<< TONY, DAVE, AND MARIAN ~ MAIN ~ SON DECLINES TO RISE >>
LUNATIC CONSPIRACIES
Pity poor Phillip Adams, target of lunatics:
Lunatic conspiracies are jamming my inbox in the aftermath of London. Blair did it!
Perhaps Phil sent those lunatic emails to himself. Here’s Adams on July 12:
Let’s be clear about it: the people who died in the subway tunnels and on the bus were victims of the Iraq war. They died because of Blair’s London Bridge, the one he built from the Thames to the Euphrates.
Had he not misled his nation into that murderous folly of an invasion, the people would have walked off the trains instead of being carried off on stretchers. Or had their body parts collected in bags.
They died because of Blair. What kind of lunatic would suggest such a thing? Adams continues:
Tourish recalls Pauline Hanson being interviewed about her fears of Asian immigration. When told she was wildly exaggerating the statistics, and shown the data, she simply said “I don’t believe those figures” ...
Which recalls John Pilger’s response to questions about Osama bin Laden citing East Timor as a root cause of terrorism:
We can’t believe that. We can’t believe all these things we’re being told.
Hanson and Pilger. What a sweet couple they’d make; thanks to Adams for making obvious their shared faith in blind denial.
Tony Blair killed them?? Time for the Left to go one step further past blaming inanimate objects like bombs and planes instead of terrorists.
Posted by Hank Reardon on 2005 07 28 at 03:02 PM • permalinkPhillip Adams is just another voice in the massed choir of clowns who appear to have an infantile view of cause and effect - a view that owes little to the actual facts of the case or even to a basic reality check.
Fact is, millions of Brits, reflecting the will of a massive majority, marched to oppose the involvement in Iraq. It therefore follows that if you randomly bomb the transit system in London, you aren’t punishing anyone except people who were opposed to the war from the get-go, and also people who are likely sympathetic to the Iraqi insurgency.
Linking the London bombings to Iraq makes Al Qaeda look criminal, not Blair. The murder of innocent civilians who have no connection whatever with the Iraq war, and likely opposed it, in no way helps to promote the cause of any who are inclined to use the war as justification for random atrocity.
If people like Adams is attempting to score “I told you so” points on the backs of the dead and wounded in London, then he is even more disgusting than the lunatics who attempt to argue that random attacks on innocent civilians can be justified by the events in Iraq.
There is probably more to learn from cult behaviour than the Koran when it comes to getting a clue about suicide bomb
Well Phil that kind of statement will anger your average pious jihadist.
No doubt they will classify you as an another useful idiot, but by denying the power of Islam to inspire Jihad you are insulting the Koran!
The only blame Blair anf his gov. have to bear is the insane policies of extreme multiculturism, which led to terrorists being made welcome in Britain , their constant promises to destroy the infidel having been interpreted by the likes of Red Ken as a healthy expression of cultural differences.
Blair still has to apologise to other countries for the terror acts which have been planned and executed from British soil.First, if Al-Qaeda folks really wanted to
send a message to the British people that Blair’s involvement in Iraq was what
motivated their attack, why didn’t they recruit 4 Iraqis to do it? That would
have nailed the message so well. The perpetrators were 3 Pakistanis and 1
Jamaican. I am sure that finding Iraqis to carry out the attacks wouldn’t have
been impossible. If an Egyptian was willing to murder tourists and fellow
Egyptians in Cairo, and if a hippie from San Francisco was willing to fight
against his own country along with the Taliban, then I suppose finding 4 Iraqis
wouldn’t have been unattainable. Al Qaeda just had to search a little bit hard
within Britain’s Iraqi community that was overwhelmingly in favor of liberating
their country from Saddam’s rule. They also had to recruit a Shia, a Sunni, a
Kurd, and a Christian (how they’ll recruit the Christian, I have no idea) to
represent the nation of Iraq in bombing London!Second, we haven’t heard anything
from Al-Qaeda about the massacres of innocent Iraqis that their fellow “freedom
fighters” are committing every single day.Posted by Torontosteve on 2005 07 28 at 04:44 PM • permalinkBut of course London mayor “Red Ken” blames it all on British interference in the Middle East right after World War One!
So, by that logic, Tony’s excellent Iraq adventure factors not a bit.
Britons were already responsible for 7 July and 21 July - long before any of them were even born!
Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2005 07 28 at 05:03 PM • permalinkSpeaking of being in denial, from yesterday’s London Telegraph:
“The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London “could have been innocent passengers”. Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of the city’s central mosque, called Tony Blair a “liar” and “unreliable witness” and questioned whether CCTV footage issued of the suspected bombers was of the perpetrators. He said that Muslims “all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa’eda”… “I am also sad that unfortunately the impression has been given that Muslims are to be targeted in this war against terror. There seems to be a directive to target Muslims. Why do we not have an open mind about this? “Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands.” …… Asked about the suspects’ DNA being found at the scene of the first attacks, he said: “DNA can match you, but that does not mean you are going to commit a crime. Thousands of youths are passing by and caught on CCTV, so how do you know it is them?”
…. And, in an editorial in The Dawn, the central mosque’s newsletter, Mr Naseem writes: “Where is the evidence that four youths whose pictures were caught on CCTV cameras…were the perpetrators? How did we reject the possibility they were just innocent victims of this terrible happening? They had bought return train tickets.”Ask Philip about this fellow!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/nas28.xmlPosted by arnienelly on 2005 07 28 at 06:42 PM • permalinkToday’s (Fri) Age recycles more nonsense from Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian (p15 features), nothwithstanding that Freedland main point is querying why suicide bombers are OK if they target only Israeli civilians rather than Brits, Ozzies, Americans etc. “More than 100,000 Iraqis are said to have been killed during and since the 2003 invasion,” he writes.
