NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/nolan-m5.html

Maybe it can.

Thoughts?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/nolan-m5.html

Maybe it can.

Thoughts?

Rhetoric, without true content or meaning.

Over and again, assumptions that do not hold water. The overall assumption that we are going to lose this war, which I fear is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assumption that the "surge" will not work, when it likely will have at least some good effects, at least in the short term. Assumption that we will go to war with Iran - when the White House has made no statements or policy changes, and talks are continuing. An assumption that the White House wants to go to war with Iran, which is simply unfounded.

And all of it captioned by an utterly inaccurate and biased title designed to appeal to the emotional sensibilities of the lowest common denominator, and completely lacking in intellectual accuracy.

Worthless. Rhetoric.

Rhetoric, without true content or meaning.

Over and again, assumptions that do not hold water. The overall assumption that we are going to lose this war, which I fear is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assumption that the "surge" will not work, when it likely will have at least some good effects, at least in the short term. Assumption that we will go to war with Iran - when the White House has made no statements or policy changes, and talks are continuing. An assumption that the White House wants to go to war with Iran, which is simply unfounded.

And all of it captioned by an utterly inaccurate and biased title designed to appeal to the emotional sensibilities of the lowest common denominator, and completely lacking in intellectual accuracy.

Worthless. Rhetoric.

Maybe the wisdom that promotes the idea that the WH wants war with Iran is precedent? All of the rhetoric coming out of Washington seems to mirror the buildup to the Iraq War. Hell, Bush said "we don't want war, we're waiting for diplomacy to work" and many of us called bullshit at that time. Now with hindsight we know that we were right and they were hellbent on war since 9-12-01 (12-9-01 for the rest of you) or even earlier. So while the WH hasn't changed "policy" it means very little. Don't look at their words but there actions instead. We've seen this play before and if we're not going to Ford's theater.

Rhetoric, without true content or meaning.

Over and again, assumptions that do not hold water. The overall assumption that we are going to lose this war, which I fear is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assumption that the "surge" will not work, when it likely will have at least some good effects, at least in the short term. Assumption that we will go to war with Iran - when the White House has made no statements or policy changes, and talks are continuing. An assumption that the White House wants to go to war with Iran, which is simply unfounded.

And all of it captioned by an utterly inaccurate and biased title designed to appeal to the emotional sensibilities of the lowest common denominator, and completely lacking in intellectual accuracy.

Worthless. Rhetoric.

I agree completely.

This nut presumes that his knowledge is obviously superior to that possessed by top defense planners; that even if we are pursuing a course of action in Iran, we have not considered the essential and inevitable consequences of our actions. Even if Bush is too dumb to learn from his past mistakes, the advisers and military planners, defense attaches and intelligence officials most certainly have. No course of action pursuant to the same faulty strategy employed in the aftermath of the Iraq War will be implemented in Iran, despite what this inflammatory rhetoric seeks to presume.

Crass overconfidence and ignorance--the same vices this guy denounces in Bush he so verbosely expresses in this article. I can tolerate both of those in people. What I can't is hypocrisy.

Maybe the wisdom that promotes the idea that the WH wants war with Iran is precedent? All of the rhetoric coming out of Washington seems to mirror the buildup to the Iraq War. Hell, Bush said "we don't want war, we're waiting for diplomacy to work" and many of us called bullshit at that time. Now with hindsight we know that we were right and they were hellbent on war since 9-12-01 (12-9-01 for the rest of you) or even earlier. So while the WH hasn't changed "policy" it means very little. Don't look at their words but there actions instead. We've seen this play before and if we're not going to Ford's theater.

Yes, look at their actions. Got something to suggest that we are preparing to invade Iran? I'd like to know what you think you know that the preeminent defense planners et al don't.

Yes, look at their actions. Got something to suggest that we are preparing to invade Iran? I'd like to know what you think you know that the preeminent defense planners et al don't.

