Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I don't agree with where the trial is taking place. I just hope they don't get some judge that will dismiss the case due to the waterboarding issue, or the fact that they might not have been read their "rights".
So you love our country but hate our legal system and constitution? Personally I think we have the best of each in the world, and they will be more than capable of taking care of KSM. LRH I know it will be a problem to try him in NYC but in a way I feel it is proper, and right for the trial to take place blocks from where the crime was committed.
edit
Maybe I should say mistrust instead of hate.
Agree totally. If this had happened in my city I would demand he be tried here, by a jury of the people he attacked. That's the right (and constitutional) thing to do. All the rest is just speculation or outright fear mongering and I refuse to be forced to live in fear.
^You have got it troo, if we are living in fear then that is when the terrorists are winning, it means we are terrorized and they are doing there job. Also Jigawig, do you really think a jury of New Yorkers is gonna let him off this hook? Somehow I doubt it, there certainly is evidence that cannot be used because the previous administration flouted international, and national laws, but it still sounds like we have enough to convict him.
I am starkly opposed. Talked to a gulf war vet who installed my cable in October. He had served three tours in Iraq and was still available to be called until the end of December. He swore they would never find him.
Yet we don't/can't hold the military commanders, our commander in chief, or any of the various chickenhawks accountable for stretching our forces out to the max? They are terrorists when the other shoe finally drops .
Do we owe more to Afghanistan than we do our own members of the service ?
Don't we take for granted what each of these individuals should give, or at least what can be taken from them ?
Let alone honoring principles of peace/
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about sending additional troops to back the 'questionable'(to say the least) ethics of Hamid Karzai, she responded, "there are warlords, and then there are warlords." Similar words have been used by this trigger happy nation to justify starting wars, not just continue them.
Lord I'm Discouraged-excuses and half-truths, and fortified LIES
Afghanistan is a really f'ed up situation and I'm glad I'm not the one in charge. On the one hand, we want to WIN and stabilize Afghanistan. On the other, we don't want lose more troops and get stuck in an war that's unwinnable. It's a tough call.
The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
I do like this aspect of their plan. At least they have somewhat of an exit strategy this time.
While I admire your optimism, my opinion of this tactic is that it is a minimal offering to the opposition to look reasonable in the consideration of our future in the region.
I am of the belief that no war is winnable. Even the ones that we "win", prop us up as an empire to be brought down or terrorized.
If we spent half of the $ we do to win a war to help out the natives and refugees, and victims of our dealings INSTEAD of going to war(or furthering our losses in order to "win"), we'd have money to rebuild our own country and not the one we destroy.
The ONLY beneficiary of these wars are the companies who benefit from doing business OUTSIDE of our non wartime code of ethics.
ie, Our troops die, but the companies who support our troops make billions.
That is a pretty insular view of the world blue. I am still of the opinion that we can set them up with a decent gov't and democracy. After all we have done to their country it is the least we can do for it now. Also somehow we are going to have to work with Pakistan to finally get rid of the taliban.
Since WW2 we have established a war dependent economy (brought on by what Eisenhower warned was the"military-industrial complex".) We now spend more on defense than all other countries combined (51% of the world's total defense spending.) Scary.
The political reality is that not fighting makes you a coward and too weak to be commander in chief. Fighting perpetuates the flawed system. We should pull out and use air power to destroy any terrorist bases that try to get established and bribe the chieftains to maintain some minor stability. But it won't happen.
An Afghanistan war is unwinnable; same as Genghis Khan's time, Alexander the Great's time, Roman times, British Imperial time, Soviet time and now. But pulling out is political suicide.
Bush had his chance when he used Special Ops and hired the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban. We could have built some infrastructure and gotten out as friends but chose Iraq instead. It's too late to change the past. And impossible to change the future if you want to get re-elected.
It's the sad reality of America's current war based political/economic system.
And Jess - Getting rid of the Taliban is unrealistic. It is a organization made of of many diverse people with many different agendas. We should treat it like the British did Sinn Fein (the IRA's political wing) and bring it into the political system of Afghanistan so as to neutralize the power of the radical factions. Remember that the Taliban did not attack us, they just allowed Al Qaeda to exist in their country as a fellow Islamic society. Removing the radical faction would help ensure this didn't happen again.
Last Edit: Nov 24, 2009 10:56:55 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Insular it is, I agree. But it stems from pragmatism. I am a Monroe Doctrinist. We are at an all time high on deficit spending. We cannot afford many things most would consider indispensable at home-safe bridges, inclusive healthcare, ad infinitem. We cannot continue to police the world as it breaks our bank.
As far as what we owe-that's a political debt number one. Some would consider it being paid right now with our looking the other way from "democratic elections" toward the propping of Karzai.
At any rate, I believe that spending half as much on aid would be a much better long term solution. Not aid to the pirate government, but aid to international organizations whose passion it is to alleviate suffering.
But yes, I'm an isolationist when it comes to force. And corruption. And blood money. Defend our shores and help feed yours.... that is where the extent of our power should be aimed...
I think those views are all well in good in theory. However, this is not a vacuum and decisions need to be made based on the current situation; not in an "ideal world."
Insular it is, I agree. But it stems from pragmatism. I am a Monroe Doctrinist. We are at an all time high on deficit spending. We cannot afford many things most would consider indispensable at home-safe bridges, inclusive healthcare, ad infinitem. We cannot continue to police the world as it breaks our bank.
As far as what we owe-that's a political debt number one. Some would consider it being paid right now with our looking the other way from "democratic elections" toward the propping of Karzai.
At any rate, I believe that spending half as much on aid would be a much better long term solution. Not aid to the pirate government, but aid to international organizations whose passion it is to alleviate suffering.
But yes, I'm an isolationist when it comes to force. And corruption. And blood money. Defend our shores and help feed yours.... that is where the extent of our power should be aimed...
There are those that would argue that displacing the taliban is defending our shores. That the people in charge were hiding our greatest enemy, and that they were evil people. The point is no matter how we got here, we have to finish.
And Jess - Getting rid of the Taliban is unrealistic. It is a organization made of of many diverse people with many different agendas. We should treat it like the British did Sinn Fein (the IRA's political wing) and bring it into the political system of Afghanistan so as to neutralize the power of the radical factions. Remember that the Taliban did not attack us, they just allowed Al Qaeda to exist in their country as a fellow Islamic society. Removing the radical faction would help ensure this didn't happen again.
I still agree troo, but by disposing of the radical wing, and making sure Afghanistan is led by a secular gov't we will have gotten rid of the intolerable part of the taliban.
Nobody wants to see more female circumcisions, honor killings, or forced burkha wearing. As long as we have invaded the country the people are now our responsibility.
Last Edit: Nov 24, 2009 11:29:04 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
WAY back in the first few months after 9/11, Bin Laden said in one of his speeches that they didn't need to break us through military might. They would break us financially.
Not necessarily... there are some House members stirring things up about war funding, wanting more of a "pay as you go" approach to Afghanistan. There's talk of an added tax on those making $250K+ in order to pay for any proposed troop increase.
I don't necessarily agree with it as a matter of policy, but I love the thought of what that proposal would to do debate over the war in general...
We don't need a war surcharge to ask the wealthy why they hate America... their favorable tax status and habit of tax-sheltering their corporations should already be enough for that.
But in terms of reframing this debate... I'd love to hear some hawkish teabagger's response to this suggestion.
Yay for endless war from another chickenhawk. Get those daughters ready to ship out buddy.
Yay for listening to the folks who got you elected. Yay for war profiteering, war economies, and more war. Better flipflopper than slick willie anyday. Yay for the destruction of the two party system in the name of the war party system. One party-two heads, endless war. yay !
How about firing a general who pre-empts your press announcement to sell HIS message to the American people. You ARE the Commander-in-Chief, right ? Yay.
You'd be "throwing away your vote". To be "electable", one must act like a peace proponent while sucking the d!ck of war profiteers.
Obama took much more money from the "Military industrial Complex" than did McCain.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database, the top recipient of defense industry money in the 2008 election cycle was Barack Obama, whose haul of $1,029,997 far surpassed Republican contender Sen. John McCain's $696,948.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database, the top recipient of defense industry money in the 2008 election cycle was Barack Obama, whose haul of $1,029,997 far surpassed Republican contender Sen. John McCain's $696,948.
I did some poking around there myself.
I see that, overall, Obama raised $745 million to McCain's $368 million. Roughly double. Yet $1.03 million vs. $700k is more like a 60-40 split.
If, as you're suggesting, the defense industry was all gung-ho for Obama... why didn't they contribute twice as much to Obama as they did McCain? McCain's defense contributions trail Obama's defense contributions by a smaller ratio than McCain's overall contributions trail Obama's overall contributions.
The way I'm seeing it, it seems the defense industry disproportionately donated to the McCain campaign in comparison with Obama.
If you really want to get into it, let's look at each of their Top 20 list of overall donors.
Obama University of California $1,591,395 Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Microsoft Corp $833,617 Google Inc $803,436 Citigroup Inc $701,290 JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 Time Warner $590,084 Sidley Austin LLP $588,598 Stanford University $586,557 National Amusements Inc $551,683 UBS AG $543,219 Wilmerhale Llp $542,618 Skadden, Arps et al $530,839 IBM Corp $528,822 Columbia University $528,302 Morgan Stanley $514,881 General Electric $499,130 US Government $494,820 Latham & Watkins $493,835
McCain Merrill Lynch $373,595 Citigroup Inc $322,051 Morgan Stanley $273,452 Goldman Sachs $230,095 JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107 US Government $208,379 AT&T Inc $201,438 Wachovia Corp $195,063 UBS AG $192,493 Credit Suisse Group $183,353 PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900 US Army $167,820 Bank of America $166,026 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596 Blank Rome LLP $154,226 Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437 US Dept of Defense $144,105 FedEx Corp $131,974 Bear Stearns $117,498 Lehman Brothers $114,357
Funny how "US Army" and "US Dept of Defense" show up under one name, and it's not Obama's...