“Said” to have been killed? Now that’s a new low in unsubstantiated assertion. Later, he puts the Americans and Brits in Iraq into the same category as “the Arab Sudanese in Dafur” and “the Russians in Chechnya.” Good one, Guardian/Age.I’ll take the idiotic lefty line that it was all about stealing oil when the fuel price at my local servo is magically halved (instead of climbing like it is at the moment).
Until then, reasons like freedom and democracy sound a lot more convincing…...Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2005 07 28 at 08:34 PM • permalink#15 Precisely. If it was about oil, wouldn’t it have been easier for Bush to get UN sanctions lifted and use the money they would have spent on the war to buy out Iraq’s oil? Imagine how many barrels US$200 billion would get you (at 2003 prices).
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 07 28 at 09:07 PM • permalinkBut but but…
ChimpyMchitlerShrub is a member of the eeeeeeevil right wing white christian rethuglicans so that stuff about freedom and democracy was all just a lielielie ‘cause we ‘progressives’ all know that the neocons are gonna take over the world and use the oil to choke baby seals to death and and and… yeah. Youll see, We progressives know better than you dumb poor stupid redneck fascist billionare white jooooboy cunts. Thats why communism worked, it did, all that bad stuff that was said about the Soviet Union was just right wing zionist propaganda.Orang If your going to come here and make dickhead comments like the one above i will make a few things clear.
1. First we will mock you for being a tryhard pathetic ignorant twit.
2. Then we will use logic and fact to take your regurgitated lefty memo and cram back up your arse. Again. Having travelled backwards through you system it must have an interesting taste by now.
3. Then we will mock you.
Clear?Rebecca, when you join the army you don’t tick a box as to where you’d like to be posted. You go where you are sent. Given your argument and the fact that there are millions who share you point of view re the motives/reasonings for the iraq war, you would expect long cues outside the army recruiting agencies. Check the stats and you’ll see it is not the case.
Rhiko, perhaps Tim should put aup a sign to state that only people who agree with his viewpoints will be allowed to post here. That will make you happy, won’t itGiven your argument and the fact that there are millions who share you point of view re the motives/reasonings for the iraq war, you would expect long cues outside the army recruiting agencies. Check the stats and you’ll see it is not the case.
Check the stats and you’ll see that the troops in the field agree. They’re re-enlisting in droves.
It’s a pity the lies told by the press, along with a strong economy, are discouraging recruits *FROM THE ARMY*. Oddly, the other services, and the Army’s combat ranks, aren’t having recruiting problems. The problem is with the Army’s recruiting for support roles.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 07 28 at 10:01 PM • permalinkWon’t somebody please provide the lefties with a new memesheet already?
That would require them to learn some new words.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 07 28 at 10:04 PM • permalinkalgiga, I base my assumptions on the many, many blogs and comments made by military people after they have arrived in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, you haven’t bothered to seek those out, so I won’t confuse you with the links, but they’re available everywhere for the googling.
As for recruiting and retention, however, here’s a link that might interest you. Or not, since it doesn’t support your contention.
Actually, algiga’s argument (if it can be called that) doesn’t even seem to make sense on a logical level:
1) There are millions of people supporting Bush’s foreign policy.
2) There aren’t millions of people trying to join the military.
3) Hence, the military is not overwhelmingly in favour of Bush’s foreign policy.
Does that strike anybody else as a particularly stupid non sequitur?
Slightly OT, but please read this reader’s letter from today’s The Australian; I’ve copied it to the end of this post.
They always have letters by the usual Leftie morons who think they are the beacon of reason and logic; but this one baffles with its utter imbecility.
Looks like anyone with the IQ of a cane toad has an opinion on the London events these days.
Here it goes:WHY do the British police only gun down innocent civilians, but use taser guns on so-called “terrorists”? Who are the shoot to kill laws really aimed at anyway? Are all non-millionaire citizens of western countries considered to be a potential threat to profit, and a potential threat to production, and therefore terrorists?
Gavin Date
Marleston, SAPosted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 07 28 at 10:15 PM • permalinkDear Orang,
Your assumption that US would want to rule Iraq sends me into howls of laughter .Imagine trying to run Iraq ? C’mon be serious !
The CaptainPosted by The Captain on 2005 07 28 at 10:24 PM • permalinkWhy that crazy Philip Adams… Have a look at this nonsense…
“Some of the terrorists have received military and specialist terrorist training in camps overseas, for example in Afghanistan. Relationships forged in these training camps form the basis of loose networks of terrorists who can operate outside structured organisations. Though they have a range of aspirations and “causes”, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe. Some individuals who support the insurgency are known to have travelled to Iraq in order to fight against coalition forces. In the longer term, it is possible that they may later return to the UK…”
Rhiko, perhaps Tim should put aup a sign to state that only people who agree with his viewpoints will be allowed to post here. That will make you happy, won’t it
No, dissenting viewpoints are fine, please point to where in my post i suggested otherwise. However, a sign saying “Posts regurgitating already thouroughly debunked talking points in a condescending manner aren’t welcome” would be nice. Of course, leftist twits like you cant tell the difference though can you?
So, in the world according to Rhiko and PW there can only be two types of people here. The ones that agree with you, and the lefties. Because obviously, if you don’t agree with whatever Tim posts, you must be a staunch left winger. Interesting.
BTW Rhiko, I’m sorry, you are right. You did not tell orang not to post. I mis read your poetic reply to his/her posting.Honkie,
The appropriately name Mr. Date has popped up before.
I’m amazed that someone so clinically stupid are allowed access to the paper and crayons during Writing TimePosted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2005 07 28 at 11:58 PM • permalink#19 you would expect long cues outside the army recruiting agencies
I’d expect “long cues” to be in billiard halls, but maybe that’s just me.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 07 29 at 12:06 AM • permalinkRhiko: Besides, if they stopped, then they can’t get mocked. ;)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 07 29 at 12:33 AM • permalinkalgae wrote:
So, in the world according to Rhiko and PW there can only be two types of people here.
Nice little false dichotomy.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 07 29 at 12:34 AM • permalinkTo get back to Orang’s clever and perceptive question at #12 ...
Was Iraq invaded “for some kind of noble cause”? Answer: no.
Was Iraq invaded for eeeevil reasons (oil, money, etc.)? Answer: no.Iraq was invaded for the strategic interests of the US - to get rid of an enemy who might have posed a threat in the future, and generally to shake up the stagnant Arab dictatorships.
“Freedom and democracy for Iraqis” was not the cause - but it will hopefully be a by-product. And that’s why I did, and still do, support the invasion. (Despite being on the centre-left, sort of.)
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 07 29 at 12:35 AM • permalinkSo, in the world according to Rhiko and PW there can only be two types of people here. The ones that agree with you, and the lefties.
*Sigh.
Again I ask you, please point to where in my post I have said this.BTW Rhiko, I’m sorry, you are right.
Damn straight Biatch!!!!
And ferchrissakes my name is RhikoR, thats with an R at the beginning and end of the name, with a hiko in between. Once is a mistake, missing it repeatedly starts to look like a deliberate (and juvenile) attempt at disrespect.orang’s “argument” has been nicely torn down, ripped apart, and shat upon. I need only applaud those that did the deed!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 29 at 01:43 AM • permalinkDoes that strike anybody else as a particularly stupid non sequitur?
Very stupid, PW. One need not carry a rifle to support a war. Many people show their support visibly, and directly, to the troops in the field. Through gifts, letters, or a simple handshake in the airport. I speak through personal experience.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 29 at 01:46 AM • permalinkRhikoR, you sound so butch.
But seriously, when George W. landed on that aircraft carrier, there was no doubt in my mind that the mission was indeed “accomplished”. Iraq invaded and fucked up for years to come, in fact will no longer exist as a country.
-No WMD? (sure, it was bad intelligence,....right)
-Democracy? A nice to have, but who really cares?Hey Outang, nominate Middle Eastern countries that have held democratic* elections in the last twelve months and which will have a democratic constitution in force within twelve months.
(Sound of tumbleweeds rolling past in breeze).
*As opposed to show elections put on to impress the western media and the drooling ‘tards at the UN, while masses of voters are either denied their franchise or shot.
orang, if it’s all about the oil for you, go out and buy a horse. Should oil prices fall, you can always have a barbeque for the neighbors.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 29 at 03:21 AM • permalink#43 orang, so you think that Bush went to war to purely boost the share prices of oil companies?
Ordinarily, I’d be the first to offer you a Mark 3 Tinfoil mega-hat (guaranteed to protect you from 99.9% of harmful Repulican thought-controlling rays) for only $149.95 (plus tax) but since you seem new to our planet, here’s how it usually works:
If politicians (of any stripe and nationality) want to pay off a company or industry they will introduce a Bill (let’s call it the Oil Industry Competitiveness Bill) with a preamble that includes phrases like “future competiveness”, “job preservation and creation” and “sustainability” so that everyone who doesn’t support it looks like a mean-minded chump. Typically it will offer subsidies, incentives or grants for going about their core business.
Contrast this approach with undertaking a war. If you don’t get it, what’s your hat size?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 07 29 at 04:22 AM • permalinkBut seriously, when George W. landed on that aircraft carrier, there was no doubt in my mind that the mission was indeed “accomplished”.
The mission accomplished sign was in reference to the crew on the carrier, who were returning home after their mission was accomplished.
Iraq invaded and fucked up for years to come,
Mainly because of shit-fer-brainz arseholes like you who give succour to the enemy
in fact will no longer exist as a country.
-No WMD? (sure, it was bad intelligence,....right)
Of course, it was all the imagination of Bush and co. Right?
The fact is that German, French, Russian and even Iranian intelligence also suggested that Iraq had WMDs.
Senior Democrats also believed that Iraq had WMDs:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Democracy? A nice to have, but who really cares?
...that’s what defines fascists and useful idiots like yourself.
some people here seem to think that war is always based on impeccable logic and a consistent set of goals & aspirations (oil price/promoting democracy, whatever)- war happens because logic has failed, there are conflicting interests, & talking or sanctions will not suffice to break a cycle of bad stuff
in iraq the cycle of bad stuff had just about reached rock bottom & some circuit breaking was essential
sure bad stuff continues to happen in iraq, but some good stuff is emerging - even the sunnis are going oops maybe we should have voted - that can’t be bad
Orang appears to have trite answers to cover everything. If only the world was that simple.
To say the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil is simplistic in the extreme. The entire world via the U.N. was on Hussein’s case and threatening action. He was a REAL ... not a perceived threat. Abu Nidal and other international terrorists had safe house in Baghdad. Ayman al Zarqawri was there long before the Americans invaded, organizing his jihadists.
The whole issue of WMD is fraught with uncertainty. Nobody on the left can say with a certainty that Hussein wasn’t in possession of way more military collateral than was discovered. Even the U.N. teams on the ground reported that large amounts of chemicals and hardware had been removed from sites such as Al-Qaqaa facility outside Baghdad.
Prior to the invasion, Saddam was in debt to the Russians to the tune of some $8 billion for military materials obtained over the years. If much of this stuff had been discovered it would have placed the Russians in a very bad light indeed. The claim by John Shaw and others in the know, that Russian Speznatz units moved this material to Syria and possibly Lebanon’s Bekka Valley has never been disproven. What we do know for a certainty, is that large amounts of military material mysteriously went missing, and was moved prior to the invasion.
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reports that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
An important point here ... RDX and HMX are used to make high explosives and nuclear weapons. The source of this material was almost certainly Russian.
As for this oil issue, it is being over played by those on the left because of their capitalist “raper of the earth” fixation. Iraqi oil is being safeguarded via a U.N. treaty. There is no evidence, nor will there be evidence in the future, of Americans extorting Iraqi oil like brigands. This is absurd. If future Iraqi oil companies work in collusion with the Americans and this works to the advantage of American consumers, then why not? The Americans have paid in blood to help liberate Iraq and it’s economy. I don’t see anything nefarious about the Americans being able to share in any oil boon that might occur in the future, when the country becomes more stable.
There really is a lot of hysteria about Iraq and a great deal of misinformation coming from people on the left. They need to take a pill and step back. They need to realize that over and above issues of oil and WMD, there is the very real issue of millions of muslims being held in chains by theocratic regimes and Ba’athist era dictators. The ideology of a lot of these regimes results in their countries becoming “factories” for the production and exportation of terror. To simply ignore this reality is folly.
When you consider that the left was gung ho to invade Spain and overthrow Franco (who was like a lamb compared to a lot of these rogues in the Middle East), it makes you wonder was has happened to their revolutionary zeal. All they seem to do these days is gripe and whine, and point fingers at the Americans.
As time passes and the West increasingly comes under threat from the menace residing in the the Middle East, left wing intransigence will become less and less acceptable.
if it was all about oil, the Americans should have invaded Venezuela. It’s a lot closer and the food’s a lot better.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 07 29 at 05:00 AM • permalinksorry cal,Fannie Adams is not stupid,he is criminally responsible for what he says.Do not give him the excuse.He has no common sense and the maturity of a ten year old but he is responsible for the damage he inflicts on society and hopefully one day will be held to account for supporting terrorism and undermining Australia.
Well, Y&F, we could have invaded Canada, or Mexico. They have oil as well,and the logistics would have been a lot simpler thanks to the common borders. Not as much oil, but we might have been able to build a true Fortress America, complete with gulags in the Yukon Territory.
Funny, why didn’t Emperor McChimpy Oil BusHitler think of that? Did Karl Rove go on vacation, or sumpin’, during the pre-invasion planning?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 29 at 05:30 AM • permalinkHey Orang, was the turkey plastic or not? (going back to leftie basics 101 here).
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 07 29 at 06:34 AM • permalinkThe Left believed the US liberated Iraq and Kuwait for that matter because of oil, because like good Marxists they think everything is about money.
Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2005 07 29 at 07:00 AM • permalinkI blame Blair for Britain’s lax asylum provisions and the failure to prosecute muslim clerics who have been inciting murder.
After 9/11 Blair woke up to the international threat of terrorism, but he seemed unwilling to tackle the problems posed by the radicalisation of the country’s islamic immigrant and refugee populations. We are reaping the results of that inattention now.
RhikoR, you sound so butch.
And here I was hoping someone would re-affirm my sense of masculinity. *Flexes*
Iraq invaded and fucked up for years to come, in fact will no longer exist as a country
So what will it exist as then? A brothel in downtown Tokyo?
-No WMD? (sure, it was bad intelligence,....right)
I assume you are inferring that they knew about the lack of WMD’s in Iraq prior to the war and it was all just a lielielie. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us with some evidence demonstrating that they knew there were no WMD’s, and why that evidence (if any) should out-weigh all the evidence that showed there were WMD’s there.
I eagerly await your response.Democracy? A nice to have, but who really cares?
I’ll take a wild stab in the dark on this one and say the perhaps the Iraqi people do? What with their having voted in large numbers and the purple fingers and all.
As murph said pretty much shows you to be a Fascist fool, and a useful idiot for the Jihadi’sThe idea that the US invaded Iraq to boost the share price of a few oil companies strikes me as fine for a satirical movie script but laughingly inadequate as an analysis in the real world.
I think oil really only figures in the picture to the extent that, if the Middle East didn’t have oil no-one would give two hoots about what went on there (like much of Africa). The West does want to see some measure of stability in the middle east because of the importance of oil supplies but this constant harping that the US just wants to steal it by force - god! As other posters have pointed out, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper just to buy it.
Well, Y&F, we could have invaded Canada, or Mexico. They have oil as well,and the logistics would have been a lot simpler thanks to the common borders. Not as much oil, but we might have been able to build a true Fortress America, complete with gulags in the Yukon Territory.
JeffS - mmmmm, gulags.
If you invaded Canada, what would you do with the French Quebecois?
Yeah, I know it’s a cheap jab at the French, but the Mexicans get picked on enough already.
“Why is Texas so big? Because we wanted it that way. The Mexicans sure as hell remember the Alamo when they’re mowing our lawn.”
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 07 29 at 08:29 AM • permalinkThe Left believed the US liberated Iraq and Kuwait for that matter because of oil, because like good Marxists they think everything is about money.
As for Venezuela, it is a very real problem, with Chavez running amok with his oil money undermining the great progress of freedom in the region.
Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 07/29 at 09:00 PM
Andrew, forget about sounding all tough and right wing . . . . as long as you’re a wannabe ALP apparatchik (however the fuck it’s spelt), you’re Just Not Right.
Some dude over at your site says he told the boys at Port Phillip Prison that you hate Maoris. And they’re waiting for you.
Yeah, I checked out your site . . . still can’t work out what awards you won. Certainly no mention of any on the site itself.
Go home now . . . the adults want to talk.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 07 29 at 08:36 AM • permalinkRhikoR, i apologise again to you, this time for leaving out the R. Can you pls explain something to me. The 9/11 bombers were Saudis; there was and is much more evidence showing Saudi’s connection with OBL & co that there ever was for Saddam, whose power and prestige was on the wane after his Kuwait debacle. I agree wholeheratedly with all the arguments abt his being a tyrant, psychopath etc But there certainly isn’t a shortage of them around the world. So, why was Iraq singled out? Islamic fundementalism was and is more of a problem in Saudi, Saddam was never seen as a role model by muslims so he certainly couldn’t have rallied the extremists like OBL & co did. The argument of bringing democracy to Iraq doesn’t hold much water to me. Do you honestly still believe in the domino theory? Will countries in the middle east look at what’s happening in Iraq and say, “Ehi, that looks great. I want to be part of that?” (And please, PW and others,if you reply to this don’t go off on the usual anti left wing tirade. Save your time and use it to give me some links for reading material on the above points)
So, why was Iraq singled out?