So there's no reason to be worried at all? This is much to do about nothing? Btw, the US "defense planners" have already planned for an invasion for Iran. As Both President Bush and Rumsfeld have said "we make plans for a lot of military options." The war is about 9/11, nope. The war is about WMD, nope. I'm just saying that when someone has already given you the rope a dope routine once you tend to be wary of them the next time.

a little preparing

by the British our #1 ally
www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html

A substantive report from the US
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

from German sources
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19604/

So there's no reason to be worried at all? This is much to do about nothing? Btw, the US "defense planners" have already planned for an invasion for Iran. As Both President Bush and Rumsfeld have said "we make plans for a lot of military options." The war is about 9/11, nope. The war is about WMD, nope. I'm just saying that when someone has already given you the rope a dope routine once you tend to be wary of them the next time.

Btw, of course we have plans for invading Iran. They are contingency plans, I suggest you do some preliminary research on international relations. Contingency is just that: they are not the, or even a, primary course of action. They exist simply so that we are prepared against any untoward aggression. And, btw, other contingency plans are in place before any actual invasion.

And being wary is fine. Being inflammatory (and in so doing, hypocritical) against a nonexistent threat is not.

So there's no reason to be worried at all? This is much to do about nothing? Btw, the US "defense planners" have already planned for an invasion for Iran. As Both President Bush and Rumsfeld have said "we make plans for a lot of military options." The war is about 9/11, nope. The war is about WMD, nope. I'm just saying that when someone has already given you the rope a dope routine once you tend to be wary of them the next time.

And that's quite reasonable. And if the writer of the article had said "I'm worried that Bush might be going to invade Iran" or "I don't think the Surge will do any good" then I wouldn't have savaged him. Instead, he chose to portray these as done deals, absolute facts - and those are facts not in evidence. With his further decline to provide supporting evidence for his wild statements, his work remains exactly what I said:

Empty Rhetoric.

a little preparing

by the British our #1 ally
www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html

A substantive report from the US
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

from German sources
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19604/

Why do you equate preparation with an automatic inclination to act?

And that's quite reasonable. And if the writer of the article had said "I'm worried that Bush might be going to invade Iran" or "I don't think the Surge will do any good" then I wouldn't have savaged him. Instead, he chose to portray these as done deals, absolute facts - and those are facts not in evidence. With his further decline to provide supporting evidence for his wild statements, his work remains exactly what I said:

Empty Rhetoric.

Alright, so let's say we actually -do- invate Iran soon, and this guy was right.

Empty rhetoric, or damned good detective guesswork?

Rhetoric, without true content or meaning.

Over and again, assumptions that do not hold water. The overall assumption that we are going to lose this war, which I fear is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assumption that the "surge" will not work, when it likely will have at least some good effects, at least in the short term. Assumption that we will go to war with Iran - when the White House has made no statements or policy changes, and talks are continuing. An assumption that the White House wants to go to war with Iran, which is simply unfounded.

And all of it captioned by an utterly inaccurate and biased title designed to appeal to the emotional sensibilities of the lowest common denominator, and completely lacking in intellectual accuracy.

Worthless. Rhetoric.

Yeah. That's basically what I was going to say. But I can break it down a little...

First paragraph: Crimes...what crimes? What ever happened to alleged? Or innocent until proven guilty? Interesting choice of words. Inciteful at the least. The sad thing is, most Americans are swallowing it. Every time I get into a "discussion" about the war in Iraq or President Bush, all I hear is people spewing the nonsense that comes off the little ticker on CNN. You know...That HUGE majority of people that believe whatever they're told by a national news station with a severe bias.

Second Paragraph: What are the people going to do...Hmmm...Sounds like a charge. We HAVE to do something...What's wrong with you...?

