Friday, January 28, 2005

Friday Roundup!

Cheney's attire at an Auschwitz ceremony questioned! What a total F'ing non story..give me a break!

Love of Beer Free's Avalanche Victim! This was pretty funny and you have to give the guy credit for figuring out a way to get rid of the snow..clearly his love of beer and the given in his mind that it wouldn't go anywhere other than down his throat prevented him from considering just pooring the beer on the snow. Instead he had to wait for the trip thru his GI track! :)

Insurgents warn Iraqis not to vote. It's very important that no matter what the turnout, no matter what technical problems are encountered, no matter how imperfect this vote is, that it happen. People seem to ignore the success of Afghanistan and how truly universal the thirst for freedom and to be represented by those of your choosing in a government structure is. It's also worth noting that prior to voting Iraqis are required to show an id.....it's time we did the same. The number of things infinitely less important than voting require you to prove your identity with a drivers license (or other id) and nobody complains about it! So ask yourself...who opposes having people prove their identity (well, ok this is not a great proof but as least its something) at the polling place? Anybody, anybody know? The DEMOCRATS!!! Why? People show their ids for all kinds of things so the claim that it's intimidating is insane. So what possible argument makes sense? It's pretty obvious why the lefties don't want this simple check to be done...they believe that those who actually shouldn't be voting are likely to vote Democrat. I also completely believe that they also like how easy it is to commit voter fraud today.

Democrats would have everything in Iraq and around the world fail if it hurts Bush! Well, that's at least the headline I create after reading the speech by Edward (let her drown) Kennedy. Just days before another historic (Afghanistan being the first) election in the middle east Kennedy sure knows how to give some encouragement doesn't he. And I love this in his speech; "The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." Oh really? Apparently a nation being "independent" in his definition has no relation to the plight of the citizens who live in that nation. And as the WSJ's Taranto points out Kennedy doesn't seem to know his century boundaries very well since the 21st century began more than four years ago, when Iraq was under Baathist occupation. If some republican made a blunder like that it would be big time fodder for our biased media.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Afghanistan is successful? I hear Republicans trotting that one out, but come on! What's successful? That Karzai's not dead yet? That at least Kabul hasn't fallen under warlords? That they don't produce ALL the heroin on earth? I hope for the best for both countries, but we'd all better hope that Iraq is more successful than Afghanistan is today.
The British are obviously loyal to us and even their MI reported that Afghanistan was "on the verge of collapse." Don't mistake me for a reactionary liberal. I'm just worried about both nations and I think Afghanistan is in serious jeopardy.

bookofblogs said...

Hello fellow blogger! Please check out www.bookofblogs.org and participate in our research.

Also please link us to your blog if at all possible.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at peterw@bookofblogs.org

Thank you for your time,
Peter W.

Tiny said...

I also worry and agree Afghanistan isn't perfect. However, if your claim is that the attempt made so far with towards something that resembles democracy has been overall worse for the country or the region then you're smoking crack. Do a Google News search on Afghanistan...there's good and bad...but just like most things that are broken, you often need to completely unravel them and in putting it all back together some new problems will emerge...in most cases the cost of those is worth the reward.

Jim Bliss said...

>
> Well, that's at least the headline I create after
> reading the speech by Edward (let her drown) Kennedy.
>
I'm not sure you really want to make an issue of what a guy did when he was young and reckless if the person you're defending is Dubya "Cokehead Alcoholic DUI" Bush. It's just a freak of chance that Bush didn't kill someone with his car back in the day. Or maybe he did...? And CIA-Daddy made sure it was all "taken care of". Old Edward (let her drown) Kennedy Vs. Dubya (run her down) Bush.

I mean... so long as we're making unfounded allegations of manslaughter and all.

>
> Just days before another historic (Afghanistan being
> the first) election in the middle east Kennedy sure
> knows how to give some encouragement doesn't he. And
> I love this in his speech; "The nations in the
> Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which
> began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and
> is now beginning the 21st century under American
> occupation." Oh really? Apparently a nation being
> "independent" in his definition has no relation to
> the plight of the citizens who live in that nation.
>
Actually that's not his definition. That's just the standard one. The one in the dictionary. Look it up.

A nation's independence is an entirely separate thing from its form of government or the living standards of its citizens. Independence, in the sense it's applied to nation states, is a factor of whether or not that state is under foreign control or not. That's simply what the word means... "independence, n: freedom from control or influence of another or others". Quite simple really.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an independent nation. It no longer is. Now, that's not to say that maybe things aren't an improvement on the way they were. I think the war was an unholy mistake, you clearly don't... but that's not the issue here. This isn't a matter of my opinion Vs. yours, it's just a question of what was said. By any dictionary or legal definition, Edward Kennedy was just stating bald facts. Flying off into a rage about it and trying to redefine "independence" doesn't actually alter that.

As for his "blunder" with regards to the start of the 21st century... well, you may be ignorant of this, but it's perfectly legitimate to speak symbolically about being "at the beginning of the 21st century" in early 2005. Or are you suggesting that anyone who uses the phrase "At the beginning of the century" is making a blunder unless they say it at one minute past midnight at the turn of the century?

Seems like an awfully pedantic point to be making.

Jim Bliss said...

PS:
>
> another historic (Afghanistan being the first)
> election in the middle east
>
The rest of the world has a caricature of Americans as being unable to find even their own country on a world map. I hate to see people fulfill caricatures.

For your future reference Afghanistan is a little bit further east than the "Middle". It's in fricking Central Asia for god sakes!

Anonymous said...

Lovely comments Jim. And thanks for pointing out Afghanistan's spatial relationships. Regrettably, most of us (US peeps) would do fairly poorly in any test on geography. Also, "another historic election" is quite an interesting statement. I'm sure proud that we have any kind of government in Afghanistan, but going from voting in the provisional head of the country as the head of the country seems like dubious success.

I'll be pleased and happy when they successfully transfer from Karzai. Lest you think that elections alone assure democracy, take a trip north to Russia. I think most would agree Putin is stretching that political system to its logical limits. Also, he's their third "elected" (in the Western sense) leader.

Like most people, I want the best. I REALLY do. But, healthy skepticism is warranted as history has shown how hard instituted democracy is to develop. Look around the world, and there's Japan, Germany, and India as meaningful post-conquered democracies. Japan and Germany did most of it through strength of internal nationalism and leveraging existing institutions. They were favored by having a strong collective will. Unlike these nations, Iraq and Afghanistan are characterized by intense racial, ethnic, ideological, and religious institutions.
India is lucky and maybe the only time that this gamble has really paid off... and that was a British endeavor. (They do have rivalling religion, ethnicities, ideologies, and hundreds of languages). But, they've nearly slipped into the moor many times.

But look at Kenya, at Nigeria, at Vietnam, at Rwanda. Simply putting the system in is not enough. There's MANY forces at play.

Tiny said...

First, I wasn't referring to the dictionary version of "independent" you arrogant ass...read the sentence the word is in again. I don't question the guy with the giant head in Mass. questining our motives and or what has gone on so far in Iraq...I question his, and those like him (Polesi, etc.) constantly doing at pivotal times to the point that is clear they TRULY hope for failure. In the end they need to balance criticism of their government and leaders with the proper amount of support and PATRIOTISM. Kennedy is a complete ass, he proves this over and over. Read his speech...DID YOU...even when he says he hopes for the best he immediately follows it with a hint that success can't come. He spouts statistics of the dead infinitum, we all know...he just wants to stir up the Bush hating troops. My point is many liberals truly want failure at the expense of lives of Americans and others if that will guarantee a Democrat is in the White House next time around.

Geography....You apparently think its very important what the rest of the world thinks of Americans geography skills or general intelligence. First I think you have no clue if the "rest of world" sees Americans as some caricature. But you surely believe they do, so why don't you leave the best place on earth and go help fix that misstaken impression they have. OH WAIT, you don't think they're misstaken do you??? No you don't. You're what makes this country unsafe and what makes the truly patriotic Americans sick to their stomach. Why go on like this about your picking on my calling Afghanistan in the middle east? Because you don't see the big picture. If you don't think everything that borders Iran or even India is part of the middle east equation you're smoking crack.

Finally, I'm sure Kennedy (like all the Kennedy blood line to screw up since Chappaquiddick) had no help in dealing with his mess! So you throw out we don't know that Bush didn't kill someone while drunk. We don't know that you're not a wife beater and child molestor do we? One thing all liberals deal in is duplicity, you're just another proof point.

Anonymous said...

Kennedy is a complete ass - I am willing to forgive that because it was probably due to his dad giving him too much of the alcohol that he illegally made his fortune on.

More interestingly it is the followers of his that are the real idiots.

He family made their money with bootlegging.
Rigged the election via the purchase of the Illinois vote.
Sired a drug addicted mafia consorting womanizer who almost started WW III - (but he looked good, so that was okay).
Had a woman killed and then covered it up.
- Ted Kennedy had a record of serious traffic violations. Their nature formed a pattern of deliberate and repeated negligent operation. Particularly bothersome was a June, 1958 conviction for "reckless driving."

- On March 14, 1958, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Whitten had been on routine highway patrol outside Charlottesville, Virginia, when an Oldsmobile convertible ran a red light, sped off, then cut its tail lights to elude pursuit. A license check revealed the car belonged to Edward M. Kennedy, a 26-year-old law student attending the University of Virginia. Kennedy had previously been fined $15 for speeding in March 1957.
- Whitten was on patrol at the same intersection a week later, he testified, "And here comes the same car. And to my surprise, he did exactly the same thing. He raced through the same red light, cut his lights when he got to the corner and made the right turn." Whitten gave chase. He found the car in a driveway, apparently unoccupied. Looking inside, he discovered the driver, Teddy Kennedy, stretched out on the front seat and hiding. Whitten issued a ticket for "reckless driving; racing with an officer to avoid arrest; and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license (Mass. registration.)"
- Kennedy's attorneys were able to win numerous postponements, but eventually he was convicted on all charges and paid a $35 fine. Court officials never filed the mandatory notice of the case in the public docket, however, and Kennedy's name had not appeared on any arrest blotter. Instead, a local reporter discovered the case when he spotted 5 warrants in Kennedy's name in a court cash drawer.

- Three weeks after his trial, Ted Kennedy was caught speeding again, and still operating without a valid license.

- In December 1959, Kennedy was stopped again for running a red light and fined $10 and costs. In Whitten's view, "That boy had a heavy foot and a mental block against the color red. He was a careless, reckless driver who didn't seem to have any regard for speed limits or traffic ordinances."


Bashed in the head of another woman with a 9 iron and is now finally coming to justice

So this bloated alcoholic whiner is telling people that it is the fault of the troops (oh, yes he did! read his statement).

So the Libs tried to bounce Bush because of a DUI, but support this slim ball? The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Jim Bliss said...

>
> First, I wasn't referring to the dictionary version of "independent" you arrogant ass...Wow, you really seem to be a pretty hostile guy! You must be a hoot at social gatherings.

It's always possible though, that I am an arrogant ass. But at least I also have the virtue of being right in this case.
>
> read the sentence the word is in againSure thing...
Kennedy said:
>>
>> The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.Then you said:
>
> Oh really? Apparently a nation being "independent" in his definition has no relation to the plight of the citizens who live in that nationI was merely pointing out that "his" definition is just the standard dictionary one. What he said was completely correct. What confuses me is what definition of "independence" you believe he should be using? Is this a secret new definition that only you know about perhaps?

Then you say this:
>
> Geography....You apparently think its very important what the rest of the world thinks of Americans geography skills or general intelligence. First I think you have no clue if the "rest of world" sees Americans as some caricature. But you surely believe they do, so why don't you leave the best place on earth and go help fix that misstaken impression they have. OH WAIT, you don't think they're misstaken do you??? No you don't. You're what makes this country unsafe and what makes the truly patriotic Americans sick to their stomach. Why go on like this about your picking on my calling Afghanistan in the middle east? Because you don't see the big picture. If you don't think everything that borders Iran or even India is part of the middle east equation you're smoking crack.Where do I begin?

I've no idea where you picked up the idea that I was American. I'm not. However I did live there for a year and a half. I've also lived and worked throughout South America, Europe, Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. So I'd like to thank you for the chuckle...

Being told I "don't see the big picture" by someone who reads like he's never left his home town actually made me laugh out loud. And it's not often than happens when I'm browsing blogs. If you think you have the faintest idea what's going on in the Middle East or Africa or Central Asia based on what you see and hear in the media, then it's you who's smoking crack.

And let's get something straight... Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. Same way as San Francisco isn't in Michigan. You didn't say it was "part of the Middle East equation", you said it was in the Middle East. And it isn't. That's all I was pointing out. You look like an idiot if you can't even accept that you were obviously factually wrong. I mean... it's there in black and white for crying out loud.

And you're just digging yourself further into a hole when you start spouting complete nonsense like "If you don't think everything that borders Iran or even India is part of the middle east equation..." Have you the faintest idea just how stupid that is? Have you any idea how big Asia is? (hint: it dwarfs North America). Are you really claiming that Burma, in South East Asia, is "part of the Middle East equation" because it borders India? Really?What part does it play as a matter of interest? Do enlighten me.

