Yes it does.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

More preaching to the choir.

CIA Target: Americans

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I actually tried to initiate a fight on page 11 of this thread, but unfortunately no one took the bait. Now I know how Tony Blair feels when he practically begs terrorists to attack the UK.

Try some of the really controversial stuff, like abortion.

Or you could play devil's advocate. BUSH'S POLICIES IS TEH WIN!

We've already had abortion. As a discussion topic, I mean. And if I said that Bush is teh win, no one would believe I was serious.

I wanted to try it, but the folks at the clinic keep telling me I'm not pregnant.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

The mainstream of the "anti-war" movement is not against war at all. In fact, its sole tenets are leftism and an opposition to Western foreign policy no matter what, and I'm becoming embarrassed to be part of it.

Very big of you to admit it actually. That was quite an interesting piece, at least the second half. I guess the hypocrisy would have been more blatant in the Cold War, when folk were effectively supporting Soviet imperialism and denoucing Western imperialism. I'm still not sure how much people realise how much George Galloway is the logical conclusion of this hypocrisy, being, as he is, best mates with Tariq Aziz and others like him. Er. I intend to read Martin Amis' new book on the subject of the British left in the '50s etc. I'll let you know when I do... ;-)

Or, should I say - ÑÇÆÚÉ, Úáì ÇáÃÞáø ÇáäøÕÝ ÇáËøÇäí . ÃÎãøä Ãäø ßÇä íãßä Ãä íßæä ÇáäøÝÇÞ ÃßËÑ ÓÝæÑðÇ Ýí ÇáÍÑÈ ÇáÈÇÑÏÉ, ÚäÏãÇ ßÇä äÇÓ ÅãÈÑíÇáíøÉ ÓæÝííÊíøÉ ãÓÇÚÏÉ ÈÝÇÚáíøÉ æ ÏíäæÓíäÌ ÅãÈÑíÇáíøÉ ÛÑÈíøÉ . ãÇÒáÊ ÛíÑ ãÊÃßøÏðÇ ßãø ÇáäøÇÓ íÏÑßæä ßãø ÌæÑÌ ÌÇáÇæÇí åæ ÇáäåÇíÉ ÇáãäØÞíøÉ áåÐÇ ÇáäøÝÇÞ, ÇáßÇÆä, ßåæ, ÃÝÖá ÇáÒøãáÇÁ ãÚ ØÇÑÞ ÚÒíÒ æ ÇáÂÎÑíä íÍÈøæäå . ÅÑ . ÃÚÊÒã ÞÑÇÁÉ ßÊÇÈ ãÇÑÊä ÃãíÓ ÇáÌÏíÏ Úáì ãæÖæÚ ÇáÈÑíØÇäíø ÃíÓÑ Ýí ÇáÎãÓíäÇÊ ÅáÎ ÃäÇ ÓÓãÍ ÊÚÑÝ ãÊì ÃÚãá ... ;-)

Any serious critic of power (and there have been a lot of them) loathed the Soviet adventures just as much as the American ones. The main differences that I can see are: America has always been far richer and more powerful, with a far greater global reach; and Americans (theoretically, at least) can exert far greater influence on their own government to stop them from doing things they shouldn't.

I have heard that the "left-leaning" US press is quick to criticize Washington, but I haven't noticed it. It would be an excellent trait, on the principle that a moral life begins with a look in the mirror. Sadly, it seems to me that the news media report the crimes of official enemies with an enthusiasm bordering on hysteria while downplaying or ignoring the crimes of Washington and its friends. That's the kind of "hypocrisy" that actually prevails here.

On the subject of the Left/antiwar folks-- as a left-libertarian (according to politalcompass.com) who tends to see world events in more or less Marxian terms, I can tell you that lots of my fellow travelers have heads filled with Styrofoam. I've come to expect this from anyone who "believes in" any "ism." That's any ism.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

Hitchens thinks of himself as the Orwell of the 21st century, pointing out the unpleasant truths that the left is not prepared to accept. Orwell did it with the Soviets;

---

Even jism?

Okay, that joke is bad even for me. Mea culpa.

---
I has a flavor!

Even jism?

Especially jism.

---
What others say about boorite!

