Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 461 To 470 Of 657 Comments
A LATE AFTERNOON STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS POST ABOUT NOTHING MUCH IN PARTICULAR
When I saw the new Impalas I wept. Want to make smaller cars? Fine -- but don't name them after the lead sleds. Its disrespectful.
Of course, that could just be because I miss my my 96 SS. I loved that beast. Especially when some kid in a Yugo with underbody lights would rev at me at a light, not knowing there was an LT1 under the hood. Ah, memories.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.01.2009 @ 18:45
@indgo red:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
I assume you're referring to the "discrepancies" Corsi detailed in the PR release of Obama's birth cer -- apparently no raised seal, what appeared to be a Photoshop watermark, etc. Factcheck.org got hi-res scans of the original (available at the link above). You may consider them to be a questionable source, but I've been impressed with their even-handed fact-checking of both parties, and the evidence in the link seems pretty solid. They've even got a link to a photo of a Hawaii newspaper with his birth announcement, which apparently was uncovered by a conservative investigator. Is there another issue with his birth cert aside from these issues?
@bet:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.01.2009 @ 15:32
"Why? Because race and culture matter. Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Blacks, etc. do not have any history of “diversity” or tolerance or openness or pluralism – those are white, European-based, English speaking people’s customs and values."
So you're arguing for ethnic purity because caucasians are the only group capable of handling diversity. That is certainly an . . . interesting approach.
WINNING WARS AND FIGHTING TERRORISM WITH 'HUMILITY AND RESTRAINT'
@manning:
For me, the idea that if we leave Iraq as anything other than a fully functioning, self-defending "sucess" is a deeply troubling position. As you noted, the tribal/ethnic strife that is present in Iraq has been there, is there, and will still be there.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.01.2009 @ 03:38
We can always say "well, let's just give it a few more years", and then at the end of the few more years if/when the situation isn't improved we can say "just a few more". This war has been phrased that way for the last 5 years -- just around the corner, 6 months, another 6 months, a few more, another year tops, etc.
Is it an insult to the troops that have died to leave before that "sucess"? I think that's debatable, but its certainly a valid position. On the other side though, at what point do you cut your losses as a country? If we lose another thousand soldiers in the next few years, and we haven't stabilized Iraq yet, then the argument starts reinforcing itself -- now, we've got even more brave people that "sacrificed in vain", so stopping then would be even more of an affront to their memory. Queue up the next thousand soldiers? Another thousand after that?
Like I said, I respect the idea that feeling soldiers who lose their lives "for nothing" is something to be avoided is admirable. But at what point should we, as a country, apply that to the soldiers who haven't been killed?
I'm not saying we need to pull out today -- I don't think that's a good idea. But I worry that "staying until the job is done" is a dangerous slope, one that may very likely cost more American lives than the final product is worth.
TORTURE: A MATTER OF OPINION OR A QUESTION OF LEGALITY
@Retire05:
Of course anybody would do whatever was necessary under the scenario you describe -- that's kind of the reason we as a society don't let the dad of the victim interrogate the suspect.
I think you posted this "hypothetical" before, and unless I'm falsifying memories I'll ask you your "Liberals are to pansy to answer" question the same as I did before -- keep every detail of your incredibly slanted, unrealistic scenario except for one. Change the prisoner's name from John Cuey to Fred Anderson. After you repeatedly bring him to the brink of drowning and beat the daylights out of him (what . . . you'll drown him but not give him a few smacks? You're daughter's in the hole, man! tick tock!),what are you going to do when the cops tell you it turns out this guy actually doesn't have anything at all to do with your missing daughter. See, they heard from the Seargent that the District Commander was talking to somebody important and they told him that the County Commisioner said this prisoner was SUPER guilty.
Of course, when they told you about him and gave you the keys to the cell that sort of got left aside in the excitement. Race against the clock and all that.So my question is: What are you going to tell Mr. Anderson after he gets out of the hospital? Better still, what are you going to tell his brothers and cousins when they stop by some late evening to discuss their perspective on the incident? Don't mind the Louisville Sluggers and the tire irons . . . they're just worried about traveling around so late at night, when there aren't any helpful witnesses about. Y'know . . . 'cuz accidents happen. Can't be too careful.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.12.2008 @ 23:18
@usinkorea:
"Water boarding is a good case to begin with. We use it on some service men and other government employees whose line of work might one day land them in some other group’s torture chambers——so—if water boarding a detainee is a war crime, should we go back and prosecute the members of all previous administration who allowed such crimes to take place – crimes against our own citizens – not just its own citizens, but its patriots."
A fair analogy, but unfortunately it breaks down because for it to follow through the soldiers going through SERE training would have to be prisoners.