As for the last paragraph of your comment, and the Anonymous comment that followed... I again don't know where you're getting your information from. I wasn't defending Kennedy - merely pointing out how moronic it is to hound someone for the rest of their life over a stupid act in their youth. My point about Bush was to illustrate how childish that sort of thing is.

You Americans really don't get irony, do you?

Also, I may be an arrogant ass. But I ain't a liberal. You can't even get that right.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that you are caught up on geography and you are missing the larger picture.

How about instead of mid-east, west-east, east-east we just call it for what it is - wackjob muslim extremists? There, feel better?

If you don't think the world is in better shape than it was 3 years ago, then you are nuts and there is no sense in arguing with you.

Germany, Japan, France weren't built in a couple of years. The only difference was that after the wars were won there weren't the nambsy pambsy wimps worrying about hurting people's feelings: carry a gun, get killed. Guess what, people stopped carrying guns and got on with the business of building their country.

Anonymous said...

Wait! WAIT! WAIIIIT! I thought gun ownership was essential to the defense of the public? I thought that the NRA was the only thing standing between America and complete chaos? And now we're saying disarm them? You talk funny. My head hurt.

Jim Bliss said...

>
> I can't believe that you are caught up on geography and you are missing the larger picture. How about instead of mid-east, west-east, east-east we just call it for what it is - wackjob muslim extremists? There, feel better?Fraid not, y'see I'm not "caught up on geography". Just caught up on facts. The facts are that Afghanistan is in Central Asia and not the Middle East, and most of the nations bordering India aren't even Islamic (let alone "wackjob muslim extremists").

And it confuses me that so many people here have got so defensive because I corrected a blatant factual error. Is it because you're worried that your entire worldview might be founded on equally erroneous facts? What is your obsession with maintaining ignorance of the facts?

>
> If you don't think the world is in better shape than it was 3 years ago, then you are nuts and there is no sense in arguing with you.The world is demonstrably in far worse shape now than it was 3 years ago. And I suggest you leave judgments like that to people who actually live in The World, and not the little Fox Media Bubble Nation that so many Americans have decided to emigrate to.

During the past three years genocidal conflicts have flared up again in Sudan and DR Congo. Internal rivalries in Nigeria, Angloa and Zimbabwe threaten to turn vast swathes of Africa into a war zone.

The situation in the Middle East is on a knife's edge and every time the US administration ratchets up the pressure on Iran we get closer to complete global meltdown.

On the Iran situation: Iran is no threat to the United States right now. However it is the regional power and could do very serious damage to Israel. This would spark a combined Israeli/US retaliation on Iran which would destroy the nation. At that point, it would be impossible for any Middle Eastern government to maintain a relationship with the USA (Have you any idea how close Saudi Arabia is to an Iran-style revolution?)

The United States economy will entirely collapse within 3 to 5 months if there is a sustained breakdown in the state of relations between the USA and the oil-producing nations.

Elsewhere around the world, unemployment is rising in Europe and Japan whilst the Chinese economy grows by levels which are unsustainable from both a resource management and ecological point of view. Revolutions and insurgencies are growing more intense in South America.

And your own nation is facing an epidemic of obesity, mental illness (depression, associative disorders, etc.) and destructive drug use.

And all the while governments in so-called "free" nations (from the US to Britain to Spain to Italy) are passing draconian laws restricting the rights of their own citizens based upon what a handful of Saudi citizens with box-cutters managed to do a few years ago.

If you live inside the Fox Media Bubble Nation then things probably seem a lot better recently. But those of us living in the real world (where Afghanistan is in Central Asia, the word "independent" means "free from external control", and Burma is not part of "the Middle East equation") know otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy

you wrote: The United States economy will entirely collapse within 3 to 5 months if there is a sustained breakdown in the state of relations between the USA and the oil-producing nations.


That is laughable for 2 reasons. 1. If the US economy collapses, you can kiss goodbye all the economies that so depend on the US. (oh, and kiss goodbye all of the AIDS money, support during Tsunami's etc).
2. But before that happens, the US would just wipe out a couple of countries, take their oil, split it with China and a couple of friends in the ol' USSR and be done with it.

That should be done anyway since those countries are completely squandering the worlds resources through their politics.

Jim Bliss said...

Anonymous,

(could you sign a name by the way? Even a false one... just so I'm not addressing you as "Anonymous" which is a bit silly)

I wrote:
>
The United States economy will entirely collapse within 3 to 5 months if there is a sustained breakdown in the state of relations between the USA and the oil-producing nations.

