US News
Report: Obama to retain military tribunals for terrorism trials
May 15, 2009, 5:28 GMT
On the Web
Barack Obama - View Barack Obama Pictures - Barack Obama News
|
|
|
|
|
Similar articles
- Guantanamo tribunals start again with USS Cole suspect
- USS Cole suspect's lawyer asks for year to prepare trial
- USS Cole suspect appears in Guantanamo court
- LEAD: USS Cole suspect appears at Guantanamo court to hear charges
- USS Cole suspect appears at Guantanamo court to hear charges
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. US Supreme Court justice robbed at machete-point
- 2. Obama budget provides election fodder
- 3. Grammy show gets huge ratings boost from Whitney Houston tribute
- 4. Whitney Houston music sales soar after death
- 5. Obama budget would hike taxes on rich, boost jobs spending
Older Talkback
page: 1
Well good for Obama. I'm glad to see he's not willing to be the media's or the ACLU's puppet on this issue.
Making some changes but pressing on appears to be a wise move. It shows his concern for changing the way things are being done, but at the same time he's not throwing caution to the wind and shelving serious national security issues.
How so ?Why should military tribunals be used against alleged terrorists ?Saying it is the best procedure without any argument does not advance your cause .Why is it prudent ?
We'll just have to wait for the details.
I appreciate NSK's point concerning security and understand the need to protect intelligence sources. Yet as I have stated before, the rights of the accused, and the ability of the defence to test prosecution evidence in open court remain paramount under a Common Law system. It is something that no sensible Yank (or Brit) would like to see compromised. Indefinite detention without trial is also inimical to the principle of habeas corpus. I do not envy Obama the task of trying to square this circle.
After all the Obamautomatons have said, this is where we end up. Bush must be laughing his ass of at this, as Obama has been forced, politically, to adopt vitrually every Bush terror and security premise.
That, and Nancy Pelosi trying to deny her way out of about a thousand CIA briefings, looking so bad she's clicking her red shoes together and chanting 'there's no place like home!'.
The problem Obama has is that he hired Clintonites....but he's no Clinton. Honestly, this is better than our boy-diddling, libnazi, Portland Mayor's current predicaments. You cannot make stuff up this good.
By the way, did we ever get out of Iraq?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
What, precisely is your point? Does it have anything to do with the story? If not, which is most likely, then shut up and go back to satisfying the family dog.
'...must be laughing his ass of at this'
of?
belongs on another thread. How it got here, is a question that might have an interesting answer. Bugs in the system, most likely. Like the bugs in SP's head.
It does belong on this thread. The problem lies in a glitch on my machine. Fixed now. Too bad SP4 can't be fixed that quickly.
Here is Obama, trotting right back to the Bush playbook, hook, line and sinker. Certainly, even a short-bus rider like yourself can comprehend this...well...maybe. Now run along and ponder that for a while...you ought to get it in about thirty years...or so...honestly, Bush must be doing lines, jacks, and just reeling fromt he laughs this generates. Can't you just see him...naked in his cowboy hat and boots, by the pool...a couple of hookers naked in the pool....doing lines and jacks?...reading all of this in the paper and just cackling?....
Me? My favorite is watching Nancy Pelosi self destructing. Her latest size thirteen in mouth was to say she actually WAS briefed on techniques, but was powerless to stop it, a complete falsehood, as a mamber of the intel comittee, who can move to block funds, bring it up for debate, etc. Right now, dems are doing the math on trading up from Pelosi as she speaks..out of both sides of her mouth..nice dress though....very slimming...
'fromt'
Fromt?
'mamber'
Mamber?
The dots SP sees and connects with are the ones before his eyes, that are drug induced.
Let's get that terminolgy into use, as I'm just tired of his bigoted 'libnazi' usage in lieu of saying something intelligent.
cretin: A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind.
A word associated to people whose lack of intelligence, manners/etiquette, appreciation, moral fibre and glaring social ineptitude, which in turn allows upstanding, educated, decent, moral, intelligent, socially respectful and hard working people to perceive them as 'degenerates' (owing to their inherent and blatantly obvious flaws).
RE: as Obama has been forced, politically, to adopt vitrually every Bush terror and security premise.
================
What we're stuck with is the residue of Bush's errors in judgment, and SP4 as crap-peddler in Chief.
What to do with the Gitmo detainees, other than perpetuating the mistakes of Bush, is a genuine problem. Amongst those detainees (some of whom were guilty of what they were charged of) were a sizable number of those named by political enemies in Iraq, or suspected of something with no proof. Since we were unable to hold meaningful trials, the numbers just grew. After years of imprisonment with no trials, we have converted many into the potential terrorists whom we feared in the first place; and which they did not start out as being.
We gave the world more reason to see us as immoral for not following through with our own system of justice. The military tribunal is the expeditious way of dealing with ONE MORE PROBLEM INHERITED FROM BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION.
Add that to the economy, Iraq's instability, influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a doubling of the National Debt under Bush when properly including his final deficit plus the TARP ..... and the collapse of any kind of bipartisan cooperation through use of proxies like Limbaugh, who has now decided to accuse McCain's own mother as being controlled by 'them' in his own statements about her Tonight Show appearance.
This, plus SP4's unerring ability to also be wrong every time that he opens his mouth, PLUS Cheney's refusal to deal with his own egomania, is what we inherit from the Bush Presidency.
As usual, SP4 complains just for the sake of complaining. The story of his miserable scrabbling for attention. Obama has the courage to NOT simply kowtow to the most liberal portion of his base on the detainee issue - and some from the political right actually appreciate it. Obama is politically where he's been overall all along - more towards the middle othan the far left. He is standing up and justifying his decisions, and taking some heat from some radicals in his own party.
For this act of centrism, SP4 berates him. NEOCRETIN!
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16gitmo.html?ref=politics
Following Mr. Obama’s about face earlier this week when he announced his decision not to release photographs of detainee abuse, Friday’s announcement again left the administration in the awkward position of being cautiously praised by some adversaries and harshly rebuked by some usual allies.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who issued daily criticisms of the president’s announced plan to close the detention center for terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, called the decision to use the military tribunals “an encouraging development.”
David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who was an official in the Reagan administration, said the decision suggested the Obama adminsitration was coming to accept the Bush administration’s thesis that terror suspects should be viewed as warriors, not as criminals with all the rights accorded them in American courts. “I give them great credit for coming to their senses after looking at the dossiers,” of the detainees, Mr. Rivkin said.
The decision benefits the administration politically because it burnishes Mr. Obama’s credentials for taking a hard line toward terrorism suspects. Some administration insiders say top officials have appeared surprised by the ferocity of the largely Republican opposition to Mr. Obama’s effort to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, where 241 detainees remain.
(Obama will continue to have more problems from his left as he deals with the garbage disposal of the Bush years)
Aside from giving SP4 5 separate places to make an idiot of himself - why can't M&C just learn to add to the original story - thereby allow 4 DIFFERENT stories to be prominent as well?
It's a slow news day. That's why so many opportunities for SP to show us the idiot he is. He was posting, earlier, about connecting the dots. Pretty pointless in his case, he's the only person(I use that word loosely) to have failed a Rorschach Test.
SP4's IQ can only be measured with a micrometer.
He thinks that billboards are postcards from giants.
Sarah Palin's new book - 'The Audicity of Hype'
SP4's bio: 'I'm smiling, but my head is up my ass, so you can't tell'
,,,Barak's new book....'The Utility of Duplicity'.
'..honestly Nancy....those photos of your head in that truck driver's lap need not leave the White House!....'
'...oh...heloo Nancah....yeees...this is Prisdint Buush.....nooo....jes hangin bah th poool heah in crawfahd.....nooo, Laura's on a book saghnin in Topeka....me an ol Dick were jess sittin t lunch .....jes one secund...'DARLIN....SET THIT BAH TH HOT TUB....DADDAH'LL BE THEAH IN A MINUTE'.....no nancah...thims...uh...interns...yeah...thits what ol Bill Clinton calls em......they look a lot lahke dancahs t me, but whada ah knoow eh?...heh,heh,heh....'
'...what?....interrogations?...sure!...all for em!....what?...nancah...girl....quit ya screamin.....how'd th haell did ah knoow y' fergot aboout thim...heck...musta been forty of thim hearins...ol Karl, Albeeertooo, an th rest o thim boyhs....yep...y all saed go ahead....Nancah....god girl...y goona blow an ovary...ree lax....shut ya mouth an sit back...let ol Barr ack do th talkin....nooo..ah ain't goin public...ah'm stayn rahght heah....jacks, sum bloow and thim interns...ol Bill's cumin bah latah with Hallah Beerah....lovelah woman....we call er cinimon buns round heah....a little foundation work, y knoow?'
