dinner table before you eat fourths and do a little soul searching over a glass of brandy, that sort of thing…just a thought!

Oh, and by the way, it doesn’t matter how many readers a blog gets, so long as the blog gets it right. Look at your blog: all these “readers” and no one defending you….must be tough being all alone yet so well-read *koffkoff*

Oct 24, 2007 - 4:43 pm Charles Giacometti:

A lot of words, simply to cover up your cowardice.

My offer stands to send an army recruiter your way, you pasty tub of lard.

Oct 24, 2007 - 7:22 pm cb:

Why don’t you tough talking CPers castigate your own impotent leaders. Bush is holding you by the nose and kicking your ass.

Oct 24, 2007 - 9:40 pm OmegaPaladin:

Nice to see someone did not forget to include a chickenhawk argument. I wonder if Charles would be willing to let those with military service in Iraq decide what to do there. Isn’t that the logical conclusion of the argument?
I’d also expect that you cannot discuss Bush’s record on the environment without holding a degree in environmental science, or be unable to talk about farm subsidies unless you are a farmer.

Seriously, if every damn Republican demanded to be sent to Iraq, they died in similar proportions to our current troops, and they still wanted the war, would that make the war right in your view? How many dead war supporters are required to justify the war?

I think he was trying to attack the fact that the pink ladies were dressing like they were pinups, when they were clearly not fit for their outfits. You don’t see Richard dressed in a speedo and a muscle shirt, now do you?

Oct 25, 2007 - 2:56 am salvage:

HAAHHAHAH!

Miniter you’re a weenier, a shill and a whore and you deserve nothing but anger and cheap shots, get over your fat self.

Oct 25, 2007 - 8:02 am Charles Giacometti:

Omega, in other words you are too much of a pussy to fight for your country as well.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The cowardice of the neocon knows no limits.

Oct 25, 2007 - 10:19 am Kit:

“Just reading the newspaper and watching tv doesn’t cut it , at least for a serious person.” You could not be more wrong, at least about reading a newspaper. Anyone who read a half-decent newspaper could have knownn that:

1. Sadam Hussein was not a threat to the U.S, had no means to attack us, had not threatened to attack us, etc, etc. (Regardless of whether or not he had WMD)
2. Hussein and bin Laden were mortal enemies; bin Laden, in particular loathes the likes of Hussein, and Hussein feared bin Laden’s ideology.
3. While Hussein obviously was no threat to us, if he had had WMD, the best he could have done was to lob something across the border, at which point he would have been squashed like a bug. No way that was going to happen.
4. The likely outcome of an invasion of Iraq was, in order: 1)a Shiite theocracy 2) another Hussein-like creature. And civil war was likely to precede either of these two outcomes. (Feel free to read the diaries of this newspaper-reading don’t-know-”serious people” prognasticator)

Finally, let’s get back to basic principles and the Constitution - the United States should never go to war unless attacked or in danger of imminent attack, and with the full support and knowledge of the American people and a declaration of war. I offer only the exception of genocide and the repulsion of invasions of third party nations, under strict international guidance and, again, with a declaration of war.

Oct 25, 2007 - 12:14 pm JDub:

Kit,

I’ll leave someone else to discuss your argument that Iraq was a pointless war - it’s an ongoing discussion that I’m certain you have heard the other side and disagree with, so why concern myself?

However, I have no qualms against ripping apart your “basic principles” argument.

You’re essentially saying, in terms of Just War Theory, that preventative war is not acceptable, but preemptive war is acceptable with the full support and knowledge of the American people and a declaration of war. You also advocate self-defensive war and wars with just cause with due deference to international law (Human Rights, etc.). Correct?

I do not believe I’m taking any liberties with your argument… so I’ll continue.

I take issue with some aspects of your theory because I am a realist. You operate under the assumption that actors are rational and that Saddam wouldn’t possibly consider hurling a weapon over the border at his neighbors, or that he wouldn’t hurl one at the United States if given the opportunity.

You interpret acts of war to need time and consideration, both to gain national support and international legitimacy… but war cannot always wait. How would our world be if we only acted too late? So while this may be a consideration for future arguments against preventative war, its ludacris to consider it in most instances faced by the United States.

Just one last point - the UN Resolutions, decisions by the ICC, or even policies of the EU only have enforcement mechanisms when states stand behind them. Unfortunately for the world, it seems very few member nations are willing to hear that call or stand for the very principles you would support war to uphold.