Third Paragraph: Yes. Congress determines when we are at war. And that is a very distinct decision. Review your bill of rights for a taste of this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, Army and Navy. He is authorized to dispatch the troops, just not declare war. Interestingly, that part was left out. As for the rest of the paragraph...is a liberal actually accusing a conservative of using the newspapers to generate public disapproval to put pressure on government? Please...

Need I continue?

Alright, so let's say we actually -do- invate Iran soon, and this guy was right.

Empty rhetoric, or damned good detective guesswork?

No, still empty rhetoric. Being right about unfounded assumptions doesn't make them any less unfounded - it just shows you to be the stopped clock, which happens to be right twice a day.

Damned good detective guesswork would require that he show his reasoning and his evidence - neither of which is present.

Btw, of course we have plans for invading Iran. They are contingency plans, I suggest you do some preliminary research on international relations. Contingency is just that: they are not the, or even a, primary course of action. They exist simply so that we are prepared against any untoward aggression. And, btw, other contingency plans are in place before any actual invasion.

And being wary is fine. Being inflammatory (and in so doing, hypocritical) against a nonexistent threat is not.

thanks for repeating exactly what I pointed out. I give you 3 out of 5 points for your summary. Now, the point I made was precedent makes us wary. I never ran out screaming "we're going to attack Iran" now did I. I just said that people might be wary as this is a pattern we've seen before. "We're exploring all possible diplomatic means and war is a last resort" didn't mean a damn thing when it came to Iraq. Try to stick to the points I actually make before jumping to irrational conclusions. Seriously, if you want to make up both sides of the argument you can just debate yourself. You said there were no plans and I said yes there were. Was I wrong?

a little preparing

by the British our #1 ally
www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html

A substantive report from the US
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

from German sources
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19604/
To quote Bill Bailey:

"I dunno what it is, I dunno why we're hanging around with America, it's embarrassing, we're like some nerdy kid hanging around with this sort of lummocking great bully, it's just really embarrassing. America's like the bully of the world, going up to countries going "Give us your sweets or I'll smash your face in." And Britain leans round the back and goes "Yeah. *makes weird fist shaking gesture*""

And that's quite reasonable. And if the writer of the article had said "I'm worried that Bush might be going to invade Iran" or "I don't think the Surge will do any good" then I wouldn't have savaged him. Instead, he chose to portray these as done deals, absolute facts - and those are facts not in evidence. With his further decline to provide supporting evidence for his wild statements, his work remains exactly what I said:

Empty Rhetoric.

Thank you, I was making a point of my own and not the author's and I appreciate you denoting the difference. But like I've said, Bush has given us this..."Nah, awe shucks I'm just trying to talk and war is our last option" bullshit before. Why are we to trust him this time?

Why do you equate preparation with an automatic inclination to act?

I didn't, As can clearly be seen by the quote I said "a little preparing."

First paragraph: Crimes...what crimes? What ever happened to alleged? Or innocent until proven guilty?

bush has openly admitted to committing numerous felonies in terms of illegal wiretaps, at the very least. not to mention the fact that a court has also ruled on this matter. we also have open admission of the use of torture and other illegal and immoral practices.

besides, innocent 'til proven guilty is a measure to protect the people from the state, not to protect the state from it's people. regular people don't get to go on committing crimes while a case makes its way through the system. but the state will keep right on doing what it's doing until somebody forcefully stops it.

justice will be plenty served when the cheney administration is chased from the halls of power with pitchforks and torches, and - assuming they surrender peacefully - given a show trial. failing that, there's always the mussolini treatment.

Thank you, I was making a point of my own and not the author's and I appreciate you denoting the difference. But like I've said, Bush has given us this..."Nah, awe shucks I'm just trying to talk and war is our last option" bullshit before. Why are we to trust him this time?