I remember a year ago when we had furious arguments. Now we do seem to have moderated our positions somewhat and been swayed by arguments on both sides. But I bet you when Iraq actually kicks off it'll be back to business as usual.
I'd say I support this America-is-an-empire-of-sorts-but-not-neccessarily-such-a-bad-one idea.
How nice to see a comic of mine posted on my behalf! I should say, though, that I found Hitchens' book a very convincing argument - and if it's not true why doesn't Kissinger deny it, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh?!? I'd say I've become quite a fan of Hitchens', especially since that London Review of Books panel discussion thing, which you really must borrow.
I hate isms too - more than anything, I hate dogma (religious or secular), anyone who thinks he and he alone has the new magical solution to change the world. This is why I'm fundamentally conservative, see. And this is why people should give up on socialism and communism - they have been tried and failed, with a few qualifications... Recognise that plenty of things will generally be imperfect (easy for me to say, I suppose you may repost).
PS I've done a few more cartoons on the whole Arab stuff in the last few days, in case you hadn't noticed... ;-)

---
Worldwide Front for Islamic Jihad against Jews, Crusaders and Naughty Monkeys

Your friendly fundie here is happier unaware of most major political events. Plus he's a poor debater.

Yeah, as Hitchens used to point out. Orwell did, of course, realise that the Soviet Union was internally worse than the US - and I'm sure he'd be aware that Islamic rule is even worse than that.

Most sensible people can see George Galloway for what he is. In fact, I'm sure Blair and Brown only tolerate his presence in the Labour Party because he makes the anti-war lobby look ridiculous. Did you see when John Malkovich said that George Galloway is one of two people he'd most like to kill? He didn't give a reason, sadly.

Amis's book looks like a bit of a waste of paper to me. Has it only just occured to him that Stalin and Lenin were bad? Amis was never politically aware in the time of Stalin, so I don't see what particular authority on the subject he should have now.

I read that he had quite a lot of run-ins with the audience in that thing, who were (predictably enough) not on his side. So that sounds quite good. I still think he's a bit of a nit, though - just take a look at his book on Clinton to see what I mean. His argument in relation to the current villain, as far as I can see, is "Saddam is terrible, so we should bomb Iraq". His insistence that Bush wants to do this to protect his people from terrorism is awfully silly, too.

Meaning, what, ideology is rubbish, so let's just hope everything will turn out okay in the end by itself? Anyway, I don't think you are all that conservative in relation to the current climate. Didn't you come out mildly libertarian on the Political Compass thing? (not that libertarians=liberals, of course...)

They haven't been tried, of course - but then neither has capitalism (at least, not in our lifetimes) - which I suppose just means that you just can't govern by ideology. Any government will always work for the good of those who control it. End of story.

Any particular reason you made a new account just to post one gibberish comic?

Hmm, could be. I like to think I've been repelled by the anti-war camp rather than attracted by the pro-war camp. I'm talking about the mainstream here, of course: both camps contain a minority of people who talk sense.

The main problem is that the US is extremely unlikely to permit democracy in Iraq. Another dictatorship might be better than the Ba'ath regime (although there isn't really any reason to think it would be) - but is that enough justification to bomb civilians?

An excerpt from another article by Cohen (who supports war) on who will replace Saddam:

quote:

---

It's impossible to say with certainty, but most reports from Washington suggest that Bush wants another tyrant and Blair will concur. The alternative is the Iraqi National Congress, a loose and fractious coalition, but one which, for all its faults, is committed to democracy. The CIA and State Department hate it and the bad example a liberated Iraq would give to the repressed people of Saudi Arabia.

The hostility has relented a little - the State Department has agreed to meet the INC on 9 August. We'll have to see what happens, but Iraqi exiles believe the CIA has a list of 15 approved generals from which a new leader will be picked.

The prime candidate was General Nizar al-Khazraji, the army chief of staff when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the highest-ranking military defector. He lives in exile in Copenhagen and had nothing to fear except Hussein's assassins until a Kurdish refugee saw him in the street.