Genocide will continue happening. Mostly because even just war theorists such as yourself don’t realize that wars are carried out for self-interest - not morality.

Oct 25, 2007 - 12:45 pm Kit:

“..preventative war is not acceptable, but preemptive war is acceptable with the full support and knowledge of the American people and a declaration of war.”

Nope. I reject preemptive war. It is the excuse used by all kinds of regimes for aggression.

“…that Saddam wouldn’t possibly consider hurling a weapon over the border at his neighbors, or that he wouldn’t hurl one at the United States if given the opportunity.”

Woulda-coulda arguments for war are madness. That’s an argument for attacking anyone at any time. And there are plenty of countries who potentially pose more danger than Iraq (say, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). So long as Hussein didn’t attack his neighbors, no one had a reason to attack him. Had he done so (say, Iran again?) the world could decide what it wanted to do.

“Opportunity”? He didn’t have such an opportunity, never threatened us, never had the means to do so (WMD or no). Again, it is madness to say it’s ok to attack someone on the basis of some future unlikely, unspecified capability and the even more unlikely idea that the state selected as the object of our irrational fear somehow wanted to committ suicide. That’s just not how the world works, as anyone with the tiniest sense of history or proportion would know. Not to mention the license it gives every other country to act insanely by following our example.

You and your ilk are stark-raving bonkers. The fact that your insane fears have been acted on to such disastrous effect is horrifying. Worse, yet, you are all still at it, trying to pull the same nonsense in dragging us into war against a pathetic twerp of a country like Iran. That anyone listens to you at all is utterly maddening.

Oct 25, 2007 - 2:43 pm JDub:

Kit,

But wait… you said earlier:

“or in danger of imminent attack”

I’m afraid that unless you say “attacked,” you’re argument stands as supportive of preemptive war - attacking an imminent attacker. So no, you don’t “reject preemptive war.”

You do, however, reject preventive war, attacking an enemy who could at some point attack you but whose danger is not immediate. I respect your point on this, though I do disagree with it. (Honestly I’d rather have fought a country like Iran or North Korea long before they became the imminent threats they are now.)

I believe we SHOULD reserve the right of “attacking anyone at any time,” though I don’t advocate doing it at every opportunity. I simply refuse to debase ourselves and our military strength to seem more internationally-pansy-esque… I mean acquiescent.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe it is feasible or wise to take up arms against any and every potential threat. But before we’re faced with another irrational actor who we have to hope is only blowing smoke with no real fire, I will gladly support a candidate for any office who will reserve the right to defend our nation, our values, and yes, our interests, to the best of their ability.

My only real hope is that if and when another country gains the power to attack mine, because our leaders were too frightened to carry out an attack before they became a direct threat, that the only collateral damages will be to those who were telling us that the threat was only a “pathetic twerp of a country.”

Oct 25, 2007 - 5:16 pm Kit:

Nope - no pre-emptive war. It is the excuse tyrants and dictators and demagogues and imperialists use all the time.

By “imminent attack”, I mean they have the weapons, the motive, the stated intention and are actually doing something to deploy same in a way obvious to anyone not in a coma. None of which applies to pathetic third-rate dictatorships like Iraq or North Korea or Iran.

Grow up and stop playing out your video fantasies at the expense of the rest of us.

Oct 25, 2007 - 11:09 pm JDub:

Right - Preemptive war is when there’s a threat of imminent attack - the weapons, the motive, the stated intention, etc. Understand your terms before you use them so loosely. Your criticisms of the Iraq war are those against a preventative war, not preemptive.

Also, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq have been (or were) actively seeking weapons, had the motive (sheer hatred - they’ve said so - all that Great Satan talk), have said that they will attack us (or at least our allies), and have either taken movements or are clandestinely taken movements towards deployment and outright battle, with the exception of this last point perhaps only being North Korea.

Just a thought. I just pray that nothing happens to prove me right. I’d rather err on the side of preemptive war than endure another September 11.

With that, Kit, dear, I’m off. I have many things to do but I have certainly enjoyed our banter and I hope that, even though we disagree, we can part ways without having resorted to name calling. (I do so appreciate civility in discourse.)

Oct 26, 2007 - 12:06 am Blue Texan:

“I’d rather err on the side of preemptive war than endure another September 11.”

Exactly! What are we waiting for?

On to Tehran, Damascus, Pyongyang…

Oct 26, 2007 - 5:48 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: