The US Constitution - A Suicide Pact?

"and your question about energy imports supports my statement in toto." -Dr. B

My question does not in any way support your thesis that if we don't kill islamofascists in Iraq, they will kill us here.
Also, you've stated their is plenty of oil around the US and we didn't go to Iraq for oil related reasons. Which is it?

I do question pulling out of Iraq completely though, which I've stated before, but only in relation to energy security. But somehow you never seem to recall it, and always assume I side with the "socialists" as you call them.

It's far more important to develop new energy infrastructure than to maintain the ME exports. Doing both is preferable. Fighting in Iraq without addressing the reason we are there is absolutely unforgiveable from this administration and all the chickenhawks and corporate interests that voted for this mess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]477021[/snapback]</div>

The UN CREATED ISRAEL. If not for the UN, Israel, as a nation, would not exist.. That's a fact.

The UN can not sanction Palestine, because Palestine is not a nation. However, they have condemned suicide bombings, etc. on numerous occasions. Or is your prejudice and bias preventing you from doing a simple review of history.

Once again, your bloodlust causes you to miss the obvious problem with your so-called "solution". One dead Israeli from a Palestinian? So if a lone madman (say a Timothy McVeigh type unaffiliated with any major organization) carries out such an attack, you engage in mass punishment of a whole populace? That, like torture is barred by the Geneva Conventions. You, as is typical of most conservatives, attempt to paint everything with an absurdly broad brush.

But you are. You just won't admit it. Do you think that Israel hasn't killed innocent Palestinian civilians? Once again, more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel than Israelis by Palestinians. That's a fact.

So, it's your position that you shouldn't learn from the past? Why don't you advocate monitoring of extreme right-wing fanatics like McVeigh? There's thousands of them in this country, any of which could plan and carry out an Oklahoma City style attack. The names I list are examples of the types of people who carry out terrorist attacks. There are many more like them out there.

By your criteria, you can't use Islamic terrorists as an example because the terrorists who have carried out successful attacks are dead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 03:22 PM) [snapback]477031[/snapback]</div>

Iran is at least a decade away from being able to produce a viable nuclear weapon. That is a fact.

It's long past time for people to realize that REGARDLESS of what the US does, Iran will have influence in Iraq. The reason being that the Shia majority in Iraq is philosophically aligned with the Shia controlled government in Iran. Prior to the US invasion, this was not an issue, as the Shia majority did not control Iraq, now, however, thanks to the US occupation, the Iraqi government is predominantly Shia.

This also goes a LONG way to disproving the long bandied about nonsense that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq is backed by Iran. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the region knows that to be untrue because the two factions would never work together. Much like Al Qeada and Iran will never work together, they consider each other heretics.

They don't need to, by putting a Shia government in power in Iraq, the US has done the job for them. Instead of the somewhat delicate balance that existed between polar opposites in the governments of Iraq and Iran, you now have two governments who are sympathetic to each other, a situation which did not exist prior to the US invasion.

Saudi Arabia has the means and will to defend themselves. They would do so without US help or interference. In fact, the Saudi royal family is Wahhabi Sunnis, more closely aligned with the likes of Osama bin Laden than anyone else. Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority, making them an enemy of both Iran and Iraq. Once again, a situation that did not exist prior to the toppling of Saddams regime (he may have been a bastard and an evil one, but created a buffer zone between Iran and Saudi Arabia). To pretend that Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally when the majority of bin Laden's organization is Saudi is to ignore reality.

Spoken like someone who listens more to politicians talking than to people who are actually generating the intelligence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0101453_pf.html

Iran is as close to having a nuclear weapon as Saddam Hussein was. There is no threat from them currently, and the saber rattling in that regard is just that. It's an attempt to get people like you who bought into the lies of WMD's in Iraq to follow the same path into Iran.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, and you haven't been studying your history at all.

Yup, and I've outlined them already if you were to actually read my posts. I wouldn't use the word retreat though, as we're no longer engaged in major combat operations. . . at least according to your beloved Uniter. As I said, phased redeployment. Ending an occupation of a sovereign nation is not retreating.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 11 2007, 05:17 AM) [snapback]476718[/snapback]</div>

You don't remember this?

Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Fin...racking_Program

One liberal blogger who hasn't purged the article he wrote about it:
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/06/28/my-hi...l-surveillance/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 11 2007, 05:52 AM) [snapback]476733[/snapback]</div>

At the heart of our disagreement is that you want to extend all legal protections to illegal terrorist/warriors who have declared that they will sneak in, in civilian clothes, under false pretenses, insinuate themselves in our society, and then at some point kill our innocent civilians. They do not deserve Geneva Convention protections, much less the protections of our civilian courts. They are not civilians. We don't need to capture, try and convict the suicide bomber before he pulls the ripcord ... we need to kill him before he kills dozens of others.

As to becoming the chief operator and procurer of completely ludicrous statements about the left, thank you very much, although I am distressed that my fellow conservatives must be slacking in the intervening weeks since I have been here.

It is not moral to advocate preservation of minor, recent freedoms that will lead to destruction of your society and greater loss of freedom. We should have a rational discussion about our inflated idea of "our rights", especially those that are not enjoyed by Britons, Frenchmen or Germans, or were not enjoyed by our grandfathers.

Is the death of western culture worth knowing your library records are divulged to GW Bush?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 12 2007, 02:31 AM) [snapback]477372[/snapback]</div>

First, your absurd exaggerations prove that you are simply cowering in fear because you've been told to.

Western culture isn't going to die at the hands of terrorists. It may, however, self-destruct as people like yourself become more and more willing to give up the rights and freedoms that make our civilization work.

Nice tactic, first, you believe the tripe that "they hate us for our freedoms," so the best way to win is to destroy those freedoms, then they won't hate us anymore. Good job.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 12 2007, 08:11 AM) [snapback]477432[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but you're wrong. The experts have stated time and time again that they are 10 years away from any true nuclear capability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5080101453.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home
http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_st...textnewsid=1656

In fact, the only source that says three years is "Israel media" according to a Google search.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iran-bomb...1733763563.html

Mohamed ElBaradei, who I trust much more than you (considering he has a much better track record) says ten years.

Your sensationalist rhetoric is the exact mentality that results in the death of thousands of innocent civilians (not to mention US soldiers).

One would hope your knowledge of medicine is greater than your knowledge of global events, intelligence and politics, your patients would be much safer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 12 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]477577[/snapback]</div>

I think I'll take the word of ElBaradei, after all, who was right about Iraq, ElBaradei or the neocon propoganda machine?

ElBaradei said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administration said there were tons and tons of them that could be launched at a moments notice and that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program. . . . all hogwash. ElBaradei has a MUCH better track record than the Docs beloved neocons.

The Doc can present any links he wants to right-wing think-tank sites (yes, that's exactly what globalsecurity.org is), just remember Doc, those are the same sites that said stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq were huge and that they had drone aircraft capable of deploying them, and that the aluminum tubes could only be used for one purpose (a purpose, I might add, for which they were in no way suited due to the anodizing on the tubes), and that those trucks that were used to fill balloons (and which were sold to Iraq by the UK) were mobile weapons labs, the list goes on.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/28/...ain570588.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes_order
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...,973012,00.html

Sorry, I'll take the word of those who have a history of accuracy over those who have a history of lying the nation into war.

 

"if they wanted nuclear generated electricity, why not just by a nuclear power plant from hitachi/ge/siemans, etc ?"
Because your Republicans would never allow said transaction.

"why are they placing some of their facilties underground if they are peaceful in nature?"
Because your Republican said we'd bomb them.

As for NK, why don't you care about them? They must not be Islamic!
Why don't your republicans care? They have no oil industry.

Isreal's nuclear capability came from US help. I don't know about India/Pakistan, because media doesn't talk about it. Again, they have no oil, so we don't seem to care.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 13 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]478056[/snapback]</div>

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that it was only AFTER Bush took office that North Korea quit cooperating with inspectors. Until then, they were being closely monitored. Odd eh?

Why doesn't Iran buy a nuclear plant from elsewhere? You mean like the one North Korea was buying (under an agreement to halt their nuclear weapons program in exchange for help building two light water reactors for electricity) that Bush halted, thus resulting in the shutting down of access to monitoring and inspections and ultimately resulting in the current situation with NK as a nuclear state? There's a very high likelihood that had the original agreement been adhered to, you would still have two light water reactors in North Korea and no nuclear weapons. But that doesn't matter to those who would rather engage in sensationalist rhetoric than truth and logic.