Because Iraq was openly supporting terrorism, engaged in mass murder, and had repeatedly ignored UN resolutions to disarm, and comply with inspections to confirm they were disarmed. Among other issues.
Where the hell have you been all these years? In a gulag?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 29 at 08:59 AM • permalinkMy modesty prevents boasting, Young and Free seems full of energy today, did you get one of your public sector Rostered Day Offs? Btw, still waiting for that email that shows you work for that Big Six accounting firm and not the Centrelink at Sunshine. Either way, glad to hear that Peter Katsambanis has found gainful employment after leaving the suckling teat of his Parliamentary salary, I thought he’d do better but I was always a fan.
Do you just post from home or are you allowed to post from the Centrelink office as well. Just wondering.
Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2005 07 29 at 09:01 AM • permalinkModesty once extinguished knows not how to return. This was perhaps the lesson Peter Katsambanis failed to learn. Is he seeking preselection again?
Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2005 07 29 at 09:25 AM • permalinkRhikoR, i apologise again to you, this time for leaving out the R.
Apology unecessary, and it sounds a tad patronising to me.
Can you pls explain something to me. The 9/11 bombers were Saudis; there was and is much more evidence showing Saudi’s connection with OBL & co that there ever was for Saddam
Do the Saudi’s have a history of using chemical weapons on civilians? Saddam did. He refused to provide evidence that he had gotten rid of them, and while there is still much conjecture over where his stockpiles went (Syria courtesy of Spetsnaz etc), the gamble of hoping none would fall into hands of Al Qaeda who would then use them in another 11/9 (screw you american date people! bloody month/day/year my arse) or equivalent wasnt worth taking.
The argument of bringing democracy to Iraq doesn’t hold much water to me.
Why not? Dont those brownies deserve such western infidel concepts like accountable governance, individual rights, free markets etc? And dont say why arent they doing anything about the Norks, mugabe etc. US military resources are already stretched in Iraq and Afganistan, they currently wouldnt be able to open another front on any significant scale. Remember also that war in Iraq only came after 12 years of Saddam giving the finger to the rest of the world, firing at US forces every day and attempting to Assasinate a Former President. Saddam was also more likely to have links to terrorists than the Norks.
Do you honestly still believe in the domino theory?
I’ll reserve judgement on that when I see what developes over the next 10 to 15 years. It has potential.
So, why was Iraq singled out?
I’d say, because we could. There were (and are) a bunch of vicious West-hating dictatorships in the Middle east. They all support terrorism in one way or another, murder their own people, and have interest in WMD.
So why Iraq? Iraq was seen as the one with the weakest military, the most isolated diplomatically, hated by his neighbours, and with a population ready to greet Americans with rose petals. (The first three proved correct; shame about the latter.)
Taking Saddam out, in addition to being worthwhile for its own sake, would send a clear message to the other dictators and eventually help foster democracy through the region.
But that’s just my guess about why Iraq. Truth is, no one - outside of the inner circle of Bushies - knows for sure.
http://www.slate.com/id/2099279/Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 07 29 at 09:38 AM • permalinkscowler: As for this oil issue, it is being over played by those on the left because of their capitalist raper of the earth fixation.
Speaking of the ‘raper of the earth’ fixation, another hypocrisy from the left is their chucking of the Iraq marshes down the memory hole. The green lefties, at least, should be damning Saddam and praising President Bush to the skies for that.
Lionel: Iraq was seen as the one with the weakest military, the most isolated diplomatically, hated by his neighbours, and with a population ready to greet Americans with rose petals. (The first three proved correct; shame about the latter.)
First, though you leave out the big supporting-terror reason which others have already mentioned, you at least acknowledge some of the others, which is to your credit. I’m afraid you can now expect a death fatwa from the Bush-is-always-wrong sector of the left, but kudos anyway. That said, on to your exception. The primary reason we weren’t greeted with rose petals is roses take a fair amount of water to bloom vigorously, and the only people able to afford that much were Ba’athists. I’m not being entirely facetious here, either. We were initially welcomed by most in Iraq, and still are. The terrorist insurgency and those who support it is a very small segment of the population, and growing smaller with each child they murder. That’s not the picture the MSM paints, of course, but it’s long been clear their loyalties and sympathies lie with Anybody But Bush, no matter how barbaric.
Oooooo! Strawman bayoneting! Can I play?
#15, #16, since when was it ever about oil ..for you?
BP, Shell, Exxon, Aramco, etc. think the oil price is just fine where it is. In fact it could go up to, oh, $75/bl without too much whining from the great unwashed.Funny, what I was hearing before the war was that we were doing it to get cheap oil for our gas-guzzling SUV’s. Then the war comes, gas prices go up, and the same people say, “See, told ya, it was all for expensive oil.” Shameless, that.
The 9/11 bombers were Saudis; there was and is much more evidence showing Saudi’s connection with OBL & co that there ever was for Saddam, whose power and prestige was on the wane after his Kuwait debacle… So, why was Iraq singled out? Islamic fundementalism was and is more of a problem in Saudi, Saddam was never seen as a role model by muslims so he certainly couldn’t have rallied the extremists like OBL & co did.
Had we invaded Saudi Arabia, the “It’s all about the OOOIIILLLL!” boobs would have been ten times more strident, and right now you would be asking, “Why did we invade Saudi Arabia just because some of their private citizens were terrorists? Saddam supports terrorists with money and intelligence, he’s a proven aggressor, he’s used WMDs, and he’s in clear violation of the ‘91 cease-fire.”
Sprinkle in some “We’re getting Al-Qaeda more recruits because we’ve invaded the holiest Muslim land!” for flavor.
Well, so far, all I’ve seen from algiga and orang are the same tired old arguments against the war, which have been repeatedly shot down. It’s almost as if they hear but can’t understand.