I didn't trust him the first time. I don't trust any politician, and anyone who trusts a government is a credulous fool. I merely require an attack upon their reputations or upon their intentions, to be more than a tissue-thin haze of assumptions and badly worded propaganda.

thanks for repeating exactly what I pointed out. I give you 3 out of 5 points for your summary. Now, the point I made was precedent makes us wary. I never ran out screaming "we're going to attack Iran" now did I. I just said that people might be wary as this is a pattern we've seen before. "We're exploring all possible diplomatic means and war is a last resort" didn't mean a damn thing when it came to Iraq. Try to stick to the points I actually make before jumping to irrational conclusions. Seriously, if you want to make up both sides of the argument you can just debate yourself. You said there were no plans and I said yes there were. Was I wrong?

The strategy I employed was a textbook case of deterrence. I called you on your implications; because you did not explicitly make a statement, you can now deny that you ever had intention of saying so. I stuck to the points you made, and called you on the implications of your statements. Much is said between the lines that is not explicitly mentioned. Irrational conclusions? Hardly. Considering the tone and context of your posts, they are one of several rational ones to be made. I suggest, before you jump to conclusions of "holier than thou" superiority, you consider the implications of your words and don't cry "poor me" when you are called out.

Now, that being said, I reread my posts and realized that I did make a contextual error. I wrote "preparing to invade" when I should have stated "preparing to invade inevitably." That was my mistake. The meaning of the phrase can be read either way; however, ambiguity, in this context, was not what I was aiming for.

bush has openly admitted to committing numerous felonies in terms of illegal wiretaps, at the very least. not to mention the fact that a court has also ruled on this matter. we also have open admission of the use of torture and other illegal and immoral practices.

besides, innocent 'til proven guilty is a measure to protect the people from the state, not to protect the state from it's people. regular people don't get to go on committing crimes while a case makes its way through the system. but the state will keep right on doing what it's doing until somebody forcefully stops it.

justice will be plenty served when the cheney administration is chased from the halls of power with pitchforks and torches, and - assuming they surrender peacefully - given a show trial. failing that, there's always the mussolini treatment.

Citations? Court records? Evidence of felonious acts on the record? I call BS.

Innocent until proven guilty is a measure to protect the people. All of them. This includes government officials. No one is above the law, and all are protected by it.

The strategy I employed was a textbook case of deterrence. I called you on your implications; because you did not explicitly make a statement, you can now deny that you ever had intention of saying so. I stuck to the points you made, and called you on the implications of your statements. Much is said between the lines that is not explicitly mentioned. Irrational conclusions? Hardly. Considering the tone and context of your posts, they are one of several rational ones to be made. I suggest, before you jump to conclusions of "holier than thou" superiority, you consider the implications of your words and don't cry "poor me" when you are called out.

Now, that being said, I reread my posts and realized that I did make a contextual error. I wrote "preparing to invade" when I should have stated "preparing to invade inevitably." That was my mistake. The meaning of the phrase can be read either way; however, ambiguity, in this context, was not what I was aiming for.

My implication is this, he wasn't honest in his last "sales pitch" for war so why should I give him the benefit of the doubt now. He hasn't got a stellar record to speak of as his success is due largely to his luck and family lineage in this life. He attacks others on their character and then cries when others attack his. To do this he employs his "but I'm a christian now and God talks to me" crap. I don't want to buy the snake oil before I need something to lube :D And the last time he used that oil to lube us all up, including the Iraqis.

Citations? Court records? Evidence of felonious acts on the record? I call BS.

Innocent until proven guilty is a measure to protect the people. All of them. This includes government officials. No one is above the law, and all are protected by it.

Soon enough dear one, soon enough.

Third Paragraph: Yes. Congress determines when we are at war. And that is a very distinct decision. Review your bill of rights for a taste of this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, Army and Navy. He is authorized to dispatch the troops, just not declare war. Interestingly, that part was left out. As for the rest of the paragraph...is a liberal actually accusing a conservative of using the newspapers to generate public disapproval to put pressure on government? Please...

Need I continue?

