I always thought that it was sort of dumb of us to bash any liberal who comes in here, because it would sort of be no better than the general politics forum. I liked blackjack's response as I started to read it, I think having some decent liberals in here would be good, in addition to the one who comes in here who seems to be popular despite his liberal/pro-terrorist views (bojendyk). But then as I read further I realized there is some justification for villifying the liberals who have come over here. Some of the conservatives deserve the namecalling over in the regular forum, but the bigsoccer liberals havn't exactly sent their brightest pupils over here to Archer's forum. Just kidding about the pro-terrorist thing, Bo.
WRT step number 4. Who do you think is providing the training for Iraqi police and armed forces? The same guys you just sent back home in steps 1-3. Genius at work here. And there has been a Sunni v Shi'ite war for a very long time. This civil war you speak of has been brewing for generations. More genius here. This is of course nowhere in the Geneva Conventions. Do you also then require 1) the soldier 'making the arrest' gather the evidence required to convict this individual? 2) Does he need to read this POW the Miranda Rights? 3) Does the soldier then need to be available for cross-examination to the defense during his trial? Quite frankly, givin the restraints, the soldier would do what the Marines did to the Japanese prisoners as they were surrenduring during the island hoping campaign in WWII. Shoot 'em in the head. There's a reason there were not a lot of Japanese taken prisoner. Look into it. Oh, and BTW. The military's job is to kill people and blow up things. They are very good at their job
Am I the only one who feels it's more than a bit classless to discuss someone's professional life on a soccer message board? I don't like this aspect of the discussion at all.... Sachin
Yeah, they're providing that training now. They're also doing a lot of other things, like getting killed in the crossfires of a civil war. There's no reason we can't remove most of our troops and leave some elite squads to train Iraqi police. We could keep the training centers in areas we control where our troops would be at little risk. As things are now, that is not what is going on. Brewing, yes. Boiling over, no. This war is going to be played out regardless of whether or not we are there. We might as well get our guys the hell out of harm's way, let the civil war run its course, and then apologize to the rest of the world and work with whatever government emerges to reduce the amount of terrorism coming out of the region. Why should foreign nationals not have the same rights as Americans? IMO, it doesn't matter whether this is in the Geneva Conventions or not. This is a matter of human rights, and it is our duty as a world leader to set a positive example. The Miranda rights are clearly overboard, but I maintain that if there is not enough evidence to try someone, it's not fair to hold them while you try to find it. That makes it far, far too easy to make up evidence that doesn't exist. I'm not accusing anybody of doing that, but you have to admit that for anybody responsible for somebody's arrest, if real evidence were lacking the temptation to make that arrest look legitimate would be great. Thank you. I was waiting for somebody to acknowledge that you can't really argue this. I never said they weren't good at it.
Why not - I've exhausted my research trail for the moment and need to refresh. Because the right applied it to Clinton in the first place. It was irrelevant for Clinton and its irrelevant for Bush. Its pure politics. Bad question. I've no idea if my calls were listened to. While the Bush administration has hardly destroyed the Bill of Rights, wiretapping countless people without a warrant (which is ridiculously easy to get and can be done ex post facto!) is a clear violation of my civil liberties had my phones been tapped. Am I saying they're doing this because they want to put me in a concentration camp? No, but that's not relevant. Civil liberties violations are just that. Because the Democratic party is foolish and Michael Moore excites an audible base of twits. Because its a bad treaty. (And because the Senate pre-empitively voted not to ratify it 98-0, as I recall.) Because it does research and isn't as virulent as its rightist counterparts. I don't like most of it, and don't listen to political radio, but they ARE smarter than much of the insipid right wing crap that gets spouted by Rush and Hannity. (Air America isn't terribly smart, mind you. Its just smarter than Hannity and Rush.) Cheap question. Its a lot harder to put something to gether than to break it. Its like a kid asking his parents to "move on" now that he's wrecked the car, since their advice to him about not driving without the lights on at night isn't helping now that the car is totaled. As for what I'd do? It all depends on which view I want to adopt. I'm still not sure I've seen a workable solution. I tend to side somewhat with Smiley in that you cannot impose democracy on a people not remotely ready for it. (For an interesting case history, see the liberalizing attempts of the Russian revolution.) Because he was pandering (and the question of whether or not its a civil right is a difficult one that also asks why the government is regulating religious marriage in the first place). We stopped watching it. Sorry. I'm not against closing Gitmo so long as those who are held there get a trial. Since when are leftists "virulently" opposed to ROTC? No one at Ohio State much cared, except for our drunk jokes about forming an organization to fight ROTC since there didn't seem to be a group dedicated to upholding our rights not to quarter soldiers (as opposed to the ACLU and NRA, etc.). Because Ollie North's not an authority on anything except for selling arms on the side for crack. Sorry, that's what happens when you violate federal laws and........sell arms for crack. (Not that Murtha is an absolute authority, but if we talk about war, those who have been at war probably get a bit of an advantage.) The real issue here is that some Republican organs have shouted for so long about liberals "hating" America that some liberals now feel they need to have "street cred" to criticize policies. That's why it comes up. Nor do I think this is as hackneyed as Kerry's lame military self-promotion. (I mean campaign wise - the Swift boat assholes are real slime.) No - I'm Christian and would prefer to send them self-help tapes. Teach a man to fish............. Kidding, kidding. The above is Michael Moore shenaniganism that most of the left does not subscribe to. I believe that if you join the military, you should go where the democratically elected president sends you. And if you don't want to join the military, you don't have to. Its a choice.