Why not the Saudis? Because they are the religious center of the entire Muslim world, and to attack them would instantly turn the entire enterprise into the dreaded “War Against Islam”. We are desperately trying not to do that. And we had no legal rationale for war against the Saudis anyway. As a nation, they had not declared war on their neighbors time after time (as Saddam Hussein did). They were not stockpiling WMDs, or even threatening to do so. Holding some of their citizens accountable for criminal acts (such as flying planes into our buildings, or funding those acts) is not the same as holding their government accountable when it has never explicitly stated such aims.
Even so, I take your point about the Saudis, and my feeling is that we will get around to them sooner or later. Only we will do it by surrounding them with democratically elected Arab governments, and subverting their feudalistic society with fresh, new ideas. No war needed.
In the 90’s the Sauds had all of their wells wired to destroy because of Saddam’s demonstrated regional ambitions. Saddam’s removal was central to maintaining the stability of the entire region and it’s evil oil production which the lefties feel so much self-loathing and guilt for consuming.
Another oft unstated component of “The Coalition’s” (i.e. Western nations with balls to go along with their brains) doing of Iraq was to cleave the Syrian-Iranian axis by taking out a California sized chunk of their main supply route to their [mutual] terrorist puppet - Hizbulla.
LMSM monitoring Hizbullshites have been apparently misinformed enough to think that the American Elephants had forgotten their organic role in the murder of over 200 U.S. Marines on a peacekeeping mission.
Elephants have a reputation for memory that Jackasses deservedly lack.
Saddam’s mass-murdering regime was the linchpin in the ME’s regional supply chain of state-sponsored terrorism and it’s heartening to see that the Bush Administration has further refined its public definition of “the enemy” to include the ideological base of Islamofascism rather than just Bin Laden’s ad hoc ‘Base’ Al Qaeda.
Whilst the Left wanks off in all its righteous indignation to decry the fact that Coalition soldiers are in direct contact with Islam’s terrorist element in Iraq, they fail to see the calculated advantages of ‘attracting’ exactly the type of motivated idiots who would be inclined to take up arms to kill kufr in the name of Allah (piss be upon their version of him).
The Coalition’s volunteer soldiers know this flypaper strategy is one of the central components of the grand strategy to destroy Islam’s fascists. Unfortunately the PC planet’s ‘nuanced’ crowd of utopian patchouli’ite unrealnik fools just can’t seem to wrap their protected [outsourced] heads around the fact that for a relatively small cost in blood and treasure, the enemy is undermining its own legitimacy on their own turf everyday by blowing up muslim men, women, and children. Furthermore, Chimpy McBushitler’s crusading stormtroopers of doom are facilitating the willful self-attrition of Islamis terrorist ranks through suicide. Those Jihadis that survive their own murderous self-destruction are getting waxed in great numbers by Coalition troops working hand in hand with growing numbers of free Iraq’s counterterrorism forces.
Another positive consequence -the left can’t see as positive- of the Iraq conflict against Islam’s fascists, is that we get to see leftarded leaders use their own media organs to loudly broadcast and document their shrill rhetoric and moronic conspiracies for all the free world to see…And Judge accordingly.
Personally, I’m loving it.
Have a great weekend all.Maybe I’m getting more bloodthirsty with age, but I’m all for introducing the islamists to a glass desert.
Force is the only thing they respect. Why not give it to them by the bucketload? They have no respect for anyone with a different viewpoint, so why should we honour theirs? We have been appeasing them with our multicultural policies for years.
They are not interested in our goodwill - only our subjugation.
If you want to get all biblical or lefty on me, and talk about doing unto others and pulling in your own bad karma, then look at it from another direction.
We’ve been treating them as we would like to be treated. With dignity, compassion, respect - even to the detriment of our societies - and what have we got back? Ignorance, bile and the bombing of innocent people. I don’t care what a person’s so-called religion is. I care when that belief system decides that they are the only ones with the right to exist.
Then they become a threat to me and mine, and that I will not tolerate.
These days, the only cheeks I’m inclined to turn are the ones in my jeans.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 07 29 at 06:45 PM • permalink#73, orang, I understand you meant to be snarky, as is your way. You may think that clever, but it’s merely the avoidance of coming up with an adequate rebuttal. Nevertheless, I should have said no war needed against the Saudis, as the necessary war will already have been fought.
It isn’t brilliance, it’s simple common sense. Which is why it escapes you.
The irony of the “war for democracy” in Iraq is that it could be paving the way for future problems. In southern iraq, where the shiites are in full control, they seem to be introducing a strict islamic regime. The proposed constitution has clauses stating that shari’ia law is to overrule any other legislation, and whichever ayatollah is head of the shiites has the ultimate say in decision making. Which, if adopted, means that everything is in order for another fundemantalist state to emerge. Let’s not forget what the current interim iraqi pm stated on his recent visit to iran, that the ayatollah khomeini was the first true leader of the region. I am convinced that the iranians are watching all that is happening in iraq and are rubbing their hands in glee.
Ah, the “Arabs aren’t ready for democracy” claim.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised: the Left thinks the USA isn’t ready for democracy since President Bush got re-elected… Darn that Jesusland!
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 07 29 at 10:35 PM • permalink#83 if your comment is a conclusion from my posting before yours, it is not what i’m saying. I’m saying that from how things look like at the moment, it would be ironic if Iraqis were to use democracy as a mean to head in a very different direction to what the west anticipated. There aren’t any islamic, democratic examples in the Middle East as yet, and though some countries have taken some very small steps towards freer elections, I feel it’s too early to say whether such steps are token gestures or genuine reforms.