You said that was laughable. But you failed to give a single reason why. How can I respond to that?

>
That is laughable for 2 reasons. 1. If the US economy collapses, you can kiss goodbye all the economies that so depend on the US. (oh, and kiss goodbye all of the AIDS money, support during Tsunami's etc).

Uh-huh. And...? How is that a reason for what I said not happening. It's a consequence of it. I'm assuming that you do have a basic grip on the notion of causality? The collapse of other economies would be a consequence of a US collapse. Which in turn would be a consequence of the US no longer having the energy to run its economy.

Why is the second a reason for the first not occurring?

>
2. But before that happens, the US would just wipe out a couple of countries, take their oil, split it with China and a couple of friends in the ol' USSR and be done with it.

Hmmmm... while that displays a staggering lack of understanding of global politics, I should first ask you about the "couple of other countries" thing.

What other countries? Are you proposing genocide in Africa? Europe? Asia? or South America? But before you answer that, first take a look at the oil usage statistics. You say this about that "couple of other countries":

>
[they] should be done anyway since those countries are completely squandering the worlds resources through their politics.

What in the name of all that's holy are you talking about? Which countries? Do you think Saudi Arabia or Iran or Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates or Nigeria or Venezuela actually use any oil? I assume those are the countries you're talking about "doing away with".

(How you planning on doing that by the way? Concentration camps and gas chambers? Because you can't just nuke the places right? Pumping radioactive oil in a radioactive environment isn't actually great business)

But even if you do "do away" with them. So what? They don't use the oil. They just happen to own it. They sell it to America and China and Europe and India and Japan who use it (all of whom except Japan have fleets of nuclear submarines lurking out there). So could you please explain precisely what you mean when you accuse them of "completely squandering the worlds resources". I can't even begin to get my head around what you're talking about there. Nigeria sells it to America. The only people doing any squandering, therefore, must be Americans.

Incidentally, not only does America use far more oil than anywhere else, it is also by far the least efficient consumer. The Oil Usage : GDP ratio in America is more than twice that of the next least efficient (Europe). As any engineer can tell you, that means America gets hit at least twice as hard by every shortage or price increase.

And you don't even want to think about how much more efficient the Chinese are with their energy usage! Only a fool ignores the lessons of history. And history teaches us that societies which get decadent and wasteful will always be replaced by those who are lean and efficient. Americans drive around in ghastly SUVs burning a vital strategic resource like it's coming from a bottomless pit.

And it's starting over here too. Europe is catching this absurdly destructive wastefulness from America. But I don't think it's past the point of no return over here yet (which is not to say it won't get there).

And I'm not making some party political point here. Don't imagine you're talking to a liberal American Democrat. I'm not American, I'm European. I'm not affiliated with any mainstream political party, and I'm certainly not liberal. My position isn't represented in American politics, but the name "liberal" is far from it.

So please, Anonymous, if you want to tell me why my statement is laughable then I'm interested in your reasoning. But you haven'g given me any reasoning yet.

Anonymous said...

You wrote: "Uh-huh. And...? How is that a reason for what I said not happening. It's a consequence of it. I'm assuming that you do have a basic grip on the notion of causality?"

Try reading what I wrote - the idea of casuality is obvious - the clue is the word "IF". I assume that you are familiar with the notion of READING and understanding the word IF.

(repeated below for your shopping convenience: That is laughable for 2 reasons. 1. If the US economy collapses, you can kiss goodbye all the economies)

On your second point, you wrote: I should first ask you about the "couple of other countries" thing.

What other countries? Are you proposing genocide in Africa? Europe? Asia? or South America? But before you answer that, first take a look at the oil usage statistics. You say this about that "couple of other countries":

Since I never wrote "couple of other countries", I have no idea of what you are saying. Must be the reading thing again.

But of course I am not proposing genocide - just a good ol' take over of the country.

You wrote:
What in the name of all that's holy are you talking about? Which countries? Do you think Saudi Arabia or Iran or Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates or Nigeria or Venezuela actually use any oil? I assume those are the countries you're talking about "doing away with".

I said they are squandering through politics, I did not say usage.


How can the same people who criticize drug companies for making profits on drugs and especially AIDS drugs not gang up on the oil countries for how they use oil in the world economy (sure, the run up of oil prices before Bush's election was just a coincidence)?

you wrote:
I assume those are the countries you're talking about "doing away with".