Here's another question for the left. Why was conquering Iraq a bad thing? a) It's wrong to launch an unprovoked war b) The Iraqis aren't worth the trouble c) We have no moral standing to replace any tyrant d) The US shouldn't go around the world "nation-building" e) Chimpy McHitler wants to seize the oil and poison our water with it
I will respectfully disagree. Having a military recruiter on campus, to my mind, is no different than when recruiters from Fortune 500s, or pharmaceutical firms, or what have you, come in to the campus for "job fairs." It's up to the student to pick what they want to do. A friend of mine went to the University of Georgia, thinking she was going to pick up a Master's degree to further her career. She ended up in an Officer training program and now serves in the Army, stationed in Missouri. This was a personal choice she exercised that has worked out well for her by all accounts (although it cost me a damn good sportswriter off my staff at the time). You'd be surprised, apparently, by how many people in college have no clue what they want to do with their lives afterward. And you'd be surprised, apparently, by how many people that are in our military who never have, never will, and more than likely, wouldn't ever want to fire a shot in anger at anyone. The answer isn't taking away the recruiters, it is, as Sachin mentioned, the person being smart enough to say, "No thanks, just looking," and then going off to Sociology 204, the bar, or wherever. Believe it or not, most people are actually smart enough to make that particular choice for themselves.
Largely, it's point A, combined with a consideration of the complicated cultural and political divisions within the country. It would have been like deposing Tito and expecting the liberated people to rise under the banner of One Yugoslavia. Also, Iraq distracted us from the guy who actually attacked our country. We should have sent 100,000+ troops to Afghanistan and actually committed ourselves to the Marshall-like plan that Bush originally proposed for the region. However . . . . . . we did give the world Rupert Holmes. That alone will leave America will zero moral standing for generations to come.
Then I suppose we deserved 9/11 after giving the world Prince and Jerry Lewis My answer is (b) and (d) If the result is good, an unprovoked war is tolerable - and you could say that we were somewhat provoked, too.
I'm only 70% convinved the Iraq war was a bad thing, and I wish we didn't do it - but still hold hope for the future. My answers from your choices are: D....but A and possibly C have some merit to them as well. Largely because of my newfound Buchanan-esque Isolation outlook. We could spend that money people in the U.S.