In a scene straight out of Marathon Man, the refugee cried that this was the man who had levelled his village. The Danish Justice Ministry is now investigating charges that al-Khazraji was up to his neck in the 'Anfal' campaign of 1988 (named after the cheery chapter in the Koran on the spoils of war).

quote:

---

Ha ha! I didn't see that. I'd say the same, except I can't really think of a second person! (Who was the other, out of interest?!?) Unfortunately it doesn't seem like the good people of Kelvin, myself and Baikster excluded, see him for what he is, as they've returned him to parliament for the last... er... couple of decades.

Have you got it? Perhaps I could borrow it.

I concede it's arguably not as watertight as taking on bin Laden.

I really didn't put my point very well. My belief is that Western liberal democracy, having gone through the Enlightenment, mass expansion of suffrage, and being composed of very complex civil societies and all sorts of legal interest groups, comparatively free press, etc, and - this was what I meant about 'isms' - relying ultimately on peace and compromise in resolving (internal) disputes, is inherently superior to the main alternative now, which seems to be Islamism, or even its moderate versions; religious rule generally being, in my opinion, less of a basis for organising society in a sensible way. Of course, if you come out and say this you get branded a racist, but that's the fascist PC left for you...
Where was I. As to what happens next in Iraq - I would maintain that the situation now in Afghanistan is pretty rotten but a damn sight better than having the Taliban in charge (as would still be the case had we not bombed them), so I remain reasonably optimistic.

Yes, to see if it came out gibberish or (if you turn on Arabic (Windows) encruption) you can read it properly. I refer you to my most recent comic under this account!

---
Worldwide Front for Islamic Jihad against Jews, Crusaders and Naughty Monkeys

As strongly-worded as this is, it's still an understatement. The majority of Iraqis are Sunni Muslims, sympathetic to the Iranian regime. There will be no democracy in Iraq if the US can help it.

---
What others say about boorite!

Oops, I meant Shiites, not Sunnis. I don't know Shiite about Iraqi demographics.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

...religious rule generally being, in my opinion, less of a basis for organising society in a sensible way. Of course, if you come out and say this you get branded a racist, but that's the fascist PC left for you...

---

Who would brand you a racist for saying that? It's a pretty uncontroversial statement, I'd say - and it's quite obviously true (that Islamism is worse than liberal plutocracy, that is: Islamic government is not, of course, actually the main alternative to our system. Islamic fundamentalists are just incompetents who kill themselves and others because they're gullible thickos; they've been exaggerated out of all proportion because we're at war with them at the moment. Even Bush doesn't claim that there's actually any risk of our country getting taken over by Muslims or anything, so it's not analagous to the Cold War. Er, right, I'll close these brackets now).

This is an interesting point. Had the 9/11 attacks not occured, the Taliban would still be in charge also - so would you say that the former was worth it?

Yeesh, Andy pointed out that the site I pointed to was some holocaust denier who (for some reason) picked up Cockburn's article.

Well, here it is elsewhere. Dunno why that asshole copied it onto his site.

---
What others say about boorite!

Sung to the tune: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing)
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

quote:

---

quote:

---

...religious rule generally being, in my opinion, less of a basis for organising society in a sensible way. Of course, if you come out and say this you get branded a racist, but that's the fascist PC left for you...

---

That's fucking bullshit. Since when is the Left for theocracy? It's the opposite. If anything, many leftists are more hostile to religion than they should be.

---

"Inferior" is a VERY bad word to use in delicate situations like these.

Try "superiority-ly challenged."

I know. I just like to.

Um, no, not that I've noticed. Yes, it's a tendency of American pundits and public intellectuals-- but on the Right, not the Left. Any leftist I'm familiar with insists that human rights are universal. They're always harping on that UN Universal Declaration (you know, the one the US signed and routinely ignores). It's the Washington establishment, in my experience, that uses the "cultural differences" excuse to prop up nasty regimes from Buenos Aires to Jakarta. Unless you're redefining "the Left" to include Rockefeller Republicans like Clinton, then I don't see it.

There is another kind of "cultural relativism" that leftists and other socially enlightened persons tend to recognize, but it has nothing to do with revoking the human rights of brown or yellow persons. It's more about the observed fact that norms and mores may differ from culture to culture, so that smoking weed (for example) might be taboo in one culture and acceptable in another. The Right criticizes this kind of "cultural relativism" when they set about legislating their morality, but they misappropriate it whenever they need an excuse to subvert human rights.

---
What others say about boorite!