'N, Nancah.....settle down.....ya git sum brief cases...fill em with cash...make a couple o donations t' ya favorite muslim charity....if'n thim pictyahs shoow up...ya plead stupidity....yeeees..ah KNOW it'll work...heh, heh, heh....n'ah gots t gooo.....SWEETCHEECKS...PUT THIM TOWELS OVAH THIRE...AN A JACKS FER DADDAH...well Nancah...nahce talkin...best o luck...trah smilin more too(click).'
'hey Dick...did ya send thim pictyahs t th New York Tahmes yet?....nooo, not thim ones of her with thim bull dykes, ....thim pictyahs of thim terrorists gittin an ass whiipin....nooo don't send the one's of us beatin ol Albeertoo...man that cheeecanoo could take an ass whippin!.....shake a laeg son! Heck, afta eight yeahs, it's th least we cin do!'
We all understand that it was the argot that you grew up with ..... and it wasn't clever the first 5,183 times you posted that way.
Let's try, for the third time, to get you to answer an actual question about the fiscal incompetence of the Bush Admin.
The debt rose under Bush, and massively. Why is this Obama's fault?
That means that outgo was more than income. The tax cut (which even Bush designed to end in 2010) was a huge financial hit; just at the point when defense and homeland expenditures rose.
The proof is always in the tally at the end. The cost of the TARP and Bush's own deficit would have increased the ending Debt figure. Had Bush included 2009 war costs in the budget, it would have been higher yet.
www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Bush the Idiot 2001-2008 = 73% increase in 8 years = $4.2 trillion
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
Reagan 1981-1988 = 161% increase in 8 years = $1.6 trillion
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
Bush Sr. 1989-1992 = 42% increase in 4 years = $1.2 trillion
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
Clinton 1993-2000 = 28% increase in 8 years = $1.26 trillion
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
====================
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
Total 28-year increase = 9.026 trillion
subtract Clinton = 1.26 trillion
GOP debt hike = 7.77 trillion = 86 percent of total debt added (rounded)
Obama's decision on the photos puts him at odds with the left wing of his own party, and in agreement with McCain and others.
In what way is this being a 'liberal'?
Is SP4 so busy complaining that he's not even comprehending the issue? Does he post just because he likes these idiotic redneck imitations of his?
What DOES make SP4 happy? Imperiling U.S. troops further, for no reason?
www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-13-pentagon-abuse-photos_N.htm
At the time of the court ruling, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama had concurred. The Pentagon planned to release the photos by the court's May 28 deadline. Obama, however, conferred with military commanders who argued the photos would endanger U.S. troops. He said the photos at issue are 'not particularly sensational' and the perpetrators of the abuse have been identified and 'appropriate actions have been taken.'
In 2004, photos of prisoner abuse at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison sparked a strong anti-American backlash, particularly in Muslim countries. Those photos showed U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some of whom were naked and held on leashes. Obama said Wednesday he also worries that releasing more photos could have a 'chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.'
In the ACLU case, which involved photos from prisons other than Abu Ghraib, the Bush administration argued their release would violate the rights of the detainees.
Obama's reversal puts him in step with some Republicans. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sent kudos via Twitter. 'Strongly agree,' he said.
Romero (ACLI) accused Obama of adopting the 'stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration.'
RE: We need the American Republic not Obama to help America gain its power again.
---------
You can't even correctly name the group??? REPUBLICAN, not REPUBLIC.
This is where this nonsense originated:
magus71.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/the-american-republican-army/
From previous posts on these pages I think 'The American Republic' has something to do with a certain Judah Ben Hur, also connected with a company called Gaiacomm. A little blurb lauding its supposed development of counter terrorist technology pops up from time to time. Like the post on this article it always appears under a single lower case letter tag, anything from 'a' to 'z'. As does the tedious and far too often reposted screed about Obama which ends 'A sovereign republic.' A sovereign remedy for insomnia would be nearer the mark.
I just got back to this site for the first time since I first posted. My thought behind my original post was that I am glad to see Obama standing up against both the media and the ACLU and doing what he feels is best for national security. In my opinion neither of those entities have been any friend to the American public in recent years. They both appear to have taken on an attitude that they can yank any politicianfs chain either by biased reporting or by lobbying and make the politician do what they want.
As for @NSKfs questionsc
FIRST: I didn't say it was 'the best procedure,' nor is it 'my cause.' It's my opinion.
SECOND: gWhy should military tribunals be used against alleged terrorists?h
Recount for a moment, the history that brought about this situation. Sept. 11, 2001 the terrorist organization al-qaeda (sp?) launched an attack to the best of their ability against the United States in an attempt to obliterate our financial center (World Trade Center), military center (Pentagon), and political center (the White House). Thanks to some of those passengers that perished the latter was thwarted. Thatfs an all-out declaration of war against any country. The question we faced was ewho is the enemy?f
President Bush didn't name a nation, but instead named gterrorismh as the enemy we were at war with. He further named the enemy combatants as gterroristsh and declared that we would not make any distinction by nationality. Nor would we consider those groups and nations that fund, harbor, or assist terrorism and/or terrorists. Nobody objected at the time. In fact most praised Bush for his wisdom in that declaration. So apparently for Bush, that was the right thing to do at the time. Al-qaeda's terrorism organization (which is international) declared war on the USA, and we acknowledged that a state of war existed.
Your opinion may different from mine and I respect that. But in my thinking those declarations from former President Bush puts terrorism and its terrorists squarely in the military arena, not the judicial or municipal arenas. And the way I see it, this should put captured terrorists in military tribunals. I view trying to put them in the civil courts and giving them all the rights of an incarcerated American criminal suspect as a category mistake.
This seems to be at the heart of the debate. Are they enemy combatants or are they criminal suspects arrested for allegedly violating American law? I go with the former. And I see the media's and the ACLU's efforts to blur those lines as an affront to the US military and an unnecessary burden upon our courts.
I respect your opinion, but were they judged to be enemy combatants they would not be tried at all, Unless for 'war crimes' but would be held as POW's for 'the duration.' I do not think international law covers this scenario. One of a legitimate, national polity 'at war' with an amorphous illegal international collection of terrorists.
Everything about Bush's Iraq plans seems to have been sketched on the back of a dinner napkin. What to do about captured 'enemies' (however defined) is one more (non-)agenda item.
Bush somehow got it into that stubborn skull that someone in Iraq would quickly take charge after Saddam's ouster. Never mind 1300 years of internicine warfare between Shia and Sunni, and the separate standing of the Kurds, Christians, Turkomen and other factions. Never mind removing our buffer against Iranian hegemony.
Bush's lack of any bit of understanding of the underlying situation, and his reassurances from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the lot about how 'quickly' and 'cheaply' Iraq would proceed, are the scandal that should be investigated - like a traffic accident. Who, how, what, when, where, why.
We're instead mired down over which pictures to show, and who knew what and when (which is irrelevant, bcause Bush had his mind made up).
All the GOP has on its mind right now is causing some political damage for its opponents (or someone like Spector or Powell who had the nerve to tell the emperor that he had no clothes). SP4 plays the same game - so we know instinctively how dumb it is. Back then, all Bush cared about was Saddam - and the torture was in good part about proving a non-existent linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Obama was right in the political sense - the cost of dredging it up exceeds the value of doing so; and it all detracts from discussing the future. There was no plan for Gitmo beyond Gitmo itself, and no structure to handle the detainees - or even to determine who really belonged there. We still have a problem with legit people running into problems at airports; so Gitmo comes only as a surprise to those who thought that Bush was actually anything but that year's Sarah Palin in terms of foreign policy (defined as anything beyond the borders of Texas).
If Texas' own rumblings about secession ever came to pass, Bush would indeed be in his own country.
Regarding: 'Never mind removing our buffer against Iranian hegemony.'
This is the only bone of contention that I have with your position.
Precisely what hegemony. Quote chapter and verse, citing sources. This is merely propaganda from Bush/Cheney and company, and the American need for an enemy in order to justify its actions. If one looks realistically and dispationately at the Muddled East, Iran is basically neutered, and has been for a long time. True, they do have their agencies, but so does the US, Isreael and any other country with an interest in the area. Please, do not spoil an otherwise good post with tripe like this.
Syria has much more influence in the area that does Iran. One merely has to take a look at their underhanded dealings in Lebanon and other countries, if one looks for a 'hegemony.'
Regarding: 'Never mind removing our buffer against Iranian hegemony.'
This is the only bone of contention that I have with your position.
Precisely what hegemony?
===================
The hegemony that Iran has been seeking all this time;, and was unable to achieve with Saddam as an offset (i.e., the Shia/Sunni conflict).
If saying 'a buffer against potential Iranian hegemony' reads better, so be it.
There are about 668,000 Google links on these words = here's one at random that seems decently sourced (and by the way, even Cheney gets to be correct, once in a while. His problem is not that he's right, or wrong. It's that he LIES to make his predetermined case, and keeps right on doing it in the case of contrary evidence. Plus, his popularity is now at 18%, below Bush)
reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=1405
'Iran's aspiration for regional hegemony and recognition of its leading international status stems from its large territory and population, its important geographic location, its central status within the Islamic-Shiite world, its history as a regional empire and its economic and military potential.
In recent years, Iran is making an effort to expand its regional and international influence. Iran's ability to advance this agenda derives from regional and global developments, such as the end of the Iran-Iraq war (1988); collapse of the USSR (1991); US war on terror and democratization agenda it advanced in the Middle East (since 2001); collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq (4/03); rise of oil prices; and tension between China, Russia and the US.'
(The site is well footnoted)
(Iran has many internal problems, and their population does not despise America in the same way as, say, a country where U.S. troops are stationed, or we're actively pursuing insurgents.)
Recognition of the Iranian regime - Iran feels that it is subjected to constant attempts by the US and other states to undermine the stability of the Islamic Regime (1979).
Security: military guarantees for territorial integrity - Iran is building military strength in order to defend its territorial integrity and to deter foreign forces from military strikes against it.
Economy: the right to utilize its natural resources - Iran has an abundance of natural resources, mainly oil and gas. However, the utilization of these resources requires access to financing and technology found in foreign companies and states, as well as free movement to and from Iran overland and by sea.
Influence on regional processes - Iran seeks to influence regional political developments in the Middle East and Central Asia in line with its interests and ideology.
Recognition of Iran's leading international role - Iran seeks to be recognized as a leading state in the world. This aspiration stems from Iran's history, resources, current status and future objectives.
Exporting the Islamic Revolution - Iran seeks to export the Islamic Revolution in the Middle East and beyond.
============
(The last is a problem for the Sunni-led oil producing states, which is why we get their cooperation)
www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3678
'From Saudi Arabia's establishment in 1932, its minority Shiite population has been subject to discrimination and sectarian incitement. Beginning in the early 1990s, with then Crown Prince Abdullah's active support, the government took steps to improve inter-sectarian relations. But the measures were modest, and tensions are rising. The war in Iraq has had a notable effect, strengthening Shiite aspirations and Sunni suspicions and generally deepening confessional divisions throughout the region. King Abdullah needs to act resolutely to improve the lot of the two-million strong Shiite community and rein in domestic expressions of anti-Shiite hostility.'
RE: Syria has much more influence in the area that does Iran. One merely has to take a look at their underhanded dealings in Lebanon and other countries, if one looks for a 'hegemony.'
===========
We are now diplomatically dealing with Syria. Easier to do than with Iran.
www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/0424_syria_indyk.aspx
(April 2008 under Bush)
'On the other side, Syria for the time being is cooperating with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. It has attenuated its support for Iraqi insurgents. President Assad continues to assert his interest in making peace with Israel and sent an official delegation to the Annapolis peace conference. He is also careful not to provoke conflict with Israel, or even retaliate for Israel’s strike on what appears to have been a clandestine Syrian nuclear facility.
In short, Syria fits the category of a “rogue regime” but is doing just enough to avoid making itself the target of a regime change policy from the Bush Administration.'
=========
(March 2009)
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/syrias-assad-praises-obam_n_176272.ht ml
'ROME — Syrian President Bashar Assad has expressed worry over what he sees as Israeli society's turn to the right, according to a newspaper interview published Wednesday. Assad also said he would like to meet President Barack Obama, the Rome daily La Repubblica reported.
Expectations for Obama are high following the administration of George W. Bush, Assad said, according to the newspaper. He was quoted as saying Obama needs to restore American credibility, and his first steps are encouraging.
'The expectations are great for a new language signaling respect toward different cultures and helping ease tensions, especially religious tensions, caused by Bush when he spoke of crusades,' Assad was quoted as saying. Obama has pledged to deliver a major speech in a Muslim nation early in his presidency.
Asked if he would like to meet the new U.S. president, Assad said: 'Yes, in principle, it would be a very positive signal. But I'm not after a souvenir photo. I hope I can see him to talk.' Assad said that, while in theory he could envision a resumption of negotiations with Israel, he views the possibility as moving further away. Israel will soon have a new government with hard-line Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm.
'I'm not worried at the thought of Netanyahu, but by Israeli society's turning right, as reflected by Netanyahu's rise,' he was quoted as saying. 'That's the biggest obstacle to peace.''
===============
(May 2009)
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/11/world/worldwatch/entry5007009.shtml
'Many of the speakers praised the efforts of Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad and Jordan's King Abdullah who developed a plan which would include a 57-state solution in which the Muslim world would recognize Israel.'
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9G1EHAYyVmLhN5yLiX17MHNBl8AD986 VEI81
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syria's president said Friday that his country is interested in resuming indirect peace talks with Israel but does not believe the new Israeli government makes a good negotiating partner.
Syria has said it is willing to resume the talks mediated by Turkey as long as they focus on a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. But Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said he would not be willing to cede the territory Syria wants.
'Syria is keen about peace as much as it is keen about the return of its occupied territories,' Syrian President Bashar Assad said during a joint press conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
'When we have a specific vision and when their is a partner, then we can speak about a date to resume peace talks,' Assad said.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who also opposes ceding all of the Golan Heights, has said he would be willing to resume indirect peace talks with Syrian only if there were no preconditions.
-------
(Lieberman is one key problem here, as well as the West Bank settlements - Israel has a hodge-podge government made up in part of competing factions thast has shifted right, thanks to the last election which outed Livni from influence)
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/world/middleeast/04israel.html?_r=1&em
'Mr. Lieberman is to begin his trip in Rome, seeing Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Monday, and then travel to Paris, Prague and Berlin for similar meetings. He is one of the most controversial senior members of the Israeli government. As a candidate, he called for a loyalty oath aimed at Israeli Arabs. In addition, his public speech has been tough, sometimes brutal. And he himself lives in a West Bank settlement.
Israel’s own diplomats view his arrival as their chief with circumspection, especially because his predecessor, Tzipi Livni, was admired by her colleagues in Europe. Whenever she went to Paris, for example, she saw not only the foreign minister but also President Nicolas Sarkozy. So far, Mr. Sarkozy has not agreed to see Mr. Lieberman this week.'
(At this point, Israel seems to be the impediment to be overcome - and until they yield on the settlements, it will remain that way. Israel's own government occasionally has actual battles with its own settlers)
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=abPE7AMWQTWQ&refer=home
Settlements will be on the agenda when President Barack Obama, who supports Palestinian statehood, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is skeptical about it, meet at the White House next week. Vice President Joe Biden told Israel supporters in Washington on May 5 that settlement-construction must stop, the strongest statement on the subject so far from the administration.
“If Obama seriously expects a breakthrough, he’s going to have to keep the pressure on Netanyahu and test his commitment to a solution the Palestinians can live with,” said Yoram Meital, chairman of the Chaim Herzog Center for Middle East Studies at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba. “It’s going to be very hard to get Netanyahu to agree to a complete freeze on settlement-building.”
=============
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hk5FeBXnArQrWhSuWtOlIO-cRGTA D987GLL81
JERUSALEM (AP) — On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's crucial visit to Washington, his defense minister suggested Saturday the Israeli leader might be ready to endorse a Palestinian state when he meets President Barack Obama.
That would be a significant shift for Netanyahu, who has made clear in the past that he does not think the Palestinians are ready to rule themselves. But that position has put him at odds with long-standing U.S. policy that supports Palestinian statehood as the cornerstone of Mideast peace efforts.
'I think and believe that Netanyahu will tell Obama this government is prepared to go for a political process that will result in two peoples living side by side in peace and mutual respect,' Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Channel 2 TV on Saturday.
Barak said he thought an agreement with the Palestinians could be achieved within three years. However, he did not explicitly use the word state in his remark, leaving open other options for Netanyahu.
After the Israeli prime minister met with Jordan's king Thursday, a senior Jordanian government official said Netanyahu was likely to endorse a two-state solution when he meets Obama on Monday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
At their meeting, the two allies will be grappling with diverging policies on how to approach the Mideast conflict. They do not see eye-to-eye on the Palestinian issue or on the Obama administration's efforts to open dialogue with Syria and Iran.
Netanyahu has hinted he would be prepared to take military action against Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons — something Vice President Joe Biden has said would be 'ill-advised.' Israeli and foreign media reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta secretly visited Israel earlier this month and asked for advance warning of any military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Now you say potential hegemony. Now we are off into dreamland. Deal with facts. If you looked at it unbiasedly, it is the US that has the hegemony in the area due to it's addiction to oil. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-US. I prefer to deal with real situations, not made-up ones. Yes, the US is having some form of relations with Syria, but that is not dealing with the Syrian secret services which operate at the behest of the government. Co-operating with a tribunal? Only so far as it has some control over the information supplied and the results disseminated. We are talking about professionals at the art of deflection.
The reason that Iran is is not currently reachable is because of past US policy towards it. Do you remember the Bush mantra of 'Axis of evil?' Demonization of a person or country is always the first step towards conflict. Now the US must, if it wants to co-exist peacefully in the area is to repudiate Bush and try to talk as an adult. It will take years to undo the harm done by the GOP Cabal.
By the way, what the heck does Net-and-Yahoo and the Israelis really have to do with this thread?
The 'Iranian hegemony' issue has always been in the background - one of the reasons that U.S. policy for decades was to back Iraq - including in the Iraq/Iran war that was very costly to Iran.
Israel's recent decidedly rightward tilt as a result of rocket fire, and their refusal to deal with their own settlers - plus Lieberman's views - has brought Israel front-and-center as a catalyst again. Iran does not threaten the U.S. mainland, but their position against Israel is the problem.
(I'm Jewish by birth, by the way - but I believe in the 2-state solution that today seems to be suddenly more acceptable to Netanyahu - but I'll believe it when I see settlements disbanded)
The link as to 'hegemony' and Iran is most clear - I'd suggest you spend some time on it, objectively.
reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=1405
Without Iraq next door, Iran is freed up to pursue hegemony through deals with other Shiite states - or would be, when oil prices rise again. Russia has the same oil-price problem - Gazprom has contracts at a higher price than spot oil. Obama is wisely trying to get the other Shiite states to deal with the U.S. instead - we have ultimately more to offer them than Iran does.
========
RE: By the way, what the heck does Net-and-Yahoo and the Israelis really have to do with this thread?
(As the catalyst for the underlying problems ..... everything. We are dealing with symptoms, instead of the problem of finding peace in the Mideast. Obama understands this, and is putting pressure, as we speak, on the current Israeli government - which counts on U.S. support, no matter what they do. All Bush did was photo-ops like Annapolis)
(However, Netanyahu is on as big an ego trip as Cheney - so Obama has work cut out for himself.)
www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-16-voa27.cfm
'Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could soon endorse the creation of a Palestinian state.'
Here's an Iranian take on it, based onm what a Likud member has said:
www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=94980§ionid=351020202
'Benjamin Netanyahu will refuse to support the formation of a Palestinian state in his first meeting with President Barack Obama, a source close to the Israeli Prime Minister says.
Netanyahu 'will not make a commitment to Washington on the creation of a Palestinian state which would undoubtedly become a 'Hamastan',' parliament member Ophir Akunis from Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party was quoted as saying.'
----------
RE: The reason that Iran is is not currently reachable is because of past US policy towards it. Do you remember the Bush mantra of 'Axis of evil?'
(I consider that speech the dumbest single thing that Bush did; amongst a panoply of poor decisions. Iran had actually been helpful in dealing with Afghanistan before that. The last thing that Iran needed was another problem next door with the Taliban. Perhaps the 'mission accomplished' photo-op is more memorable, but the 'axis' speech, his own idea, ruined many potential diplomatic avenues. I reject your use of the word 'currently' - because Bush and Cheney are out of power; and Obama is more intelligent about what has do be done - we've had enough of Bush's 'gut' and Cheney's 'mouth')
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
The Taliban, also Taleban, is a pro-Wahhabi SUNNI Islamist, predominately Pashtun fundamentalist religious and political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when its leaders were removed from power by Northern Alliance and NATO forces. It has regrouped and since 2004 revived as a strong insurgency movement fighting a guerrilla war against the current government of Afghanistan, Pakistan, allied NATO forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It operates in Afghanistan and the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan.
The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks 'up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys.'6] More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.
In addition to this indiscriminate slaughter, the Taliban sought out and massacred members of the Hazara, a mostly Shia ethnic group, while in control of Mazar-i-Sharif. While the slaughter can be attributed to several factors — ethnic difference, suspicion of Hazara loyalty to their co-religionists in IRAN, fury at the loss of life suffered in an earlier unsuccessful Taliban takeover of Mazar — the belief by some Sunni Taliban that the Shia Hazaras were guilty of takfir (apostasy) may have been the principal motivation.
(Note the reference to Iranians in that last paragraph)
the US dislikes the current regime in Iran is because they deposed a ruthless dictator led puppet regime of the US and went their own way. This, of course, was not in the US plan for the area. A vassal state that no longer was a vassal state. (Parallels may be drawn with the Cuban situation. The US has gotten it's nose out of joint, and ignoring the current reality and dealing with it constructively, continues to maintain it's cold war stance of us and them. And if you are not explicitly with us, then you are against us and you are the demon enemy. There is no neutral ground.) Then a bunch of Iranian 'students' stormed the US embassy and held some diplomats as special guests of the 'revolution.' None of this, however, belies the fact that there have been and are quiet dealings. Some of these dealings are not so quiet for too long, such as the guns for hostages/drugs/Iran-Contra affair. What the general public sees is what the governments want them to see, which is dick-bloody-all. The public, at large, is an ignorant, led-by-the-nose beast.
As to your co-religionist reference, it means nothing. Just because there is a shared faith, it does not mean that there is anything more than that. By your logic, Americans are responsible for the troubles in Northern Ireland, because they share the same belief in a certain unprovable diety. So, you continue to clutch at straws to maintain an untenable position.
If you take a look at history, The US was the first modern nation created by a revolution. Do you accept this? Now, take a hard, unbiased look at history since then, The US has done nothing but suppress other people's revolutions ever since. It calls this suppression maintaining and furthering democracy. What a load of malarkey. It tries to maintain the status quo, because that is what is good for American corporations. Have a look at Dole et al and the origins of the term 'Banana Republic.' If the locals got upset with being economically raped and tried to change things, the marines were sent in. Nicaragua is the most recent example of this. Except the marines weren't sent in directly. You had Oliver North do the dirty work behind the scenes and through proxies. Take a look at CIA involvement in Chile and political assasinations there. Let us not forget Viet Nam, and that terrible threat to the US from Granada. No, US economic policy has nothing to do with democracy and freeing people from enslavement. It maintains it. Co-operate with us, do as we say or there will be confrontation. That is the pure and simple nut of the matter. All else is window dressing, deflection and outright bullsh*t.
'I reject your use of the word 'currently' - because Bush and Cheney are out of power; and Obama is more intelligent about what has do be done - we've had enough of Bush's 'gut' and Cheney's 'mouth')'
Do not be so quick to reject my words as their legacy will taint relations for years, if not decades. Their actions currently, and I maintains its usage, affect the region, if not the whole world.
As to this source: 'www.voanews.com', now there is an ubbiased organization. Propaganda outlet is more like it.
And this source: 'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban' is a waste of space. Wiki is a concensus of information, put together by readers with their own take on things. Yes, there are some 'editors,' but who are they, and what is their expertise, their C.V.? No, Wiki is rejected because it is a low form of consensus reality, nothing more. The rest of your sources are also suspect. Do you have any more (in)credible information sources?
That was Bush's problem (bias) - so while you apparently come from a different part of the political firmament, you seem to share his shortcomings. The multiple posts making the same point seem to be another indication of resistance to outside knowledge.
Wikipedia is an active consensus of many people - which makes it kind of like a Democracy, but self-correcting. That makes it actually MORE reliable, for a centrist/realist view, than many other Web sources that 'lean' one way or another; since some depend on a continuing audience already biased in their direction (Lou Dobbs on CNN doing the angry white man's sweat lodge). Wikipedia has no direction, per se.
For a clearheaded view, and some of the smartest guests on the planet, I recommend Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN on Sunday.