Well to me there's a big difference between having some folks mumbling about Clinton being a draft dodger (which he provably, beyond question, was) and having prominent democrat politicians saying the same thing, and having it repeated endlessly by the press (see Rather, Dan) about Bush when it's demonstrably false. I would also ask this: if John Kerry's glorious record as a hero of the American military is "relevant", because it shows a willingness, supposedly, to serve his country, then why isn't Bill Clinton's lying, string-pulling and deceit in an effort to avoid service equally telling? You and I have no idea how many - let alone "countless" - phone calls have been "intercepted". (It is not like you to use a word like "wiretapping" which is not only inaccurate but is frankly meant to arouse resentment at the expense of being truthful) As you well know, there is a legitimate legal debate about the permissability of this kind of electronic surveillance. It's telling, however, that every administration, including the beloved civil libertarian Jimmy Carter, and the freedom loving Clinton administration, also claimed the same right under the same interpretation of the law. The short answer is that I myself cannot see why the NSA should ask for a warrant in a situation where previous administrations, and an honest interpretation of the law, says no warrant is necessary. Would this be something like "pandering to the party's fringe? I thought only Republicans did that. Then you and I agree that it is simply political posturing for Democrats to hit the campaign trail railing against Bush for refusing to sign it either. This is the one answer I find ridiculous. Nothing personal. Speaking of Randi Rhodes doing "research" is like speaking of fish flying. It's a non-sequiter. Their average show is twice as "virulent" as anything Sean Hannity has ever said in his life. This is dodging the question, "cheap" as you think it is. And frankly, "What would you do about Iraq" is not only not "cheap" it's THE political question of the day. If someone is making a claim to political power, then that person has to be willing to say what he or she would do differently. I think going into Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do. There may - and I stress MAY - be some things we should have done differently, but basing your political position on hindsight is not the same as being right. Marriage is a "religious right" only after you obtain a marriage license from the government. A judge or a mayor or a ship;s captain (and despite what you may have told various women, motel clerks do not qualify) can perform a marriage ceremony. In Las Vegas, you can have the ceremony performed by an Elvis impersonator. The question is about the granting of marriage licenses, not who says "Do you take this man". The thing that really fries me about this issue is that the left wants the courts to decide it. The reason for this is because every single time the issue comes before an actual ballot, the voting citizens of the states have rejected it. The left doesn't care about majority rule except when the majority agrees with them. In all other cases, they'd prefer to find a lawyer wearing a black robe to take the decision out of the hands of the voters, who are nothing but a bunch of bigoted rubes as far as they're concerned. Presumably you stopped watching it for a reason besides that channel on your TV is broken. So you muat have had some objection to it. You're dodging the question. Is that what we did with German and Japanese POW's? Did I just miss that part? The left wants everything both ways: they demand that these guys be treated according to the Geneva conventions as prisoners of war. OK fine, you win, that's what you get. The Conventions say nothing about "trials". Indeed, they quite specifically state that POW's are to be held until the conclusion of hostilities. So you have to choose: are they prisoners of war or are they not? The left doesn't need to be virulent about something they had tossed out decades ago. Try suggesting to the herd over on PG that you think ROTC should return to all the campuses which eliminated it in the sixties and see how "virulent" you think the response is. You don't get to change the question. I'll answer yours, you answer mine. MY question was about Murtha vs. North. North was a 23 year veteran of the Marine Corps, highly decorated, who refused his third Pruple Heart several times because it would have meant he had to go home. (Unlike, say, John "Oh look, I got a splinter" Kerry) He retired as a Colonel. Murtha was a reserve Captain who went on active duty for a couple years. I'm not denegrating his service, but his military credentials do not stand u to Norths. However that may be, why does North's participation in a scheme to arm some freedom fighters who were fighting a war against the Sandinistas, who were being heavily equipped by Russia and Cuba, completely disqualify him from having his opinions on military affairs listened to? Yes, he followed some instructions from his boss to do this and no "I was only following orders" is not an excuse and no, the fact that the law they were violating, the Boland Amendment, was wrongheaded and ridiculous and a typical example of the Democrats refusing to stand up against the Soviets because as is typical with them they view anything resembling a national backbone as distateful does not excuse it either. But that does not take away anything from his expertise and knowledge of military affairs any more than the fact that Murtha, a crooked thief of a hack politician who has consistently opposed anything and everything of a military nature which the country has done in the last 30 years disqualifies him. This is a very telling answer. You consistently claim that most of the far-out stuff is just some fringe bunch of kooks, which you then try to pawn off as the moral equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, which is a real reach. The right wing fringe is the KKK and the White Power movement and maybe even Pat Robertson, not Laura Ingraham. But more than that, you cannot claim that it's just the whackjobs who are out there with Moore when a recent Scrippps poll showed that fully 1/3 of Americans now believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". Essentially, the left is working at cnvincing the American people that the President of the US murdered 3000 Americans one day because he has a lust for war. This is much closer to mainstream leftist thought than you are comfortable with, and rightly so. But when you look at the gross attacks that good good percentage of mainstream democrats are heaping on a good and decent man like Joe Lieberman these days, a man with impeccable liberal credentials, simply because he feels that in time of war we need to be solidly behind the man elected to lead us (which didn't use to be a radical notion in America until Bush-hatred became the real issue) you begin to see that it's not just soem "out there" bunch of nutjobs that are making the democrats look bad - it's becoming a majority.