I was under the impression that Congress has not exercised its prerogative to declare war since WWII? The problem here is that the President and the executive branch have gained the authority to dispatch troops at will wherever they want throughout the world. Congress may have the right to declare war, but if the President can send troops where he wants without war being declared, then how is Congress' right being exercised?

Seems to me that the power with relation to foreign affairs has been concentrated in the President's hands to the point where Congress can do little more than rubber-stamp actions already taken or simply do nothing.

Can anyone show me the declaration of war on Vietnam presented by Congress to the President? Or Korea? Or Iraq? I'd love to see it if it exists - I've been angry at people calling the events in Iraq a 'war', since I don't believe there's been a declaration of war, and without it we can't technically be in one. Can anyone help me out here? I want to have my facts straight.

I was under the impression that Congress has not exercised its prerogative to declare war since WWII? The problem here is that the President and the executive branch have gained the authority to dispatch troops at will wherever they want throughout the world. Congress may have the right to declare war, but if the President can send troops where he wants without war being declared, then how is Congress' right being exercised?

Seems to me that the power with relation to foreign affairs has been concentrated in the President's hands to the point where Congress can do little more than rubber-stamp actions already taken or simply do nothing.

Can anyone show me the declaration of war on Vietnam presented by Congress to the President? Or Korea? Or Iraq? I'd love to see it if it exists - I've been angry at people calling the events in Iraq a 'war', since I don't believe there's been a declaration of war, and without it we can't technically be in one. Can anyone help me out here? I want to have my facts straight.

I think congress wrote something up for the president that says he can take any military action deemed necessary against Iraq. Not an official declaration, but I guess close enough, eh?

Quote from the link: "...surpasses in bunk and risibility the whopper that Saddam Hussein had something to do with bringing down the Twin Towers"

Since when did anyone claim that? It was Osama Bin Laden who was accused of having something to do with bringing down the Twin Towers (which, the more I research it, appears to actually be an inside job, just like a previous attempt by the US government to have the US attacked so they could blame it on Cuba and attack Cuba, regardless of the deaths of US citizens: see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf and http://www.wanttoknow.info/911coverup10pg ), not Saddam Husein [who was accused of making and preparing to use weapons of mass destruction and who DID seriously harm loads of people (eg. by sanctioning torture (including rape) and murder against people who he didn't like)]

Alright, so let's say we actually -do- invate Iran soon, and this guy was right.

Empty rhetoric, or damned good detective guesswork?I'd love to see the US invade Iran. Just to see how one more war will affect the US.
BTW, what does the Bush family gain from all the wars? And what has the aimless adventure in Iraq already cost the US?

Since when did anyone claim that? It was Osama Bin Laden who was accused of having something to do with bringing down the Twin TowersHowever, the US government constructed a link between Bin Laden and Hussein. Remember? Of course, subsequently the US government altered the reason for the Iraq invasion pretty often ...

Citations? Court records? Evidence of felonious acts on the record? I call BS.

Innocent until proven guilty is a measure to protect the people. All of them. This includes government officials. No one is above the law, and all are protected by it.

Like Padilla?

Like Padilla?

Zinger of the day executed here. I went away from this posting as I had the whole work, eat, work, sleep thing to do. You nailed this one well.

It can happen everywhere; that’s why a liberal democracy needs checks and balances, and a critical stance from the population toward the government.

Like Padilla?

well that guy isn't fit to stand trial - that's why he can't have one. hooray for psikhushka!

So there's no reason to be worried at all? This is much to do about nothing? Btw, the US "defense planners" have already planned for an invasion for Iran. As Both President Bush and Rumsfeld have said "we make plans for a lot of military options." The war is about 9/11, nope. The war is about WMD, nope. I'm just saying that when someone has already given you the rope a dope routine once you tend to be wary of them the next time.

During the Cold War we had plans to nuke our allies before the Soviets got the chance to do so. Big whoop. All militaries have plans to invade practically every other country.