Geez, always the extremist view and improper quoting to try to make a point. I am not doing away with anyone - just make them the 51-56 states.

I do get a kick out of seeing liberal bumper stickers on SUVs and Minivans.

Jim Bliss said...

>
> I do get a kick out of seeing liberal bumper
> stickers on SUVs and Minivans.
>
Well, on that at least we agree.

Tiny said...

Jim, et al.

While we obviously all don't agree it's enjoyable to have the dialog. Jim, I think you blew it in one of your first comment posts where you claim you're not American...but honestly I can't imagine a non-American using the grammar you did "But I ain't a liberal"

Anonymous said...

Actually Tiny is a hoot at social functions but he's even funnier on the golf course!
MG

Scott said...

Dear Mr. Bliss.

Just a brief comment on your bloviation regarding: How we Americans don't want to think about how much more efficient the Chinese are with their energy usage.

China has the fastest growing auto market in the world. Over 2 million cars were sold in 2003 which was nearly an 80% increase over 2002. And still for a population of over 1.3 billion, only 3 out of every 1000 Chinese own a car. Now think about that for a moment and try another stab at "Only a fool ignores the lessons of history."

China is the second largest oil consumer next to, yeah you guessed it, the good old U.S.A. In fact they only consume about 1/3 of what we use. However, their demand grew 10% in 2003 and over 13% last year. See any trend here Governor?

I guess those Chinese are nothing but a bunch of fools.

Jim Bliss said...

Tiny,

I'm really not American you know. I spent the last half of '97 living near Dallas and most of '98 in Chicago, but was using "ain't" long before that. Hollywood has given the whole world the gift of American slang.

And Axme... I agree with every word you wrote. I wasn't defending Chinese economic expansion, merely pointing out that as things currently stand they are in a far better position to handle price rises and supply problems.

That's what the Afghanistan adventure was all about of course. If you take a look at the map and note the position of Afghanistan (this is why it's rather important to locate it properly in Central Asia) you'll appreciate the fact that the Afghan campaign has allowed the positioning of a string of US military bases directly between China and the oil-rich Gulf States.

The trouble isn't that American policy or Chinese policy or European policy is being set by stupid people. These are all very smart folks. They've just got completely the wrong objectives.

Conflict between China and the United States over global fossil fuel resources is a plain madness. But it appears to be what the administrations of both the US and China are indeed planning (and let's not forget India). It confuses me that otherwise intelligent people (mostly in America, but there's plenty here in the UK where I currently reside) will support policies which clearly increase global tension.

I'm not trying to make a political point here. I believe it's demonstrably true that the policies of Bush are increasing global tension and making the problems of international terrorism worse whilst at the same time destabilising geopolitics as a whole.

I don't have any vested interest in being right about that! And it's clearly the sort of thing that - if you believe it to be true - needs to be opposed.

Tiny said...

Jim, ok your not American, I ain't gonna argue that point. And, I will agree with a statement you made that most Tiny-like-thinkers would take issue with, you said "policies of Bush are increasing global tension and making the problems of international terrorism worse whilst at the same time destabilising geopolitics as a whole." I think as soon as the muslim extremest (and every other American hating extremest) saw that America wasn't going to cower in the wake of terrorism hitting us at home. That we, under Bush's leadership (yes leadership!) would take the fight to the bad guys made these guys step up their terror in an effort to try and get public pressure to change our stance. No way in hell. I realize you and others here have expressed your desire for things to go well (as in Iraq) but you can clearly see that's not the case for many Americans who have a very big problem with their loyalty to America. I head a quote on talk radio this morning that the caller attributed to Golda Meyer which went something like "until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews we will not have piece". Now, I'm not taking a position on Palestine and Jews with this, I just want to use this quote as a framework for one here in America with the two parties. Until Democrats start loving American more than they hate Bush we will not make the progress a powerful unified nation can make both here and abroad. You could insert Republican and Clinton a few years ago and it's still valid. Too many Democrats/Liberals made it very clear, right up to the vote in Iraq and still today that they hope for failure. They hate Bush so much they will hope for failure...they can't stand the idea that a policy or action attributed to Bush might be successful...they need to love America more and first!

Anonymous said...

I'm astonished how Jim knows exactly what the Chinese and US governments are thinking.
MG

Tiny said...

Hi MG, it's simple..you see Jim is not American...everyone who isn't American is all knowing about the world and how the world sees us. They're all on the same page while we live in a clueless bubble!...Ok I joke!