I like the idea, along with the 30,000 brave men and women being deployed of a time table for leaving. I think over the last few years we have not had one, thus there is no sense of urgency on the Afgans part to get shit done. Why would they if we are doing the heavy lifting? Maybe this will light a fire and some quality work will get done so they can defend themselves.
Alright fellas, I was just throwing out my 2 cents on a day after a momentous speech sending many more troops into harm's way while we debate deficit dollars being spent on our problems at home. I'm not going to entertain a hairsplitting contest with you Mr. Dogg. My point was simply that Mr President's todo list has some ties to unsavory profiteers. Truth be told, theyll throw the biggest $ at the probable winner, so you can't really blame Obama for those #'s anyhow.
And KC-sorry to offend and was not trying to be incendiary really, though I have never minded being the one to call "fire" in a crowded theatre so to speak. The MLK comment was intended to provide a foil to a centrist corporatist war president. But hey, Obama promised us Afghan escalation from the getgo. Just paying off political capital I suppose, kinda like the healthcare comin' down the pipes.
I'm a radical oldschool hippie leftie who only has this as an outlet to keep me out of the weather underground or some such silliness.
Take what I say with a grain of salt, but don't doubt that I've thought about it and lived it for my whole life. I consider myself a patriot and am proud to be a whacko American just like the rest of you. Sheesh...
Back to your regularly scheduled partisan silliness.
Unfortunately while you may be well intentioned, you come off as a radical for the left. Personally I have no use for radical movements unless centrism has swung out of balance. You strike me as someone who yells fire in a theater because a guy is sparking up a bowl at a midnight showing of dark side of the oz, not because the theater is going to burn down. To call our current president a war monger because he is finishing a job, or irresponsible for trying to improve and reform the healthcare situation is just nutty. Even if Ralph Nader had been elected, do you really think he would have pulled us out of Afghanistan so he could watch Pakistan erupt into a Taliban run extremist muslim state armed with nukes?
I gotta be honest sometimes I can't tell if you are serious, or just pulling some kind of odd reverse trolling maneuver, by trying to be a stereotypical whacko liberal.
No thanks...just citing my source. Feel free to split hairs and gerrymander subsets all you like, I was just pointing out a conflict of interest from a man that was elected by a majority who favored less war(gallup says 60%) and who is a wolf in shepherd's clothing.
MLK would be a fair foil KC to our new war president. The real wack jobs are you mainstreamers who do the partisan bidding of these profiteers.
if i had you tube saavy I'd link the Jay and Silent Bob clip , "You are the ones who are the ball lickers"
No thanks...just citing my source. Feel free to split hairs and gerrymander subsets all you like, I was just pointing out a conflict of interest from a man that was elected by a majority who favored less war(gallup says 60%) and who is a wolf in shepherd's clothing.
So how many teabag events do you go to on average every month?
edit
BTW what is the fable about a wolf in shepards clothing again? Pretty sure if I remember my Buggs Bunny correctly it was sheeps clothing.
Last Edit: Dec 2, 2009 16:39:07 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I'll try to be more blatant with my sarcasm. I deleted the original post because I rethought it. I am over the edge on coffee again-so I am too rapidfire for my own good.
I am probably the most liberal person I know. Sorry. It's who I am. And I rep for it. Sometimes as a spoof of myself yes. I don't want to fight, hyperpost, bicker, or any of that. We're never going to agree.
But if I ever would disallow any one of yous guys' takes or label you a wacko or whatever, I'm sorry in advance. I have tried to use language and humor and whatnot to keep it light, but people are very defensive.
I'm never gonna be anyone different. And though I am disappointed to be judged for the positions I hold, I am not surprised nor will I retract. I'll just go away.
Funny how all you gotta do is rep for something unpopular to be called a troll or reverse troll or whatever.
No thanks...just citing my source. Feel free to split hairs and gerrymander subsets all you like, I was just pointing out a conflict of interest from a man that was elected by a majority who favored less war(gallup says 60%) and who is a wolf in shepherd's clothing.
So how many teabag events do you go to on average every month?
edit
BTW what is the fable about a wolf in shepards clothing again? Pretty sure if I remember my Buggs Bunny correctly it was sheeps clothing.
Yeah and Obama is the shepherd leading the sheep. Try to keep up if you are gonna get snarky.
I am such a polar opposite of a teabagger that the comment has me laughing. I believe the teabag movement has been propped up in order to coopt true protest or civil disobedience, but as a centrist you'd call me a conspiratorialist for that.
I'm outie y'all. It's getting too chilly in here and the conversation has devolved to cliche. Back to your talking points.
And Jess-I'd wouldn't be the rat by any means in the theater scenario, I'd be the culprit !
And now, said WolfMan will lead you all to Swagstock to drink the "Don't Question the President Cause He's Better Than Bush " koolaid.
And remember, It's anti American Wacko commie to question the answers they give us. And you should attack anyone who does so in order that the messenger be killed.
Carry a big knife to hide your small brain.
And to anyone who isn't afraid of anti war activism, please look up a new protest song by Willie Nile called "Now That the War is Over". It is simple and brilliant.
Peace.
Eternal war makes dollars. But peace makes sense.
Last Edit: Dec 3, 2009 10:50:57 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top