Sunday, July 3, 2011
Negotiating Shit WITH Shit
Sometimes, folks, you can hate a little TOO MUCH. Take, for instance, my colleague, wd. He hates George W. Bush so much that he is willing to criticize him forrrrrrrrr (drum-roll, please) NOT NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN!! Yeah, that's right, folks, the Taliban, one of the nastiest and most repressive regimes on the planet; a regime that treats women like chattel, a regime that frigging stones people to death, a regime that blows up ancient statues of the Buddha, a regime that makes being a Christian or Jew a criminal offense. And get this, not only does he think that President Bush should have negotiated with them, he also thinks that we should have caved in and provided these lunatics with "evidence" of Mr. bin Laden's guilt; evidence, folks, that no doubt contained important operational information on al Qaeda, information that the Taliban could have easily given back to, HELLO, al Qaeda! I'm sorry, but this is absolute insanity..............................................................................................Oh, and, yes, it gets even better. wd also criticizes Mr. Bush for not being willing to hand Mr. bin Laden over to something called the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an organization that included at the time such stalwarts of justice and democracy as Iraq (Saddam Hussein's Iraq), Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Lybia, Iran, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia (the country where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from). Those, folks, were the people that wd thinks should meted out OUR justice after 9/11.......................................................................................................Look, folks, I have criticized Mr. Bush on a whole host of foreign policy and security issues; from his not being able to prevent 9/11 to Iraq to not being able to get Mr. bin Laden. But to criticize him over stuff like this is absolutely outrageous and, yes, hopefully Mr. wd will duly reconsider here. I mean, really, what in the hell can he accuse him of next, framing O.J.?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
You have cause and effect mixed up. I hate bush because he needlessly took us to war. I don't hate him and BECAUSE OF THAT am criticizing him for not negotiating with the Taliban.
What's insane is you being OK with tens of thousand of people needlessly being killed. For no reason. Did we capture bin Laden? The bush administration let him go!
And you're wrong about this "operational information" that you incorrectly think I'm saying we should have turned over to the Taliban and then they would have given to al Qaeda. That's baloney.
News flash Will, we are negotiating with the Taliban. I guess these negotiations were only OK AFTER all the needless deaths.
I am NOT going to "duly reconsider".
BTW, if anyone is interested the post I wrote on the topic can be read here. But I'm sure Will's regular readers won't bother to read my post and get my point of view (the full length version) before criticizing me here.
O.J. Simpson has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion, and you bringing up that name in this discussion shows how very little you know about what happened before we illegally went to war in Afghanistan.
BTW, I'm not an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy. I don't have a master's degree in international politics.
That would be Gareth Porter. He's the one who said the things you're disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with him.
God bless America, lets leave the shit alone for a while and have a beer.
First comment deleted. 2nd is here, yeah Beach.
Sometime shit is in small letters.
Have a Great Independence Day all!
I;m with you Beach Bum.
A toast to Beach Bum...*clink*
No replies Will. Looks like you failed in your desire to stir up outrage against me.
Maybe nobody wanted to offend Will by disagreeing with him?
Perhaps everyone else but Will realizes how WRONG it was to illegally invade a country and kill tens of thousands of it's inhabitants to NOT catch one person?
Maybe WD, reasonable folks recognize the need to give it a rest once in a while...why dont you celebrate at a BBQ with friends and family...
We have always negotiated with our enemies. He should have let them turn over bin Laden. If it didn't work out to our satisfaction, then fine, bomb the shit out of them. The possibility of saving thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and removing a terrorist mastermind is well worth the extra time and effort.
Happy 4th of July, everybody.
I don't even know where to start with you, wd. First of all, you shamelessly and blatantly mischaracterized my position. a) I said that I would have been out of Afghanistan by early 2003! b) I have made it abundantly clear that I oppose ALL forms of nation-building/counterinsurgency. And c) I have said at least on several occasions that I DO blame Bush for letting Mr. bin Laben escape (he sent the locals in to get him instead of our significantly better trained forces)............Secondly, most of those civilian deaths that you talk about happened AFTER the initial onslaught on al Qaeda. And since I was in favor of getting out after that routing (with or without bin Laden), you can definitely go fuck yourself on that one.............Thirdly, it wasn't JUST ONE PERSON that we were after. We were out to annihilate as much of the al Qaeda network as we could. That entailed blowing up their training camps in Afghanistan and killing off as many of them as we could (once we allowed bin Laden to escape, a small force have been left behind for counter-terrorism missions and for getting bin Laden - the vast majority of the troops, though, could have clearly been removed).
Fourthly, you are so filled with blind/angry partisan hatred that you're criticizing Mr. Bush for not doing something that NO OTHER politician in his place would have ever done, either. Bill Clinton wouldn't have accepted that "deal". Barack Obama wouldn't have accepted that "deal". Even Barney frigging Frank wouldn't have accepted that "deal".............Oh, and, just for the record, PL 107-40 (the joint resolution for use of force in Afghanistan 9/14/2001) passed 98-0 on the Senate (its sponsor was Tom Daschle, btw) and 420-1 in the House (I think that the one "no" vote was cast by your hero, - your hero's a politician, I still can't get over that -, Bernie Sanders LOL). And a similar measure also passed the U.N. quite easily. Yes, Mr. Bush totally screwed up (in Afghanistan AND in Iraq). But to say that our initial military action against the al Qaeda network was unnecessary is something that I've only heard a couple of paranoiacs utter before; Rosie O'Donnell, people like that.
And HOW do you give the Taliban "evidence" that Mr. bin Laden was involved in al Qaeda WITHOUT disclosing sensitive information about that organization? Think, for crying out loud. And what if the Taliban didn't like our evidence? Then what, wd?............And as far as our turning over Mr. bin Laden to an organization that had, amongst its charting members, countries such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria, the American people would have NEVER gone for such a thing. I know that I surely wouldn't have.
I'm sorry, Will, but we would have a much better country and a much better run government if we had many more people in it like Bernie Sanders.
Will: Bernie Sanders voted as if bin Laden had slipped him a check. We need less of that, not more.
Bernie Sanders? A much better country as well as government.
Jerry, how so?
Negotiating with the Taliban is in effect negotiating with pure evil.
And what pray tell will that have accomplish?
It certainly wouldn't have miraculously make them less evil, more tolerant, or display greater rational thought.
We WERE justified in going into Afghanistan in 2001. Bush SHOULD have got Bin laden, and he should have cut his balls off. Then left the taliban to rot in their hell holes.
RN said: "Negotiating with the Taliban is in effect negotiating with pure evil."
It's like negotiating with Iran. How do you compromise with those slavering mad-dogs who want to wipe out 5.5 million Jewish Israelis?
Meet them halfway and let them wipe out 2.75 million of them?
95-99% of the American people would probably agree with what you just said, dmarks/RN. We just don't happen to make as much noise as that 1-5%.
And W-Dervish has no idea what he is talking about when he says that the retaliation was "illegal".
He bases his opinion on that of someone who is pretty much at his same level: a partisan advocate of issues. But one who is prominent in a special interest pressure group that is misleadingly labelled to appear to be a proper legal professional organization.
... a source whose opinions are so laughable that actual legal authorities and courts consider them below contempt.
I believe that Security Council Resolution 1363 (passed unanimously) is probably sufficient enough to dispute any of wd's claims here.
OJ Simpson has as much to do with this conversation as much as fighting back against the Afghanistan government was "illegal".
Will: I believe that Security Council Resolution 1363 (passed unanimously) is probably sufficient enough to dispute any of wd's claims here.
I don't believe it is. The resolution has to do with sanctions, not bush's illegal invasion.
The UN did not authorize the invasion. In a 2002 article professor of international law Francis Boyle said, "[The Afghanistan war was not] approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law".
Will: 95-99% of the American people would probably agree with what you just said, dmarks/RN
This is a guess/number you made up. In regards to the legality or justness of the invasion: I think most people are so mis/uninformed as to what actually happened that their opinions on this matter aren't relevant.
In regards to the Taliban being "pure evil"... that is laughable. I don't believe human beings are capable of being "pure evil". I strongly disapprove of their subjection of women, but AS YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING, changing that wasn't a part of our mission.
In any case, WTF is an Objectivist doing judging "pure evil"? Ayn Rand's Objectivism promots it as a virtue!
dmarks: a source whose opinions are so laughable that actual legal authorities and courts consider them below contempt.
Francis Boyle (one of the sources I've been quoting), is a well respected professor of international law. He was the author of the "Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush" (quoted from Wikipedia).
I guess his professional legal analysis wasn't "below contempt" then.