There's actually a right-wing version of a Wiki I've stumbled across - which would be the equivalent of a bunch of drunks discussing the virtues of cocktails. Wikipedia even has a page on it - it would be where SP4 gets his Kool-aid wholesale.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
'It was started in 2006 by lawyer and social studies teacher Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the open web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.'
(These people are truly sick)
Any nation is as 'modern' as when the revolution happened. France had a rather notable one, albeit some years ago.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
'The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval and radical change in the history of France, during which the French governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights.
These changes were accompanied by violent turmoil which included the trial and execution of the king, vast bloodshed and repression during the Reign of Terror, and warfare involving every other major European power. Subsequent events that can be traced to the Revolution include the Napoleonic Wars, two separate restorations of the monarchy, and two additional revolutions as modern France took shape.'
----------
Russia had three in the 20th Century, and the end-result was Communism.
The U.S. had an extremely difficult time of it during the Constitutional Convention - you might get a book covering that period. The Constitution (which did not see the Bill of Rights added for a decade) was the usual political compromise ... the difference being that the participants were creating something out of nothing, and had the will to get it done.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
They even had to reach agreement on where the Capitol would be located.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol
'The United States Congress was established upon ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789. New York City remained home to Congress until 1790, when the Residence Act was passed to pave way for a permanent capital. The decision to locate the capital was contentious, but Alexander Hamilton helped broker a compromise in which the Federal government would take on war debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War, in exchange for support from northern states for locating the capital along the Potomac River. As part of the legislation, Philadelphia was chosen as a temporary capital for ten years, until the nation's capital in Washington, D.C. would be ready.'
--------
Instead of the abolition of slavery (thanks to Lincoln), they passed the three-fifths compromise. There was nothing glamorous about the proceedings - and be thankful that the Internet did not exist to allow it to be picked over.
'Not all the delegates were pleased with the results; some left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign: Edmund Randolph, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was finally added and is considered the final compromise of the Convention - several states asked specifically for these amendments when ratifying the Constitution, and others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that a bill of rights would soon follow. Of the 39 who did sign, probably no one was completely satisfied. Their views were ably summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,
'There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies...'
www.freepress.net/release/226
(2007)
WASHINGTON -- New broadband data released today by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that the United States now ranks 15th out of the 30 member nations in per capita broadband use -- down from 12th place just six months ago and dropping from fourth place in 2001.
'We are failing to bring the benefits of broadband to all our citizens, and the consequences will resonate for generations,' said Ben Scott, policy of director of Free Press. 'There is no justification for America's declining status as a global Internet leader. Instead of more excuses, it's time for true national broadband policy that will put America's digital future back on track.'
According to the OECD report, the United States ranks 20th out of 30 nations in the growth rate of broadband penetration over the past year.
Education:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7773081.stm
(Check the charts on the link)
Health:
www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Science:
www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html
'New report ranks U.S. teens 29th in science worldwide'
It is you, who goes to extremes. For valid reasons, your sources are discredited. From what I said, you extrapolate that I reject everyone else. There, you are wrong again. I do not reject everyone else. Where are the facts in evidence to back up your assertion? There are none. For a short while there, I thought you were an intelligent person. Now I see that you are just another cut and paste clown, without a discerning mind. In order to be not fooled by the appearances of things one must question everything they have been taught, have heard, and even thought. By the way, I worked in the media for a good part of my life. One piece of advice that I can give you is: Don't belive a word of what you read, hear or see, in the media. None of it is as it really is. Someone has had their dirty fingers in it.
The US did have it's hand in the Russian revolution. They tried to stifle it by supporting the White Russians. Not only supported, but sent aid(arms) and soldiers. After it failed the White Russians found a new, principal, home in the US. THERE are the seeds for the anti-communist/anti-Russian sentiments and activities, ever since. The only revolution the US may have supported, at a far distance, was the French revolution. So, I admit, I was in error, by one. The rest stands.
It does seem that you share his paranoias, but from the other end of the spectrum. Perhaps you two could start a two-headed Web site, and entertain each other.
A neurotic thinks that two and two are five.
The psychotic KNOWS that the answer is four, but he HATES it.
Who put you in charge of source validation? Years ago we had legitimated credentialed media, and press and TV coverage of events. Now we have the Web, complete with bloggers lookinbg for revenue from it, targeted to that outer-fringe 20 percent that pays to indugle their fantasies.
It does take more work now to get to the truth. There are many books written covering the founding of this country, and all relate the problems connected with it. We still have no firm 'who shot Kennedy?' answer; and the number of mysteries grows.
Under Bush, things were put under secrecy restrictions; or executive privilege, or hidden on account of national security. Cheney is now asking for document release; knowing full well that they won't be forthcoming ... and for reasons that Cheney laid out, in the first place.
This has all raised the level of mistrust, even amongst the average person. They don't know if the TARP will work. Even though Obama explicitly has said that taxes will NOT be raised for incomes below $250,000 - the GOP will lie, without foundation, and claim otherwise.
That, however does not excuse paranoia. That does not excuse someone's 'discrediting' the best sources that we have, just because they present arguments in disagreements with yours.
Apparently you have intellect enough to post - but then you get wrapped up in your own paranoia - just as the NRA makes a living from scaring gun owners about some alleged mass confiscation.
Darned shame - but as the old saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.
of an idiot - the ad-hominem attack. Where in my posts do I show any paranoia, from any angle?
This merely proves that you do not have a discerning mind, but, as I repeat, you are a cut and paste clown, lacking in an education and a leg to stand on intellectually. By the way, to assuage any hurt feelings that you may have, this is not an ad-hominem attack, but merely the results of watching your behaviors.
Your simile about the NRA is a non sequitur.
Apparently you have intellect enough to post - but then you get wrapped up in your own ignorance.
Darned shame - but as the old saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.
Go and Sit Shiva over your dead mind.
An oppressive country with an imperialistic regime.
That depends entirely on your perspective.
Thank you for sharing yours with us.
That guy, who thinks he's so smart because he's jewish said: 'For a clearheaded view, and some of the smartest guests on the planet, I recommend Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN on Sunday.'
CNN? Did he really say CNN? No wonder the other guy ran him into the ground. He's right, the tool is an idiot.
I've read here some well informed and coherent posts,based upon research and understanding facts.There is nothing wrong using copy and paste providing it is done to cite sources .Not a single good scientific or historical book could be written nowadays without researching sources .
As for a good debate:du choc des idées jaillit l' etincelle ...
From the clash of ideas the sparkle is born.
USA is officialy and always was a one party nation
Republicans and Democrats may supposedly disagree on nonesense . but when it comes to money - BAIL OUTS - PResident powers - POLICE POWERS - WARS... your all one and the same.
mason bankers and zionists( aipac) control america
you have no legal system that functions you cant impeach a president even if you dream of it.impeaching bush was impossible. all judges and legal system was changed by bush. senate and house are weak and corrupt
pelosi that you gave all the powers one senator could dream of was a traitor that worked for bush and never stopped him or prevent him in the senate as he racked in money and pushed policies and torture.
obama is just pushing bushes same mantra's and policies .
Yes, Tonny. I've just read the last two pages and the standard of debate has certainly improved tenfold since SP shut his trap. The question of to what extent quotations from other sources should be pasted into posts is an interesting one. I would oppose the regurgitation of entire pages. Should I wish to read the material therein, I can visit the site or look at the book myself. Yet I see little point in someone merely paraphrasing source material and posting it as their own work. Better in most cases simply to post the original (so long as it's brief) which will likely be more elegantly written and add 'I agree with this. What do you think?' at the end.
So, addressing posters in general, refer to other sources and provide web and other refrences to support your arguments by all means, but make sure those arguments are indeed your own. It is likely that you will have to defend them and merely repeating your initial point or posting a plethora of other quotes will make you stand out like a whore in church as intellectually limited.
As to the argument immediately above; I can identify one of the participants immediately. He is an intelligent chap who makes many valid points but does not suffer fools gladly: And we encounter any number of them on these pages. The accusation of being a cut and paste clown, though I love the term, is mistaken in this case I think. Though I would not rush to premature judgement as a wise man once taught me the danger of doing so before 'all the facts have been entered in evidence.' All I would say for now is that I too find that your opponent's habit of frequent direct referral to multiple sources in one post makes his contributions read sometimes like textbooks and detracts from the flow of his own argument.