Ah. The problem with democracy is, well, it’s democratic. The dumbbastards can do about anything they can get the votes for. Imagine that. If only, if only there was some system whereby only the *right* people (and the right-thinking people) could run things. You know, People Like Us, Comrade. Why, oh why can’t we just, well, force the dumbbastards to do the right thing? But how can we convince the dumbbastards to let Us Comrades run things? Oh, yeah. Work them up over nothing. Point out largely non-existent class-based problems. Convince them that we’re trying to help them. Get them to change the system so we can ‘help’ them. Grab power, and then screw the dumbbastards. It’s worked before.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 07 30 at 01:23 AM • permalinkRecent democratic elections:
John Howard wins re-election, left complains that 55% of Australia are rednecks.
President Bush wins re-election, majority of Americans are declared stupid for voting for him.
Now algiga acts pre-emptively: “Omigawd, we might not get what we want in Iraq using the democratic process! Democracy doesn’t work!!”
What is it with the left and this attitude that democracy only works when the left gets what they want, algiga? Are you guys so insecure that you are closet control freaks?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 30 at 02:03 AM • permalinkSo… algiga isn’t trying to say the Arabs aren’t ready for democracy, just that they’re going to hopelessly screw it all up.
I suppose there’s a difference, but not very much.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 07 30 at 02:28 AM • permalinkI think that algiga’s merely trying to be polite. What is obvious in this case is that given the choice, most of the Shia dominated Iraqis would vote for laws which would give women less freedom than under the previous regime. This is not exactly what the punters had in mind when you told them about a democratic Iraq. Some other little tid-bits of recent history make Timboworld’s apparent ga-ga ness over the Iraq invasion and resultant “DEMOCRACY” a little bit suspect. For one thing it wasn’t until Sistani insisted that elections be held that the coalition eventually relented. Up until then it was typical white man’s burden schtick - you’re not ready yet…Now you’re all claiming it was a vision by the Chimpster - pull the other one , it’s got bells on. One endowed with greater brilliance - Andrew Landeryou, has a web site which proposes that Chavez of Venezuela has got to go. I mean this dude is so bad, he’s “repressing liberties”.....He was voted in democratically ...SEVERAL TIMES!! Aristide - Haiti same shit!! Allende-Chile same shit. This has nothing to do with liberties/democracy/wank wank, yada yada…What was the 1st thing viceroy Bremmer did when landing in Iraq?... ????? Privatised everything…Mission accomplished.
Regarding democracy:
Now you’re all claiming it was a vision by the Chimpster - pull the other one , it’s got bells on.
Really? Odd, I recall establishing a democratic government as one of the reasons for going in. At least in the discussions I was in or following.
You might want to look at some other little tid-bits of history yourself.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 07 30 at 05:17 AM • permalinkI think that algiga’s merely trying to be polite.
No, I think he is being condescending.
What is obvious in this case is that given the choice, most of the Shia dominated Iraqis would vote for laws which would give women less freedom than under the previous regime.
Granted, some drafts of the new Iraqi constitution aren’t encouraging. There was the version that restricted Iraqi citizen to Arabs only, and excluded Israelis. But those were changed. The Constitution isn’t finished yet, and it’s being prepared by people who have limited experience in democratic (i.e., cooperative) governments. Baby steps, people. Baby steps. People learn best from mistakes….if you let them make them.
I recall whinging from the left that McChimpy was going to set up a clone of the US Constitution. That would be stupid, because we are discussing a different culture here. What works in the west won’t necessarily work in Iraq.
This is not exactly what the punters had in mind when you told them about a democratic Iraq. Some other little tid-bits of recent history make Timboworld’s apparent ga-ga ness over the Iraq invasion and resultant “DEMOCRACY” a little bit suspect.
Secular governments in the Arab world are the exception, not the rule. Whether anyone likes it or not, religion is mixed with government here. Since Iraq is largely Shi’a, it’s entirely possible that the Shi’s majority will vote in Shi’a oriented laws….much like the Christian dominated population of North America did until the mid-20th century. It’s hardly a surprise, I’ve been reading about this since March 2003. Your, ahem, “outrage” seems rather feigned.
For one thing it wasn’t until Sistani insisted that elections be held that the coalition eventually relented. Up until then it was typical white man’s burden schtick - you’re not ready yet…Now you’re all claiming it was a vision by the Chimpster - pull the other one , it’s got bells on.
Funny, we did the elections anyway, in spite of Sistani being the Coalitions “white man’s burden”. Must have been a real “O, please doan beat me, Massa!” moment.
Oh, and the Coalition pushed the Iraqis towards independence before Sistani complained. You might recall that the provisional Iraqi government (the one that Sistani headed) was formed in June 2004. The elections were in January 2005. In fact, the disagreement was on the scheduling of the elections, not holding the elections.
Yup, Sistani was a real “white man’s burden”, he was.
[BTW, thanks for the racial slam—are you always this polite?]
One endowed with greater brilliance - Andrew Landeryou, has a web site which proposes that Chavez of Venezuela has got to go.
Concluding that Chavez has got to go is a mixture of differences in philosophy, values, outrage, and unilateralism. Chavez is nothing more than a despot hiding behind socialism, like his buddy Fidel. This is hardly “brilliance”, let alone “greater brilliance”. BTW, are you advocating that the US invade Venezuela? If so, stop complaining about Iraq, ‘cuz your hypocrisy is biting you in the butt.
I mean this dude is so bad, he’s “repressing liberties”.....He was voted in democratically ...SEVERAL TIMES!! Aristide - Haiti same shit!! Allende-Chile same shit. This has nothing to do with liberties/democracy/wank wank, yada yada…What was the 1st thing viceroy Bremmer did when landing in Iraq?... ????? Privatised everything…Mission accomplished.
Clearly you read no history. Hitler was elected into power, and he was bad. So was Mussolini. Aristide, Chavez, Allende, Peron, etc, etc, all were elected, and then ruthlessly seized power. They destroy the democratic systems in their nations.
None of which proves your point that democracy won’t work in Iraq. At least, that democracy won’t work in the fashion that you think that it should.
NEWS BULLETIN!!
Democracy does work. It just doesn’t work very well. People can and will corrupt it, people being the weak link in the chain that binds democracy together.
