Letters to the Editor
-
Friedman is myopic. You suffer from kenetosis vomiting all over the place
Friedman is myopic and incredible as well. He is wrong as often as he is right. He follows the lead in front of the herd. Unfortunately, you and your group suffer from motion sickness and vomiting tends not to help.
The Bush machine is steps ahead. Bush is not a conservative. He is an elite and a liberal. The Team: Calculating not Crazy. American policy has been clear for 20 years as to intent toward the Middle East population and the world for that matter. I can see Giuliani in the White House very shortly.
-
Some eedjit wrote:
We are in conflict with people that think a gang rape victim should also be whipped for the crime of sitting in a car that doesn't belong to a family member....
So tell me, Sh**ter: When does the bombing of Saudi Arabia begin?
Oh ... right ... "Dubya and Bandar, sitting in a tree, 'K' 'I' 'S'....."
Why didn't I remember that?....
As to the RW attitutes towards women's rights and their revulsion of 'yucky' things, why, until you catch them in men's rooms or prostitution parlours, they're right up there with the mullahs. See, e.g., Southwick and Holtzinger, just for starters....
Better trolls. Plllleeeaaaseeeee??????
Cheers,
-
@hunthorse
Well then tell me about negotiations with Iran. No bull just simplty what do we offer,(Israel?) with what will they respond.
Actually, their list of demands was quite small: Removal from the Axis of Evil list, Removal from the State Sponsored Terror list, substantive negotiations on parity terms leading to improved economic relations. That's all, that's it. And the nuclear program was on the table for that. No heads on platters, no destruction of Israel. Two of the three could have been done in less than a minute, the other would take more time. But along the way, we could have had help with Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Europeans could have had help with their efforts to cut the supply of narcotics.
When you're done thinking up every cold war epithet you can misspell from the last 60 years, maybe you could try studying. A wasted mind is a lost thing to terrible.
-
Unfortunately, Glenn's new thread
requires having to listen to Ghouliani pontificate about his role in 9/11 on an hour of Charlie Rose. I'll let others with a stronger stomach watch it and report about it.
-
Off to the feed store
Although we mostly have western horses, we just got our first hunthorse. And to show how far off you were, instead of Starbucks in New York in the morning, I'll be in Starbucks in Florida in the evening, but I'm too cheap to buy a T-Mobile pass, so I won't be online much this evening.
Anonymust: thanks for the support and welcome back. I was probably the slowest to recognize you in your new form and was really kicking myself last week when I finally figured it out.
-
It makes no difference that the dog is on a leash
DHK220: to reply to your reply to my reply, I never said the dog (Cheney) wasn't on a leash. I said the dog had rabies. Now I don't have a gun, but if there was a dog with rabies in my street, I'd buy one, even if the dog's master (Obama) kept it on a leash. Anyway, can you trust a man who keeps a mad dog? And can you trust a president who chooses a lunatic as his veep? The idea is craaaazy, or more probably, laaaazy.
As regards humanitarian intervention, yes there were some - such as the "French doctor" Kouchner - who wanted to invade Iraq for that purpose and that purpose alone. But considering his writings at the time, I don't think Friedman belongs in that category.
-
Your resident RWA in action
These people [Muslims] ARE childish and barbaric....
So we need to beat them every ten years or so to show 'em who's the parent. Anyone contacted DCYS in New Joysey yet?
... Apparently Glenn thinks a two year old child can be civilized by quoting Dr. Spock to it.
I like this quote better:
"Speak roughly to your little boy
and beat him when he sneezes:
He only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases."Sh**ter, however, is not familiar with that child-rearing book; it's too "lib'rul" for him ... not to mention too high-brow.
Cheers,
-
@ Retired Military Patriot, 8:19 Careful what you wish for
How about some humanitarian interventions using billions of dollars, peace and justice for the people of Darfur or those suffering from abject poverty and the scourge of aids throughout Africa? If the Iraq War fantasies had not been realized by your now misguided, but not repentant, “experts," there would be at least a trillion dollars available to help real suffering people in America and around the world.
My beat is C-Span.
Yesterday on Washington Journal,
http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Series,WJE&ArchiveDays=30
in those tones customer relations novices learn in the "how to placate an angry customer by saying 'I understand'" seminar, Stephen Morrison discussed the new "AFRICOM" program our military is undertaking: establishing a military presence and central in Africa to push back against the "threat" that China might .... might what? gain greater economic advantage over African resources than the US?
Iran? What Iran? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine? So yesterday's news.
On to bigger and better continents to conquer.
-
A Few Final Words
I think I've said most of what there really is to say on this subject. It does not seem that it would be productive if I said much more.
Paul Dirks, have you spent so much time studying indigenous populations under various forms of external influence that you can claim to speak for all of them? Have you spoken with Bosnians and ethnic Albanians who are alive today because of US and NATO action in the Balkans? All I'm trying to say is that the reactions you describe depend on multiple circumstances and contingencies, and your position requires you to make an actual argument. President Bush's warm reception in Albania, indicative of some warm feelings to the US because of its intervention in Kosovo, should be evidence enough that this question is more open than you grant it to be.
Retired Military Patriot, where did I day that I want the Iraq war to continue and that the surge is "working" (whatever that means)? I'm simply saying that the worldviews, intentions, and motivations of those who supported the Iraq War are more varied than most people here admit, and it is wrong or disingenuous to say otherwise. Some of these motivations were more legitimate than others, but we cannot achieve an acceptable outcome in Iraq for the people who actually live there (we are responsible for them now to a great degree) or guide American policy in the future without separating the positive from the negative impulses and actions that led to and derailed this intervention.
Finally, I think it is a testament to the echo box of groupthink that this comment board is that an "Anonymust" reader, among others, believes that I must be an "influencer" or even Friedman himself to be making these arguments and raising these questions! Do many of you have such a warped worldview as to believe that anyone who disagrees with you or is critical of your basic assumptions must be of the "Washington Establishment" or, worse, a "neoconservative" apologist? I hope some of you have a more active intellect than this and read more than just Salon and a few leftist bloggers. I haven't commented before now on Salon, but I do read it regularly and hope to engage in a useful and open debate or discussion with some of you from time to time.