This other, the one who identifies himself as of Jewish birth has, if I recognise the style, posted occasionally in the past and now seems to be making more regular contributions. This I welcome. He is obviously the same intelligent person who gave me the right-about pretty sharply when I was too lazy to research data before making an unwarranted statement that I knew was flawed anyway. He has a legal mind. As I am habitually intellectually idle until prodded, I foresee some interesting clashes.
To muslim.
Salaam Aleikum. What facts and arguments can you produce to back your assertions? Would you prefer to live under Sharia Law? That legal system may have been appropriate in the days of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but would you advocate its unexpurgated imposition in 2009CE?
The country suffers from the right-most due to Limbaugh's rants; and here we see someone pulling the same trick, on behalf of the left-most.
The country has made mistakes, and will continue to. Human nature. The to-do about Pelosi's own dumb handling of a crisis has momentarily covered over the fact that Bush would not have listened to her anyway; and the policies that got us into this mess were Cheney's; force-fed to Bush like a goose at Christmas. Cheney was running things during 9/11, after having had adequate intel to see that there were risks to which he failed to react - yet the blame gets passed to those who get to clean up after the elephant (double-meaning intentional).
Here's Maureen Dowd with a very good piece (and an excerpt, not a full paste):
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17dowd.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
' ... Besides, the question of what Pelosi knew or didn’t, or when she did or didn’t know, is irrelevant to how W. and Cheney broke the law and authorized torture. ... '
-----------
I generally cut/paste in order to present someone's good info (or argument) to buttress my own view; yet I post plenty of my own content. Those who diligently follow posts hereabout know that. I also clearly delineate 'MINE' from what's being referenced. I also never post entire articles; but only isolate on-point paragraphs. Just like those footnotes at the back of a book; or at the bottom of a Wikipedia page.
For someone deluded, even that can be too much. These few days we've seen someone turn from downright complimentary to downright hostile, yet I have not moved one millimeter. Someone lost his marbles posting - it happens. But, like Cheney, when someone gets nasty, their polls drop even further - they only damage themselves. That's sad as well; but that's what freedom of speech gets you. The ability to lose your mind; while everyone else watches.
Zakaria's show (and writings) have been spot-on over the years, and his books acclaimed - the fact that he's on CNN is simply where the deal got cut. He's the international editor of Newsweek. His guest list is incomparable, as are his panelists.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria_GPS
Fox is a bunch of paid dittoheads. Roger Ailes learned his craft as an off-Broadway producer; and then working to plump up Reagan and Bush Sr. like those chickens in the TV commercial. Fox is show business, as is Limbaugh. John McCain's mother got beat up by Rush for stating that fact.
24-hour news is handy, but there's a price paid for it. It's hard for a station to fill 24 hours, so sometimes they take something simple and turn it into something complex - and a 5-minute story runs for 3 days.
Life was easier with Huntley/Brinkley - a half hour, and one could escape from it, and have dinner. My newspaper now is Google News, and there's no escape from the world. Thanks to M&C, you get that tiny fraction of the fringe that no one else pays attention to. Rush has institutionalized that rightmost fringe, and literally taken over leadership of a party with no leaders of its own, by default.
Ah, Solomon the Wise...
...returns unto us. I did not accuse YOU of relying on pasted material to make your argument. I merely commented on the effect that frequent insertions have on its flow. I see from this latest piece that you have considered the point, and your own accomplished style is more evident as a result.
I have time to make only two brief points now.
1)In the course of the exchanges above you compared your adversary to SP4. You should not be surprised at the vitriolic response you provoked. The poster in question loathes SP like poison. A retraction would be both polite and circumspect, as well as being warranted. You are now in danger of having every comment you make disected and rebutted line by line with millimetric precision: Which, although both of you are well able to look after yourselves would, I think, be a waste of your times.
2) Further to our exchange on a previous thread;
RE: Your comment concerning the need to increase revenues without necessarily raising taxes. I have now had time to look at your reponse to my rejoinder. When you cite raising caps you are indulging in sophistry, and know it. To raise a cap, or lower a threshold in real terms, is a de facto tax increase even though the rate remains unchanged. That raising caps may be more progressive than a rate hike is true but irrelevant to the point.
Were I to be bloody minded I could go through the entire two posts the same way. So could the fellow I mentioned above. What a waste of all our time
Reposte to:' The country suffers from the right-most due to Limbaugh's rants; and here we see someone pulling the same trick, on behalf of the left-most.'
Once again the intellectually bankrupt ad hominem attack. In my posts I never gave any indication of ranting(I leave that up to you), being a leftist or any other form of ist. You jump to conclusions, a very bad thing to do. It shows ones level of ignorance and desperation. You take your inbuilt biases and hang them on others like a cheap suit. I started of by asking a very simple question and you go off on many different tacks, doing the shuck and jive, ignoring the original question, and trying to bury the thorn in your side under a mountain of bullsh*t and non sequiturs. This was the style of one former poster by the name of Lance, who is very much not with us any more. It goes to show that one doesn't have a clue about what one is talking about.
As to your continued love affair with CNN and Wiki and other 'reputable' sources, I repeat my warning: As I worked in the media for a goodly portion of my life, I have personal knowledge of the business. DO NOT believe anything you see, hear or read in the media. Somebody has had their dirty fingers in it somewhere.
The news of today is not news. If one is polite, one may call it entertainment. It is a ratings game with bubble headed bleach-blondes with toothy grins. These talking heads are style, lacking in substance.
The only news outlet that may be considered to be unbiased is the Christian Science Monitor. This is not those religious pieces of toilet paper handed out on street corners, but the newspaper. As long as you continue to use such tenuous sources as sources, you will be beneath my contempt.
The web is no alternative to classical education, followed by life-long interest in all things.
Now, leave your apparent childishness in the nursery, where it belongs. From what I have seen here, you are a young mind lacking in life experience. Grow up.
Truebrit is absolutely correct when he says this: 'You are now in danger of having every comment you make disected and rebutted line by line with millimetric precision: Which, although both of you are well able to look after yourselves would, I think, be a waste of your times.'
a cut and paste. This goes to further the argument against relying on the web for one's education.
'Is Google Making Us Stupid?' was the provocative title of a recent article in the US journal The Atlantic. Its author was Nicholas Carr, a prominent blogger and one of the internet's more distinguished contrarians. 'Over the past few years,' he writes, 'I've had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn't going - so far as I can tell - but it's changing. I'm not thinking the way I used to think.'
He feels this most strongly, he says, when he's reading. 'Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case any more. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.'
His diagnosis is that he's been spending too much time online. His complaint is not really against Google - it's against the network as a whole. 'What the net seems to be doing,' he writes, 'is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.'
To judge from the volume of commentary that has followed his article, Carr has touched a nerve. He was 'flooded with emails and blog posts from people saying that my struggles with deep reading and concentration mirror their own experiences'. Various über-bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan, Jon Udell and Bill Thompson took up the theme, adding their own twists. And prominent newspaper columnists such as Leonard Pitts (Miami Herald) and Margaret Wente (Toronto Globe & Mail) also revealed their private fears that addiction to cyberspace, and online media generally were, in fact, rotting their brains.
What's surprising in a way is that people should be surprised by this. The web, after all, was designed by a chap (Tim Berners-Lee) who was motivated to do it because he had a poor memory for some things. Add powerful search engines to what he created and you effectively have a global memory-prosthesis. Who won the Ascot Gold Cup in 1904? Google will find it in a flash - and remind you that the race that year was run on 16 June, which is also the day in which all the action takes place in James Joyce's Ulysses. What was the name of Joyce's father? A quick Google search turns up the DNB entry, which reveals all. And what was the name of the woman who proved to be Parnell's downfall? Ah yes, here it is: Kitty O'Shea... and so it goes on.
The combination of powerful search facilities with the web's facilitation of associative linking is what is eroding Carr's powers of concentration. It implicitly assigns an ever-decreasing priority to the ability to remember things in favour of the ability to search efficiently. And Carr is not the first to bemoan this development. In 1994, for example, Sven Birkerts published The Gutenberg Elegies with the subtitle The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age, a passionate defence of reading and print culture and an attack on electronic media, including the internet. 'What is the place of reading, and of the reading sensibility, in our culture as it has become?' he asked. His answer, in a word, was 'shrinking' due to the penetration of electronic media into every level and moment of our lives.
But people have worried about this since... well... the Greeks. In the Phaedrus, Socrates tells how the Egyptian god Theuth tried to sell his invention - writing - to King Thamus as 'an accomplishment which will improve both the wisdom and the memory of the Egyptians. I have discovered a sure receipt [recipe] for memory and wisdom.' To which the shrewd old king replied that 'the discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm which will accrue to those who practise it... Those who acquire writing will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful... What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory.'