Democracy ain’t perfect, but it’s about 8,000% better than any other system that I’ve seen or read about.
That is, if you are willing to let human beings decide for themselves what is best, and are prepared to work towards that end, and accept the possibility that your vision isn’t their vision.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 30 at 06:07 AM • permalinkWell The_Real_Jeffs, thanks for the sermon. First of all, I am NOT from the left. On many issues I am sure you are miles to my left. Secondly, tell me where did I state that democracy is bad? I was making the same point you are in #92, that we don’t know where the democratic process will take Iraq. I never stated it should not be introduced. The difference btw the people you mention and Uraq is that they came to power in existing democracies and then dismentled it. In Iraq thousands of people are dying in order to establish a democracy which may not last. And yes, I agree that this is a chance we need to take. However the doubt remains. Tell me in all sincerity, if this were to happen, would you feel that the current fighting and our participation had been worthwhile or would you feel like saying why did we bother?
Looking back, yeah, algiga, I over reacted. My apologies. But I’m a trifled irritated at people second guessing what’s happening in Iraq, or exaggerating themselves (not you), and we really won’t know how this works out for years. Ironic projections fall into that category.
As for the doubt…..don’t live for the doubt. Doubt can be a means to gage your progress (or lack thereof). Doubt should not be an anchor tied to your ankle.
I’ve never doubted the objectives….it is simply that our path itself is mostly unknown. We will stumble. Count on it.
And in all sincerity…..I’m currently stationed in Kuwait. I’d be more pissed if we walked away with the job half done, or if we never tried in the first place.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 30 at 06:50 AM • permalinkImagine having online chats during the Blitz? There would still be the same arguments. The same type of apologists. The same defence of the moral high ground.
The same vacuous assertions that if the Allies would ignore the desecration of western Europe, the attacks would stop. The same type of supporters of fascism that don’t actually live under the rules they support.I wonder if it’s going to take a nuke or two in this case to clear the point up.
Alas, orang, I can’t. At least not for now. Perhaps if the MWR visits are opened up again, and al Ahmadi is on the list.
But there have been a couple catered events on post; I thought the goat was most interesting. And I enjoyed the chickpea spread!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 30 at 08:13 AM • permalinkGranted, some drafts of the new Iraqi constitution aren’t encouraging.
Hey, our Constitution called black people 3/5ths human for how many years?
I recall whinging from the left that McChimpy was going to set up a clone of the US Constitution. That would be stupid, because we are discussing a different culture here. What works in the west won’t necessarily work in Iraq.
I disagree. The Constitution, I believe, has universal common-sense principles. And don’t forget, it was drafted to govern a fractious set of competing groups, like Iraq today.
The US Constitution, one of the longest-lived systems of gov’t, has proven itself, and anybody drafting their own nation’s constitution would be stupid not to use it as a template.
“McChimpy” “Chimpster”
Yawn. One would think that someone who called himself “orang” would be a little more circumspect, but I guess irony—real irony—really is dead.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 07 30 at 07:41 PM • permalinkHey, our Constitution called black people 3/5ths human for how many years?
*sigh*
No, it counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person when totaling a state’s population to determine how many Representatives it could send to Congress. BTW, the ones who wanted them counted as a whole person were the slave owners. Care to guess why?
(Sorry, you hit a major peeve of mine. Go read the part of the Constitution that covers it. Article 1, Section 2. Does it mention black people? Nope.)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 07 30 at 11:17 PM • permalink“Hey, our Constitution called black people 3/5ths human for how many years?”
*sigh*
No, it counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person when totaling a state’s population to determine how many Representatives it could send to Congress.
Fair enough, my language was imprecise, but what percentage of slaves were black? And what percentage of blacks were free? Technically, you’re correct. Practically, there’s little difference.
My point is that the shortcomings of our own nascent republic were on display in 1787, so the Iraqis should be cut some slack.
Agreed, Dave, the US Constitution has common sense principles. But please note that I used the word “clone”. In other words, the moonbats were afraid that their archnemesis McChimpy BusHitler would be forcing the Iraqis to sign a photocopy of that great document.
Which would not work because the circumstances in Iraq now are different than what the Founding Fathers faced in the fledging nation of America in 1787. A little aspect of reality that our many boisterous friends on the left (including, it appears, orang) appear to be ignoring.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 31 at 03:51 AM • permalinkMy point is that the shortcomings of our own nascent republic were on display in 1787, so the Iraqis should be cut some slack.
Exactly. It took almost 200 years to correct problems that we inherited from the Founding Fathers (slavery, universal suffrage, etc). Hell, we still have our constitutional problems.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 31 at 03:54 AM • permalinkThe three-fifths clause is in the fourth paragraph of Article I, section 2. It doesn’t say “slaves are three-fifths human,” by the way.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 07 31 at 07:42 AM • permalinkWhere the hell have you been all these years? In a gulag?
He was probably beta-testing Gitmo…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 31 at 11:13 AM • permalinkAndrea: No, it doesn’t say that exactly. In fact (as I stated before) it’s for determining the number of representatives sent to Congress via population totals. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person in those totals. That’s it. (Plus if you think about it, slavery doesn’t exactly treat slaves as humans at all, much less 3/5ths of one: just as property or maybe intelligent draft animals.)
Slaves should not have been counted at all in this instance. The states with high slave populations were trying to get more Representatives in the House. Which is why I get irritated when people get all teary-eyed at the “3/5ths human” claim. They think they’re being all socially-conscious, but all they’re doing is reiterating a PRO-slavery position, since the slave owners were the ones who wanted their slaves counted as whole people. The 3/5ths clause is a result of a lot of political horse trading during the constitutional convention.
Hopefully (in a probably vain attempt to stray back onto topic) the Iraqis won’t make quite as many mistakes. Or at least have an amendment process to correct them.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 08 01 at 07:22 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Must be tough when the voices in your head start sending you e:mails.