Gareth Porter (the other source I've been quoting), has master's degree in international politics and works as a policy analyst on U.S. foreign and military policy.
You may have dropped the "armchair attorney" nonsense, but this "below contempt" allegation is as MADE UP as Will's "95-99% of the American people" baloney. Something is not true simply because you assert it is.
The legality of the Afghanistan War is something that legal scholars have been debating for a decade now. The fact that you've apparently found somebody to parrot your views isn't even remotely surprising (there are Bush haters coming out of the woodwork on the internet). And, yes, I misspoke. It wasn't 1363. It was 1368. THAT'S the one that President Obama (he's one of the lawyers who apparently thinks that it IS legal) keeps citing and quoting from.............And it isn't even the Afghanistan War that I'm defending here. As I've said on many occasions, 1) I was against the occupation/nation-building component, 2) I felt that the troops should have been out by early 2003, and 3) I was against Mr. Obama's surge in 2009. I am only defending the action of destroying the the al Qaeda network/their training facilities and killing as many of the terrorists as possible. And, yes, I'd say that 95-99% of the American people would agree with THAT (I can only think of you and Rosie O'Donnell presently).
Funny how the progressive blogs work. I recall being the only person on Sue's blog who was even remotely critical of Mr. Obama's decision to amp up our footprint in that hellish region (I'm not even going to call it a country). Hell, I can even recall Sue defending Mr. Obama and his decision to elongate this supposedly illegal war.............Oh, and, did you know, there have actually been more casualties under President Obama in Afghanistan than there were under Mr. Bush? And more frigging drone carnage in Pakistan (the legality of THAT, wd?), too?
Will: It wasn't 1363. It was 1368.
Resolution 1368 was passed on September 12, 2001 (This was BEFORE bush gave his ultimatum to the Taliban).
"The resolution called on all countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors would be held accountable".
The resolution was a show of support after we were attacked. It didn't authorize a war with Afghanistan.
"Found someone to parrot my views"? That's a BS counter argument. I'll have to remember that and bring it up immediately the next time you cite anyone as a source.
Peter Schweizer is obviously someone you found to parrot your views -- in regards to your desire to label prominent liberals hypocrites. Although in this case the guy you found was wrong, unlike the two guys I found.
As for what happened on Sue's blog... I don't know what you're talking about. I have held this position (that the Afghan war was illegal and that bush should have taken up the Taliban regarding their offer to turn over bin Laden) for quite awhile.
I opposed the Afghanistan surge and I oppose Obama's expanded drone usage.
The first time I asserted the Afghanistan war was illegal on my blog was on 12/3/2009.
I opposed the use of drones on my blog on 12/6/2009.
Mr. Obama obviously disagrees with your assessment of this resolution. He's used it on more than several occasions for his rationale; "expresses its readiness to take all necessary means to respond to the terrorist acts of 9/11"...........Mr. Schweizer was not wrong. He accused Nancy Pelosi of NOT using union labor AND SHE DID NOT. Open and shut.............And I cannot believe that you would agree to turn Mr. bin Laden over to an organization that had as some of its key members Saddam Hussein Muammar Gaddafi, and the Iranian mullahs. That, me-buck, is off the charts even for you. And it wasn't just bin Laden, for Christ. There was an entire network of terrorists that we had to destroy.
The position that the Afghanistan war is/was illegal is an entirely uninformed one.
dmarks: The position that the Afghanistan war is/was illegal is an entirely uninformed one.
Actually, it is the MORE informed position.
dmarks: Why would anyone even bother to mention joke offers laden with ridiculous conditions?
The offer was from a representative of the Taliban, the recognized leaders of the government of Afghanistan and therefore could not be a "joke".
Will: Mr. Obama obviously disagrees with your assessment of this resolution.
His position is a purely political one, as was all the Democrats who voted for it. It was a political/emotional vote. Most of America was blinded by a desire for vengeance after 9/11. Who would (or could) vote against a bill titled the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists"? What a dumb bill. I think it was dumb to vote for it.
Authorizing the President to attack unidentified "terrorists" and those who "harbor" them... anywhere in the world? This authorization granted bush FAR to much power... which he abused.
Maybe I'm not the partisan you think I am... because I disagree with the Democrats who voted for it.
BTW, I think the cases against BOTH Nancy Pelosi AND Peter Schweizer are "open and shut"... she is NOT a hypocrite and he IS a liar.
Post a Comment