Letters to the Editor
-
Sorry, not Chatty Cathy
Talky Tina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Doll_(The_Twilight_Zone)
"My name is Talky Tina and I'm beginning to hate you."
"My name is Talky Tina and you'll be sorry."
"My name is Talky Tina, and I'm going to kill you."
The neocon vocabulary in a nutshell.
-
@baldie
Actually, considering some of your recent exchanges, you are not in a position to judge how others respond.
-
@Pedinska
All the more reason to put as much pressure as possible on the next administration to bring these people to account. They will have less time to spread their subterranean poison if they are having to fight a defensive war.
Our thinking is pretty much identical on this, methinks. Some of these creatures will be beyond reach, because they had only their intellectual 'fingers' on any of this (and they'll retire to their sinecures at Hoover, IAS/Princeton, etc). But I think it's very effective to show them the color of their own blood. Bullies don't go on the offensive when someone they've terrorized gives them a nosebleed.
Also, more importantly, if there is even a hope of restoring any integrity to the institutions they've crapped all over, there needs to be a cleansing, using a strong abrasive.
-
@knob
Since we're engaging with you, who asked "what to do about Iran? Can you tell us why "we" need to "do" ANYTHING about Iran?
I'm reminded of a Monty Python line about what to call fat Belgian bastards: "Why should we call them anything? Why don't we just ignore them?"
I await your serious answer to this quite serious, if lightly asked, question.
-
@Iokannen
do NOT start waving Ahmadinejad's bolivations as evidence.
You meant 'bloviations'. It's only 'bolivations' when Hugo Chavez does it. :>
Seriously, it's funny to me how we can examine and understand (well, talk about anyway) the most obscure and minute differentiations in our own politics but when we look at other countries we pretend that they have no politics of their own, no internal disagreements, no legacies, no family interests, nothing. They all wear a political unitard. One size fits all.
-
Sorry, Mike
but you're going to have to be clearer than that. When did I engage with a troll in such a manner that his trivial comments were encouraged to bloom into a pseudo-debate? Seriously.
I'm not trying to piss on you---I admire your calm attempts to reason with them. But please do consider tactics and strategy---what they are trying to do to us and what the rest of us here are trying to do. Did Knob's joke about nuclear winter really deserve a response?
-
Ledeen and "yellowcake"
Joseph Wilson alleged that Ledeen was involved in the Niger doc forgery, but that too seems to have conveniently disappeared. While still an allegation, it would seem to fit the pattern of Ledeen's previous actions.
-
NotOrbitBoy, clueless berk:
If we allow iran to develop its nuclear weapons, won't the nuclear winter that follows the inevitable nuclear exchange with Israel solve our global warming problems?
Hey, NOB, a cyanide pill will cure your BPH. Try it.
Cheers,
-
Neo-conscience-free: The Politic of Sociopathology
It's the brazen, easily proven, untruth of these statements that's so utterly breathtaking:
"Anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran." Andrew McCarthy & Mark Levin
"I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place." Michael Ledeen
McCarthy, Levin and Ledeen knew absolutely these statements were untue when they made them. They also knew that their untruth was a matter of very public record. It's this willingness to lie, without fear of consequence, knowing one's lies are easily exposed, that's so emblematic of neo-con arrogance. In this world-view, any lie, repeated often enough, becomes true. Conversely, any revelation of deceit, ignored resolutely enough, becomes inconsequential. That pearl-clutching faux-indignation ("anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows...") frequently accompanies this arrogant disregard for the truth, elevates this world-view from the merely shameless to the positively pathological. And it's endemic.
Consider Cheney declaring the existence of Iraqi WMDs & links with al Qeda, years after both were utterly disproven. Or McCain saying he never met a lobbyist he'd earlier admitted meeting, under oath. These bald-faced lies, easily exposed, ripple like a toxic leit-motiv through conservative discourse, with an easy reguarity, a breathtaking fearlessness of consequence, that's so deeply corrupt and inherently sociopathic.
-
@Reilly
I had precisely this argument with someone recently. Generally, I like to fully engage people like this who aren't committed, just parroting some feel-tough lines from the Neocons, because they can be flipped/saved. I was starting to lose patience though, also consciousness, so I short-circuited the argument by saying:
"Commanders on the ground are responsible for establishing force protection measures to ensure the safety of the troops. Are you suggesting the commanders are incompetent? That they can't protect their troops? That they need some civilian in Washington, DC to tell them how to fight?"
Yeah, it worked. Nah, I don't feel that bad about it. I'll try to save two more to make up for that one.
-
Are you indulging in deliberate parody, NotOrbitBoy?
(Iran as an 'irresponsible neighbor')
In many ways. I wouldn't use "history of invasions" as a metric to measure responsibility. Here's one in Israel's favor; they have honored peace treaties with Egypt. They have a proven track record of settling differences with former enemies. Can you demonstrate a similar act of responsibility on Iran's part? Then there's democracy vs. theocracy.
Iran has honored all peace treaties its signed. It has a proven track record of not invading its neighbors. And its government is an Islamic Republic, not an outright theocracy.
(the 'right to nuclear weapons')
Possession of nukes is a right? Who bestows that right? This is a frivolous question.
On this we agree, though I suspect for different reasons. For me its frivolous because Iran has shown no sign its nuclear research is heading towards weaponization of the technology.
The questions to be answered are; are we better off stopping iran from obtaining nukes? and how far are we willing to go (what price will we pay)?
Or, more accurately, what price are you - NotOrbitBoy - prepared to have the rest of us pay for your personal peace of mind.
Caricatures of neo-cons plotting a conspiracy in a dark room ignores the tough questions. It garners an emotional response, rather than a rational one.
Very good. You're finally admitting the central problem you have here. Good progress.
(who starts the nuclear exchange)
The side the has stated, repeatedly, that Israel should not exist.
Um, given it is NOT an avowed policy of Iran to wipe out Israel?
Again, Ahmadinejad is powerless and a loudmouth that Ali Khamenei has been taking very public steps to shut up.
(the consequences of US-led invasions in the ME)
Wishful thinking, as if we hadn't invaded Iraq, that Iran would not have pursued nukes.
Pity no-one thought further than getting to Baghdad back in 2003. Oh, wait...
You have to ignore a lot of history to draw that conclusion. Iran's efforts to obtain nukes pre-date Bush, by decades.
You should distinguish what 'history' you're referring to, as you're evidentially reading something other than Iranian history. You should also understand the difference between civilian- versus weaponized-nuclear technology.
Again, the devil's in the detail you clearly aren't considering. Maybe you should start before embarrassing yourself further.