In other words, technology giveth; and technology taketh away. Now, who was it who said that...?
'He has a legal mind.'
Yes he does. The problem with that is: Lawyers don't know the Law. There is too much of it. What a lawyer knows is where to find the applicable law and precedent. This does not make them educated or wise. It makes them mere researchers in archives. Clerks, third class, as it were.
Wow! Thought I'd have a look back here at this now waning thread to see if there any further developments. A bit of cut and paste is more than merely acceptable when it's done as well as this. It remains to be seen whether Solomon will frame a suitable response or just take refuge in the Temple of his own preconceptions.
One of the earlier posts mentioned a right wing alternative to Wiki called 'Conservapaedia.' My interest being piqued I decided to have a look; and have been held spellbound for two whole hours. It's absolutely HILARIOUS! I think I've discovered the mine of ordure wherefrom SP4 extracts his material. Try typing in 'liberal' or 'atheism,' then sit and scroll gently down the page as your jaw drops lower and lower. It reminded me of an early mediaeval map of the sort that has 'Here be Dragons' written all over it and shows ships falling off the edge of the world. 'Conservative' obviously has a somewhat different meaning in America.
Yet this thing masquerades as a serious source of information. Doubtless, there will be some who take its offerings at face value. There will also be some who will assume that anyone who describes themselves as conservative endorses them. Both of these thoughts are a bit worrying.
By now, you should have sussed where this train of thought is leading, so let's drive it into the station and disembark. We all, when accessing information, use our discernment to evaluate its accuracy, relevance, and all too often, any underlying 'agenda' associated with it: And discernment is a largely acquired ability based, as the poster above says, on life experiences and amassed knowledge. 'Conservapaedia' is obvious tosh to most of us (I hope), but travel inwards several hundred notches from that (or the other) end of the spectrum and what then?
The only safe course is to hold all information as being on probation, particularly that from the net where there really still BE Dragons. I've scanned back over a few articles. Solomon, when are we going to have a post from you that is even slightly critical of the Sainted Barack?
RE: I've scanned back over a few articles. Solomon, when are we going to have a post from you that is even slightly critical of the Sainted Barack?
================
Obama might be overambitious in terms of 'change'; but that's who/what the voters elected. He is actually pragmatic enough to change his mind, which is downright refreshing. When he makes a mistake, he'll admit it - another breath of fresh air.
I have to take into consideration the absolute pile of manure that was left on his doorstep on Jan 20; as well as some truly reprehensible behavior from SOME in the GOP who contributed to that very mess; and now have some convenient amnesia. The public voted for CHANGE, not CHENEY. Probably some deafness on his part from too much use of his shotgun.
The public sees the GOP as purely obstructionist; and Obama as reaching out in a bipartisan manner. This is why the GOP base is now shrunken to the South and certain distinctly Conservative areas; and why Spector left. Cheney's elevating Limbaugh above Colin Powell is actually no surprise - Powell had some very bitter times with Cheney's megolamania during the first Gulf War. Cheney is all about revenge and elevating his own failed legacy - not the good of the country. Bush has the decency to at least be quiet, after all the damage his stubbornness caused.
1.3 trillion of this year's deficit is Bush's responsibility - the TARP plus Bush's own excess of expenses over revenues. The public seems to forget that the project deficit also relies on REVENUES - and revenues have fallen, particularly at State and Local levels. Bush was left a book-surplus by Clinton, so he was ahead of the game in 2001 thanks to his predecessor.
A good hunk of lost revenue was that top few percent who received steep tax cuts, while the average working person got next to nothing out of it - FICA is still being deducted. Obama is simply letting Bush's own bill die the quiet death it deserves, and is being identified by the GOP as 'raising' taxes. Garbage. Obama is the surgeon repairing the malpractice of the prior medical team; not the perpetrator.
Jarvis/Gann sounded much like the 'cut taxes' pitch we hear today - but years later, it sapped California of revenues. Arnold is cutting spending, but he cannot possibly close his deficit that way, and have a functioning State. The other side of the coin is that Congress passes well-meaning social legislation, such as Social Security, without considering what will happen years later.
Obama recognized that problem; and intends to touch the third-rail of entitlements. Clinton got to surplus by (in part) reducing military spending, and the country was happy about it. 9/11 changed that.
1) In the course of the exchanges above you compared your adversary to SP4. You should not be surprised at the vitriolic response you provoked. The poster in question loathes SP like poison. A retraction would be both polite and circumspect, as well as being warranted.
================
The direction of extremism is less important than the absolutism of it.
SP4 cannot be changed. We can charge it off, likely, to brainwashing as a child, or too much time on sites that welcome him, because he buys something, and they make money off him. I rarely see some sign of intellect; but I suspect that there are actually several posters using his 'nom de crappola'.
When I see someone, on the other hand, with a perfectly sound intellect turn rabid, I have to question their frame of mind, rather than their intellect. Someone intelligent can hold course - if you look closely (I have no time to dredge it up), there seemed to be a specific point re Iranian hegemony, and a link that I put up, that created a problem for him (or her). The 'hegemony' issue is long-standing; because it relates to a 1300-year problem between Sunni and Shia. Iran seeks control of the Arab world - but it requires partners. Obama is deftly running ahead of Iran and convincing potential partners of the benefit of siding with the U.S., instead. Iran currently has a problem with oil revenues, and really has no good political position right now.
Disliking SP4 is not a platform - it's something common around here. I don't give credit for it. What I do give credit for is adult behavior. Look at tape of Obama today at Notre Dame, cracking a joke about his 50 percent ability to get an honorary degree granted to him.
Zakaria's GPS today had Pervez Musharraf in a very interesting interview, where he blames Afghanistan for Pakistan's problems - a transcript should be available online later in the week.
Our larger problem is Hezbollah at the moment. One link's extracts - brand new - on Hezbollah; which is militant Shia:
www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/17/obama.lebanon.election/
Next month, Obama will deliver a long-awaited speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt. He will speak at a critical time for Lebanon, days before an election that could bring powerful Shia militia group Hezbollah to power. This possibility could shake the foundation of Obama's attempts to bring stability and peace to the Middle East.
With one of the most powerful armies in the Middle East, Hezbollah is poised to lead Lebanon's government with the help of Lebanese Christian opposition leader, Gen. Michel Aoun.
Aoun -- who has flipped and flopped politically more than a fish out of water -- recently announced he would align with the March 8 bloc, led by Hezbollah. That will give the bloc the the numbers it needs to control parliament after the June 7 elections.
There have been sporadic incidents of violence ahead of the vote: Billboards have been defaced and just last week, a Hezbollah-aligned political office was burned to the ground. While these acts of violence are small by Lebanese standards, a friend who lives near the burned office told me it was a 'terrifying reminder of last May.'
That is when Hezbollah militants, in a blatant show of force, seized control of the streets of Beirut, marking the worst violence to hit Lebanon since the end of its civil war in 1991.
Bush had no idea in 2006 that Fatah would lose control, and Hamas would take over. Very stupid. This was another foreign policy failure; because Bush never understood the ramifications. No one speaks of 'Democracy' anymore, and the definition of 'success' lowers by the day. Success in Afghanistan would be a central government not beholden to the Taliban - good luck with that in a country with an opium economy and over 400 tribes.
www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/01/27/hamas/
'Jan. 27, 2006 | The stunning victory of the militant Muslim fundamentalist Hamas Party in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration's policies toward the Middle East. Bush pushes for elections, confusing them with democracy, but seems blind to the dangers of right-wing populism. At the same time, he continually undermines the moderate and secular forces in the region by acting high-handedly or allowing his clients to do so. As a result, Sunni fundamentalist parties, some with ties to violent cells, have emerged as key players in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.
Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials.'
------------
Here's a current statement from Hezbollah - which is why Obama has diligently been working with other Mideast countries to offset a Hezbollah win:
latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/05/phizbullah-is-closer-tha n-any-time-before-to-eradicating-the-zionist-regime-and-establishing-a-pale stinian-state-the-partys.html
'Hezbollah is 'closer than any time before to eradicating the Zionist regime and establishing a Palestinian state,' the party's International Relations chief Nawaf Moussawi told Al Manar today, just weeks before Lebanon's hotly contested elections.
His comments were translated and posted on the website nowlebanon.com, a news site supported by the U.S.-backed March 14 alliance and affiliated with the New Opinion think tank, which maintains a media monitoring team.