(*warning: absolutely repugnant/inappropriate example coming up . . . all I could think of at the moment; sorry).
I saw a video a few days ago on the Net of some . . . well, I guess they would call themselves "free-thinkers" (I call them seriously disturbed) who enjoyed driving multiple heavy-guage fishhooks (I'm talking sharkfishing-appropriate-sized hooks) into their back so they can be suspended from the ceiling on chains like slabs of meat in the butcher's walk-in. The truly dedicated get permanent rings embedded in their backs (I suppose to cut down on the blood loss, but honestly they lost me at "deliberate self-mutilation" so the rationale may well be anything).
Is that torture? For the freak and freakettes, no. A cry for help, mabye, but that's their call. Clearly though, if a sheriff did that to an inmate incarcerated in their facility . . . well, "apples and oranges" despite being the same behavior.
Also, as you pointed out the whole reason the SERE trainees go through that is specifically because it IS torture -- it's to let them experience getting tortured so that if they God forbid end up in a country that might torture them ("some other group’s torture chambers") for information they might be better able to cope. The program took specific methods of torture that lawless regeimes use(d), otherwise it would be relatively pointless -- experiencing what waterboarding and beatings feels like isn't going to help too much if my captors use the "slowly feed the prisoner into a wood chipper" style, since at least some of the physological reactions would be unique.
I've posted this link before, but this is a post from the former chief instructor at SERE . . . according to his alleged bona fides, he's used these techniques on thousands of American soldiers personally -- the closest thing I've ben able to find to an actual "expert" on the topic:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/If the discussion is whether something illegal/immoral had to be done at the time (justification, extenuating circumstances, etc.) that's one thing, but that's an entirely different (and incompatible) argument to positing it wasn't illegal/immoral behavior. Like Mr. M. said in the post . . . should it be permitted? Should the law be changed? There are arguments to be made in this vein (I personally disagree with them, but there are coherent arguments regardless), but whether the behavior is a violation of current rules/regs/laws/treaties/morals is relatively straightforward.
Unfortunately, that leads to a very uncomfortable situation. I certainly don't think the agents and eventually soldiers that engaged in the torture should be put on trial for war crimes -- although it's considered a sneer, they were literally "just following orders", they were told it was a life-or-death situation, they didn't initiate the torture, etc. -- however the people that did give the orders aren't ever going to face the legal consequences: I have no doubt that W, Cheney, Rummy, et. al are NEVER EVER going to be arrested, shipped to the Hague in chains, and executed regardless of what did or didn't happen. So either the law is enforced against the bit players, the "few bad apples" at Abu Grahib (yeah . . . some 19 year old Wal-Mart cashier spontaneously did a "VietNam" on a prisoner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg . . . no CIA-and-therefore-official-direction presence whatsoever, pure coincidence . . .) who certainly don't deserve it (but unfortunately "following orders" was intentionaly written out of the USMC so the only question for them would be how long they go to prison), or we don't bother at all. To protect the Rule of Law, good people who don't deserve it will be destroyed. To protect the people from being abused by the system, we've got to turn our back on the Law. I don't know whats going to happen, but its not going to be pretty.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.12.2008 @ 08:54
@ Rick M.:
Sadly, lots of us DO recognize that W represents internationaly the people of this country -- one of the prime reasons he gets under so many people's skin. Blood is blood, and if the neighbor gets into a fight with my Uncle Edgar then I've got Edgar's back . . . but if the fight started because Edgar called his wife something that gets you punched I still have to back him up but he's NOT invited over for the neighborhood picnic next year.
I know the Hardc0re commenters will probably call blasphemy when I say this, but although they are apparently checking this guy for drugs and/or mental issues . . . I haven't heard anybody credible on either side of the fence make any claims about him being wacko, or a terrorist, or unbalanced. It's going unspoken on the Right side of the discussion about this, but the gaining traction meme of "he should thank the US for getting rid of Hussein so he can throw shoes" implicitly distinguishes between insane timebombs (a potential issue in any society) and an otherwise respectable, legitimate citizen expressing their outrage at what they consider corrupt government (something unthinkable under Hussein but possible now). You likened it to tossing rotten tomatoes here, which was the traditional warning to retire (and move) early before the tar-and-feathers came out.