I won't have time to answer this tonight - there's an issue on the mod forum that's taking up a bit of my time. I'll try to get to this tomorrow or Saturday afternoon.
Telling of what? Not wanting to go to war? Clinton didn't campaign on his war record, so stating he was a draft dodger in his early 20s is as irrelevant as Bush's record. Bush's record isn't as cut and dry as you claim, by the way, but its irrelevant. What the man did in his early 20s has no bearing on running for President. Bush was probably a coke sniffing alcoholic in his 20s. He's not that now. So who cares? We know phone calls were intercepted, and their amount is irrelevant. Come on Bill, that's not what I said. I never claimed that this was wrong. I claimed that Bush failed to even get a warrant despite the relative ease of doing so. Laws are important because they are what make us different from "them". Bush should have followed the laws, and if he failed to get the warrants he should have said so rather than claiming he didn't need them. That's not true Bill. All organized parties did that. I'm far too realistic to think they don't. I'm not a registered Democrat because I think my party's cleaner. I'm a registered democrat because I like their ideas more. Well, that's not entirely fair. I dislike their ideas less. Duh.
Glad to see Nicephoras is still breaking out the old "Russian's can't handle democracy" argument. Of course, kasparov disagrees with him and he actually lives in Russia. I know what the next response will be "Kasparov is wrong". Let's just save some time and not even argue about this because my argument is that democracy can work in Russia right now and his argument is/was "I know more about Russia than you".
Sigh. I grew up there. My undergraduate thesis concerned (somewhat unexpectedly) a discussion of the "liberal" movement in Russia in the early 20th century. I still visit and read Russian papers. You'll pardon me if I presume superior knowledge on the subject. And your argument that Kasparov thinks so is understandable - I'm sure he does. Unfortunately, I have nothing to suggest that he's as good a politician as he is a chess player. What I do know, however, is that the ideas of the intelligensia in Russia have always run far ahead of the general consensus of the Russian public at large, who are almost unanimously happy with Putin's petro economy. Democracy is a difficult thing, and one doesn't acquire it by simply trying really hard. It requires fundamental shifts in thinking over generations and crucial societal changes. Russia, for instance, has never had a strong property rights background (pre 1917 nearly all land was held by village "communes" and thereafter by collective farms) which is so vital to the concept of democracy. I'm not arguing that Russians have a genetic predisposition against democracy. But history has shown that it doesn't just come instantly. Russia is about 125 years or so behind Western Europe, which is a perfectly natural state of development. Unless compared to Western Europe right now.
Your argument is that you know more than me - which was your argument last time. Awesome. Well, I have an Econ degree.....so I claim superiority in that field so please don't argue with anything I say. Thanks. P.S. I'm sure Kasparov knows more about Russian politics than you could ever know.
Tough luck. I also have an econ degree. This isn't politics, and you didn't actually read any of the above post, where I went into detail. Have you noticed how little support he has, by the way? What does that tell you?
Ratdog claims the same thing and his post are laughable. Mel Brennan has been caught is some fibs about his background so I wouldn't doubt it if a few more liberals are making shit up. I'm not saying you are lying, but it seems bigsoccer liberals arguments are almost always based on "well I have a degree in X and Y and I work for Q so I know more than you" which is an argument you've used (the I know more than you thing). You also said that Clarence Thomas is an "average legal mind" or something to that effect.....does that mean you (you claim to be a lawyer) think you have a better legal mind that Clarence Thomas? I find it interesting that you and other liberals - and I'm sure conservatives do it too - talk like every one of your opinions is fact. Yes I did and Kasparov doesn't have the power to get support. He also stated in the WSJ that a) Putin's people have made physical threats against him and his staff and b) Russians are afraid to vote against Putin. This isn't just Kasparov talking - it's also Irina Khakamada and Sergei Glazyev saying similar things. Plus Russian TV and media is State Run, Russian TV is like an ongoing commercial for Putin. You can't deny that this has influence on the way Russians vote. As a self proffessed Russian Expert, you are certainly aware that while Putin will easily win the election, polls in Russia show he has less than 50% approval on many specific issues. Actually, here's Kasparov's quote on that very issue: http://www.cfr.org/publication/6776/does_russian_democracy_have_a_future.html KASPAROV: "I don't know. I don't know because I don't think you can trust opinion polls in a country like Russia. Yes, according to opinion polls he's very popular. And the Western papers are happy to make these quotes— 70 percent, 75 percent. But then, when you start looking, you know, at other questions, at other opinion polls, analyzing his performance, it's all below 50 percent. War in Chechnya, support below 40 percent. Economy, 45 percent, roughly. Crime rate, you know, he has about one-third of approval. So I feel that, you know, there's a sort of generic fear in Russia— yknow, it still reigns from the old Soviet time— where people can't be sincere answering questions about a general secretary, a president or a local boss, they got scared, while they feel more open to talk about other issues. "