“The security measures taken are not enough to face the enemy,' said Moussawi, who is running for a parliamentary seat representing the southern city of Tyre. 'We should reinstate the culture of hostility toward Israel” and 'stop inventing [imaginary] enemies for Lebanon, because this strengthens Israel,' he added.
Moussawi also blamed the recently discovered Israeli spy networks in Lebanon on the 'culture of hatred' towards the resistance, which encourages people to become spies.'
------------
(A Hezbollah win, with Tehran backing them, is a step towards what Iran wants - hegemony. This one is NOT Cheney's invention - which is rare, in itself)
The local Rabbi is no man. In his desperation to hold an untenable position, he resorts to ad-hominem attacks as if that will give his position any credence. All this does is show how shallow-minded he is, how intolerant and ignorant. He was given an opportunity to come back as a human being, and blow a different tune on his Shofar, but he chose the rabbit-hole of silence. No, he is no man, but a child, for he is overly strident in his sanctimony. He lacks balance. And that will be his downfall.
When I was young and arrogant like you, my little flea, I too had all the answers. Things were clear, black and white. Now that I am older and hopefully wiser, all I have is the questions. All I see is shades of gray. Nothing is fixed, or absolute. To think otherwise depends on a limited perspective(horse blinkers comes to mind.)What I rale against is inflexibility in thinking, the inability to see from other perspectives(and believe none of them) and accept others opinions without resorting to disparaging and immaterial comments. There are areas where I can argue from both(or three, or more) positions. It is these areas where I sometimes play Devil's Advocate. Not to win any argument, but to check out the mind of the antagonist. A mind is like a parachute. It only works when open. Dogmatic minds and positions disgust me. They are a waste of skin, breath and space.
My antagonist has no open mind, other than to allow the flies to take a shortcut to the other side of his head. No, he is no debater. No, he does not know how to play the game. He is lacking in perspective, amongst other things. As a result, at generous best, he might be called a talented amateur. The Rabbit Rabbi is no man, but a poor dogmatist, or what comes from the derriere de la chien. May you stay forever young, tinok.
Interesting stuff. It's late and I'm back to work in the morning but will look more closely as time allows. On one point you seem to mistake my meaning. I am not suggesting that anyone be give brownie points for loathing SP4, or that this in itself automatically confers some sort of imprimatur: Merely that they may be justifiably annoyed at being likened to him.
I also await Obama's Cairo speech. Like many I think, even in the muslim world, I do so with at most an air of interested detachment. I fear it will have little concrete influence on the outcome of a Lebanese election.
Goodnight all.
OOPS!
Pipped at the post again, by less than a minute! I think the hunter must have been waiting for his prey. I'll leave the two of you to it.
SECONDS OUT, ROUND TWO! DING!
Goodnight both
'When I see someone, on the other hand, with a perfectly sound intellect turn rabid, I have to question their frame of mind'
At last some wisdom from the Negev, IF he is talking about himself, whilst looking in the mirror.
By the way, my crazed little Maccabee, precisely what the heck does your preoccupation with the Hezbollah, Nut-and-Yahoo, and the rest of your pablum have to do with the story? Let me give you a hint: NOTHING. Go do something useful, invade Gaza again, show us what a man you are. What's next, are you going to start calling me an anti-semetic hate-monger? I await your next post, on whatever thread, with bated breath.
has ignored the advice to him from another poster, even quoted it in a post: ' A retraction would be both polite and circumspect, as well as being warranted.'
Twice he has skirted the issue and avoided a proper response. He comes back with some diatribe about nothing pertinant. On several occasions he calls me, basically, a head case.(Oh, so now he's a long distance psychiatrist? So talented. I wonder what other skills the wonder-kid has.)
This is typical of his kind
of inflated ego. They are never wrong, but wronged. Transferance. Utter bilge. He sermonizes as if he speaks the gospel truth from the Temple Mount. He seems to expect everyone to kneel down and kiss his rosey red ring. That is not going to happen. The Wailing Wall is over there, boy. Go cry there, my Negev Nutter. If you want sympathy, it's in the dictionary, between sh*t and syphilis.
End of that point ....
(Today's news)
www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090517_Washington_has_abandoned_its_o bligations.html
'It is no wonder, then, that Israelis of all political stripes are deeply disturbed by the Obama administration's Middle East policies. Since taking office, President Obama has made it clear that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not a major concern for him. Rather, he strives to open diplomatic relations with Iran in the inexplicable hope that Iran can be appeased out of a nuclear program that has already brought it to the cusp of regional hegemony.'
The other poster has revealed his true personality as a nutcase, so I'll leave him to stew in his own juices and not respond further. No one else cares about the thread anyway, at this stage.
The Hezbollah issue was brought up, since I was attempting to redirect the discussion to something actually relevant, while his lithium shipment was apparently bogged down at UPS.
Your Parliament does appear bogged down as well, and I see that David Cameron suggested lopping off some MP's entirely, to save money. Perhaps he could open the Department of Silly Walks and make John Cleese the minister in charge of it, while at it. It does look like England is falling apart at the Parliamentary level, and Speaker Martin is toast (without jam). I will miss his 'O...o....o....order!'
Lots has happened since the tribunals issue had its cycle, so we'll see when M&C gets around to covering something else. I still see 5 separate 'tribunals' threads listed on the U.S. page - why, I cannot imagine.
is back I see. You insult a man, and then claim you are wronged, and continue to assault him. How typical of your kind
of egocentricism. I see that you are very strong on money matters and speak somewhat eloquently about them. Who's your hero, one of those many swindlers who bilked billions out of the US economy, like Madoff or Milken? While you may have some knowledge about money matters, you have no manners as a human being and limited knowledge of other matters. The Hezbollah thing was mere misdirection on your part, trying to get your limited agenda into a thread that has nothing to do with with mid east matters. More to the point, the mid east section is over there, somewhere. Go sit on it, where no one pays any attention. Is that your problem? Are you an attention whore, like SP, and any attention, including bad attention, is better than none? You do appear to be a Yiddish SP4, full of one's self(fecal matter), with about as much of a clue as to handle one's self in a public forum. Where did you get your manners, in a pig sty? Go ahead and continue the slurs, they only make the author of them look bad. Such a petty little mind you have.
'I still see 5 separate 'tribunals' threads listed on the U.S. page - why, I cannot imagine.'
Tha reason there were, are, and will be, 5 stories is because this is M&C. It is their site, to do with it as they see fit, not as you think things should be, in your distorted, miniscule, lack of perspective, 'world' view. Your lack of imagination goes to further prove that you are lacking in a mind, let alone a discerning one.
That would be obvious to anyone objective about it. Story placements are finite. If five are about the same thing, then 4 new stories have no place to exist on that index. The existence of 5 sub-threads on the same topic fractures the posts into 5 potential places, instead of one. That probably works to their benefit, when they get this long.
Of course, if the universe consists of YOUR posts, it's not quite as evident.
Consider yourself ignored.
has a problem understanding understanding simple English. Here is the Gist of tha post, once again:
'The reason there were, are, and will be, 5 stories is because this is M&C. It is their site, to do with it as they see fit, not as you think things should be, in your distorted, miniscule, lack of perspective, 'world' view. Your lack of imagination goes to further prove that you are lacking in a mind, let alone a discerning one.'
No room for four more stories???? What sort of idiot are you? It is quite apparant that you have no concept whatsoever about space, in spite of the fact that you have a lot of it, empty and wasted, between your ears.
Consider yourself ignorant.
Inadvertently, whilst editing, I included two 'understanding.' My apologies to the local idiot if this confuses him. As English is his second language I will be more careful in my postings, in the future. I will keep the words and concepts as simple as possible, so as to not send the ignorant one off on yet another rant, or into a state of silent sulking.
that a poster has a fixation with efficiencies. Note how he is overly concerned with how M&C allocates space for stories. He has addressed this 'topic' three times now. Perhaps he should spend more time minding his own business, as the world does not operate according to him(thank the gods for that small mercy), or how he thinks it should be. Perhaps the bean-counter mentality should spend more time addressing the deficiencies in his mind.
don't sit there in the dark and whine. No comments? Perhaps if I dangled some money? After all, that is your first language. That's why you have a deficit situation in communicating in English.
The smoke upon the Altar dies,
The flowers decay,
The Goddess of your sacrifice
Is flown away.
What profit then to sing or slay
The sacrifice from day to day?
that the Vampire is well and truly dead.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story