Oh, by the way, Iran WAS purchasing civilian nuclear plant technology from Russia, the US pressured Russia to stop supplying them.

As to India and Pakistan, why does the Bush administration support a nuclear armed Pakistan (one of the only countries who backed and recognized the Taliban governing Afghanistan)? Why does the US continue to sell nuclear technology to India and support Pakistan without questioning their nuclear capability?

As to Israel, they REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE UN. They continue to refuse to confirm or deny their possession of nuclear weapons. Israel has disregarded UN resolutions around 100 times.

Once again, ElBaradei was RIGHT about Iraq. Doc and everyone like him were WRONG. I trust his track record. I do not trust that of Doc and his ilk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 12 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]477531[/snapback]</div>

Ah, there it is, the typical bs about trying to paint anyone who disapproves of the actions of the nation of Israel as being anti-semitic.

Here's a hint for you, just because I don't approve of the actions of Israel doesn't make me anti-semitic. Just because I disapprove of the actions of the ETA doesn't mean I hate Basque people, and just because I disapprove of the actions of Al Qaeda doesn't mean I hate Muslims.

The whole "if you don't support everything Israel does, you must be an anti-semite" argument is a tired, worn out, BS argument, and you know it.

As to whether or not I approve of the UN creating Israel, of course I approve. However, the mere fact that you say the UN is anti-Israel, when, in fact, without the UN, Israel wouldn't exist proves how little attention you pay to reality.

No, I'm not an anti-semite, I just don't think firing a rocket into a civilian population to kill one suspected militant or terrorist is an effective way to demonstrate that firing a rocket into a civilian population to kill people is really the best tactic. Nor do I think running over an unarmed girl with a bulldozer accomplishes anything, nor do I think that shooting an unarmed British rights worker in the head with a sniper rifle is a legitimate use if IDF forces.

Disliking the actions of Iraels government doesn't make one anti-semitic anymore than disliking the actions of the Clinton administration makes you anti-American.

You can quit hurling your BS accusations now, they don't become you and they simply serve to weaken your argument further.

See, you have stated your desire to attack and kill Palestinians. I have stated no such desire (nor have I, as you falsely assert, stated a desire to stand by and let Israelis be killed).

See, you show your contempt for Muslims in almost every post. I have NEVER said anything about the Jewish people. You refer to "islamofascists". I have never used any such slur. Do you even know what the term fascist means? Do you have any idea how moronic that term really is?

You can keep your ill-informed rhetorical accusations. I'll keep mine based in the real world.

I'm not anti-semitic, I'm anti-killing innocent civilians to show people that killing innocent civilians is wrong.

Apparently you, in your anti-Islamic mind, can't quite grasp that simple differentiation. Hell, you imply in the above post that Palestinians are not human. It doesn't get any more biased and hate-filled than that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 12 2007, 05:19 AM) [snapback]477434[/snapback]</div>

No, most of western culture will become Islamic because they have large families, and westerners have small families. Within a few years, the average Italian will have no brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles. Already, today, about 30% of the young men in France are Islamic.

Americans will die of attacks from terrorists if we do not take the appropriate measures. America may escape the Islamification of its culture because we do have a birthrate that replaces ourselves ... 2.1 children per woman ... but Europe does not, and Europe will fall within the next 20 years. Students of history will remember that Europe had a dark age descend on it once before. History is repeating.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 12 2007, 05:19 AM) [snapback]477434[/snapback]</div>

You do understand that is a pro-war quote, don't you? Glad to see you come over to my side.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 14 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]478892[/snapback]</div>

The quote stands on its own merits, and you, by your own admission to do not deserve safety nor freedom.

The whole tired argument that America will turn Muslim is complete and utter hogwash, and anyone with half a brain cell knows that. The same with Europe, complete and utter hogwash. It's the same BS that the KKK began using during the Civil Rights movement saying that black people were going to outbreed white people and destroy Americas so-called White Christian culture.

It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, just replace "black" with "muslim" and you're using the same argument. You could also replace "muslim" with "jew" and find some very similar propoganda in the not too distant past.