1. I have an econ degree. Sorry. I am also a lawyer, I have a JD. I don't really care if you believe me, I've no need to prove this to anyone. If you feel you can catch me in some sort of a lie about my credentials, knock yourself out. 2. I think Clarence Thomas is a mediocre legal mind. This isn't because he's black, or because he's a percieved conservative (I think Scalia is brilliant and the justice I most often agree with is Souter), but because his opinions, as written, indicate a mediocre legal mind. You're confusing multiple things here. I've been to Russia (was just there two months ago), and while people may not be happy with certain positions Putin has taken, he is immensely popular. You are right, the media is almost government owned and he has used his public office to pursue private political vendettas. But you know what? Most Russians don't care. They don't disagree with that. (I could go in depth into personal anecdotes here, but you have indicated you won't accept my opinion because you don't like it.) There's this assumption somewhere that Russians are interested in politics. Its completely and utterly false. As would be expected of people not entirely interested in democracy, they're not. You are saying that Putin isn't democratic and Kasparov, a member of the intelligensia who's spent much of his life abroad, is. Sure, but that has nothing to do with Russia as a whole. And his above quote, where he suggests why people are this way, is one of the reasons Russians aren't quite ready for democracy. This "generic fear", which traces its origin directly from the old Empire and the lack of interest in politics which, again, does the same. You're conflating multiple issues here. If you really want some more opinions, visit the FSU politics thread. No ratdog - I promise. Well, at least I've never seen him there before.
There is a conservative who posts on BS. He is a lawyer too. He has never mentioned on Bigsoccer. Until this thread, in my 6 years on bigsoccer I've never mentioned I was an econ major. I didn't say I don't believe you. But the others who have tried to win arguments by saying "I have such and such degree" and "I have been to blah blah blah so I know more than you" have often proven to be stretching the truth. I am sure you are not, but the others who have argued in your style have. Now, since you are an econ wizard, why don't you use your powers to shut Ratdog up? There is no way you can possibly agree with anything he says about the economy, so why not set him straight? How did he get to the Supreme Court then? Then why are there fears there will be less than 50% registered voter turn out? Is it simply the lack of interest in politics that you claim, or is it that Putin is not as popular as he would like you to believe? No, I never indicated that. Your opinion is fine but your whole argument the last time we went thru this was "I know more about Russia than you". That was pretty much what you stated over and over. I don't doubt that you do know more about Russia. My point was that there are people who disagree with you - like My Cousins and like Kasparov - who also know alot about Russia. You are probably right, but I think you are underestimating the number of people who do want democratic reform.
I'm assuming you don't mean Anthony. I mention I'm a lawyer when arguing about legal stuff. That's all. Law is a slightly strange vocation - people who aren't lawyers tend to have certain misconceptions about it that are really hard to disprove without pulling rank. Thus you have people like Matt Burlew and Michael Russ arguing that the Declaration of Independence is a legal document. Most of what Joe says is about history, not economics. Its been about 6 years since I've done any econ work, so I don't argue about it anymore. Oh c'mon, you're better than this question. He was in the right place at the right time. Lack of interest. Plain and simple. Russians are quite content with Putin, who embodies their passive agressive attitude toward the West. However, they're not overly bothered about it. But Kasparov is talking about what he WANTS to see. That's my point. Its not that anyone in Russia doesn't believe he hasn't been threatened by Putin's thugs. I'm sure most people think he has. Its just tha they don't really care. In a democratic society, this would create an uproar that would make Iran Contra look like a game of scrabble. In Russia its met with shrugs. Kasparov is a liberal reformer, and I respect that. And without people like him democracy will be harder to achieve. But it won't come in his lifetime. I wish that was the case, but I really don't think so. The authoritarian/totalitarian streak in Russian is immensely strong. Do you realize that in its history Russia has had, at most approximately 25 years of democracy? And 10 of those were in the early 20th century.