There's a BIG gulf between "hey jackhole -- try that cr@p again and you'll be lucky to crawl out of here" and "you are completely wrong for being this upset."I haven't heard anybody on either side even imply that this is the latter. Both side, explicitly or implicitly, seem to be conceeding he (and presumably other Iraqis) has legitimate grounds to be furious (NOT LEGIT TO ACT LIKE THAT)
"And any insults directed at the government are insults hurled at each and every American regardless of party affiliation, ideology, or, in the case of liberals, intelligence or the lack thereof."
yep -- and when the government does things to be insulted over, it projects blame at each and every one of those same Americans. I'll say one thing for the Illinois machine -- they cant line up quick enough to get rid of Blogo. If they don't . . . well, somebody's gonna start throwing tomatoes, and when they have the authorities take them away while they wipe the mess off their suits, if the thrower yells back "why didn't you get rid of him? You must be birds of a feather" . . . that's hard to distinguish to the crowd watching.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.12.2008 @ 12:56
@ Michael Reynolds:
You must have my office bugged -- Or I'm channeling you. Probably the classiest public speaking W has done in years, a real deft touch . . . and I'll admit at least that first shoe would have caught me napping if I were him. I didn't notice the SS rush forward in the video I saw like Mr. M said, so I'll watch it again . . . but I suspect there's some very well-trained personnel that are going to be spending some very unpleasent time in purgatory for the near future.
I'm sure there are some idiots making jackholes out of themselves on the Left, but they certainly don't represent everybody who isn't Red. Personally, I'd like to clock W with a shoe, but he's my Prez to abuse, not theirs. I think Maliki's a crook and a spineless thug, but it's not my place to slap him if he's touring the country.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.12.2008 @ 12:50
"– Would you rather have Al-qaeda in charge of the Iraqi government? Would you rather have ethnic cleansing?"
No . . . I wouldn't want Nazis in charge of Iraq either. Since neither of these two options had a snowball's chance in Hell of happening prior to us invading (and next-to-a-snowball's chance in hell of happening after), raising it as a "deflected scenario" is laughable.
"– Bin laden also wanted to fight us in Iraq.(his words.)"
Yes . . .AFTER we invaded and made complete asses of ourselves. After recruitment went up for AQ and other terrorist agencies. After arabs lined up to rush to Iraq to repel the infidels. Worked out great for him."– We stopped chasing bin laden because he became marginalized. He remains that way to this very day. The war is bigger than Osama. They radical islamist aren’t going to stop because osama bin laden was killed or caught."
??? So the war in Iraq is focused on shutting down radical Islam? Given that the dictatorship of Hussein was pretty much the exact opposite of radical Islam, how did removing it help promote your goal? Take your time . . . this one might require some serious contoritions.
Bin Laden is marginalized? I assume that means that AQ is marginalized too. So they are not a threat to America? Interesting. Glad he doesn't serve as a symbol that you can attack America and get away with it.
I agree the radical islamist isn't going to stop because OBL is killed or caught -- why would they stop because we invaded Iraq?"– The reason bin laden escaped was because we sent in the Northern alliance when we should of sent in our paramilitary troops. Bone headed? sure.
Due to Iraq or deliberate? Your the first to ever claim that poppycock."
Never said deliberate (as in deliberately let him go). Given that multiple requests were made for reinforcements, that briefers spoke face-to-face with W and stated the current reliance on the Pakistan forces was untenable, and given that the buildup for Iraq started shortly after . . . calling it "poppycock" seems laughably ignorant. Only person claiming reinforcements were rejected? http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/militarymatters/98800
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/27/84111/0004
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1996/"However, You’re logic of comparing the war on drugs to radical islamic terrorism is weak. What you’re saying is you agree with radical Islam and everything they’re doing."
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.12.2008 @ 13:40
. . . You mock my comments, then make this unbelievably unsupported, astoundingly ignorant, comically pathetic statement? How you draw the conclusion that I support radical Islam, or that such a conclusion is related to the metaphor of a War on Drugs, defies description. Your comment actually made some legitimate, thoughtful points. This reduces your comments to hysterical blather, and should fill you with embarassment and shame. Really, this is just ignorant. I'd say you should know better, but obviously you don't.
@retire05:
"We have not been attacked again. Something that was prediced to happen almost immediately after 9-11. And for that, you can thank George Bush."
The fact that it was predicted to happen does not in any way mean it was going to happen. It was predicted we'd find the WMDs too, especially since Rummy knew where they were, the war would pay for itself in a year, we'd only need 40-50 thousand troops . . . but sometimes predictions turn out to be incorrect.
At this point, without specific proof of a plot foiled, you can't "prove" attacks were thwarted anymore than I can "prove" that despite the hysteria we wern't going to get attacked -- both of those lie down the paths of alternate histories and faith at this point. We disagree on this point, but its an article of faith, not fact. I'll say my "faith" is largely based on the "fact" that there hasn't been any evidence of real attacks thwarted . . . and I believe that if the Admin did really thwart an attack they would have held a press conference like they did with those idiots in Florida ("Look! Terrorists! We're on the case!"). You can look at the same facts and think they demonstrate that we've stopped attacks so massive in scale the Administration can't say anything so as not to risk their highly advanced infiltration of the baddies organization. Since we're drawing conclusions based on the lack of evidence rather than the interpretation of evidence though, its guesswork for both of us and I'll respectfully disagree but admit you may well be right.
"busboy, you can use our military to plead your case, but sorry, that is why we have them. Are do you think they are handed a rifle during basic training for cutesy photo ops?"
Nope -- I think they were trained to fight wars. The difference is your version has them acting as America's personal Secret Service, throwing themselves in front of the bullets to save us back home, and I absolutely don't think that's what they're there for.
They aren't there to catch the bullet for you. They aren't there to negotiate with local tribal warlords. They aren't there to rebuild infrastructure. They exist to take control of land and defend it -- period.
Frankly, that's why the "War on Terror" was a great soundbite but a stupid policy. You can't wage war with a military against an opponent that has no territory to capture. War against the Taliban? Well, we waged war against Afganistan, won it, and are trying to hold it. But against the Taliban? Against Al Quieda? The only "war" you can fight against them is metaphorical, like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty".
The only way the military can defend us from terrorism is if they take and hold ALL the land, so the terrorists can't just move elsewhere. In the War on Drugs, military units took over cocaine fields. They took and held the land. But the "enemy" just went somewhere else. Bin Laden ran to Afganistan, and we took and (to some extent) held the land. What did he do? He moved. But he clearly didn't move to Iraq, so fighting there only protects us here if attacks were coming from that territory, or from the Iraqi regeime -- and not only do you have ZERO evidence of that, but there's some pretty solid evidence that it wasn't true.
If there isn't/wasn't a massive bombing attack coming from Iraq, then the only way the military is "protecting" us from such an attack is by providing a decoy target that's easier for anybody that might want to kill Americans but hasn't worked out the logistics of getting over here -- and they deserve better than that.I won't bother with the whole "inspiring more terrorists thereby increasing our risk" argument as I assume you simply don't believe it, which is fine. Let me ask you this though: the majority of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. How does the combat in Baghdad inhibit Saudis from plottong to attack us, or executing such an attack? Assuming bin Laden is in the mountains of Northern Pakistan, how does a military convoy outside of Tikrit getting hit with an IED slow them down?
It doesn't. Not even a teensy bit. Those Americans dying aren't doing it to "combat terrorism", and their sacrifice isn't making you any safer from the next jet liner being hijacked.
We didn't have 8 years of a president that took "protect and defend" seriously -- we've had 8 years of a president that hasn't bothered to think about the consequences of his actions seriously because since we invaded Iraq we HAVEN'T been chasing bin Laden. Remember him? The one guy on the planet that we know for an absolute fact actually tries to figure out ways to attack you here on the homeland? The guy we know isn't in Iraq? The guy who got his funding from Saudis . . . not Saddam? The guy we had cornered in Afganistan, and then W refused to send the additional troops needed to cut off the escape route to Pakistan because we needed to invade Iraq IMMEDIATELY, before we got the the most credible threat to that next attack you're worried about? "Protect and defend" my slowly wrinkling ass.
I understand you don't believe a word of this -- it's all lies propagated by the Liberal conspiracy. But I'm not "using the military to plead my case". I call those Americans killed because of W's presidency. You seem to claim that their dealths are expected in order to protect us here -- and unless you can offer any rational explanation of how fighting in Iraq protects us from a terrorist offensive, then those men and women being killed (more than died in the collapsing buildings and crashing planes, and that's not including all the scarred, maimed, wounded) have NOTHING to do with you not getting attacked . . . and I'm going to believe your hypothetical fairytale ("Saddam might have tried to work with terrorists or get WMDs more immediately than the threat from AQ, and mabye there were lots of attacks that we're stopped but everybody's just too damn modest towant to take credit for protecting us, bless their hearts . . .") is just the same series of lies you've been spoon-fed for the last 8 years by the NeoCon despots.
By the way, you might want to look the oath up. W didn't pledge to "protect and defend" you or I. He plegded to do so for the Constitution of the United States (the language of the oath is mandatory -- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 8).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.12.2008 @ 16:07
@ retire05:
"I am not smart about these things; I admit to that. But I know one damn thing for sure, I am alive and no more Americans have been blown up in tall buildings since George Bush decided to take a hard stance."
Very true. Blown up in convoys, ambushes, IED targeted set-ups, RPG attacks, random mortar drops into bases and/or the Green Zone . . . thousands of them. But I am unaware of any tall buildings blowing up with Americans in them . . . and if by chance a tall building DID blow up somewhere, then we can always change it to "no tall buildings blew up due to kenetic impact from a passenger airliner with a minimum capacity of X", so your statement probably still holds water, at some level.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.12.2008 @ 07:18
