I am really moved by your answer and I am very happy to see that there are still very sensible persons in this world. I say this without any manipulative intention - you deserve much better anyway. Thank you. I also agree with your short comment regarding America's starting election campaign.

@ Norman Conquest

A direct question deserves a direct answer.

NO, I am not an "opponent" of GWBush.  To be such an "opponent" would be foolish, because GWB is the leader of the 'free world', or what is left of it.  But, like every thinking person, I have my agreements and disagreemnts with GWB.   I certainly support his strategic goals in Iraq, although I disagree with some of his past tactics (but then, words are easy).

In the elections of 2000, I was for John McCain, in part bacause I think that US federal presidential elections should be MAINLY judged on foreign policy grounds.  In the current elections, as things stand now, I tend to favor Romney, but I 'could live' with McCain (despite some recent 'flaps' of his), or Giuliani, or even Thompson.  I do NOT like Huckabee and Ron Paul.  And I would be distressed (but resigned) if Clinton or Obama get in.  I expect Obama to lead to another bout of Jimmy Carter-like 'results' around the world.   

Thank you Marc for your comment.

1) To me paleo-conservatism is tantamount to paralysed conservatism. So the question is: what's the real difference between a paleo-conservative and a liberal (in the US of the term)?

Both are incoherent.

2) Are you an opponent to GWB? If there is a decent statesman in the Western world at all at least at the moment, President Bush is just that. Everything he's done has systematically been criticised negatively. His presidency was to be destroyed whatever the cost, whatever the irrational moves. It all started well before March 2003. Anti-Bushism has nothing to do with Irak. The conflict in the Middle East is just an alibi, can you appreciate the large-scale manipulation? Do you think that the Liberal Left really cares about "the poor Irakis" at all? Come on. I also miss Karl Rove very much but I know he's around anyway. I've posted several links out of my virtual library on the TBJ site, but they have obviously failed to convince you. You want to remain on the safe side. OK. I am a neo-con, because I've always been a neo-con. No bullshit. No nonsense, i.e. no appeasement, no political correctness, no manipulation, etc.  

 

@ Norman Conquest

I still hope to 'speed up' your comprehension of Kapitein Andre.  He is definitely NOT a "liberal" (in the American sense of the word).  Whatever his physical location, he is culturally very much a certain type of 'European paleo conservative'.  He shares with 'liberals' a deep-felt anti-Americanism, statism and philosophical moral-relativism, but hates their multicul illusions.  He is very different from most American conservatives in terms of adherence to specific values. I do not think that he is very "incoherent" in his opinions, but rather quite consistent in expounding viewpoints reflecting relativism and 'bad' values.  He also regularly suffers from 'bad character' traits (which is somewhat linked to moral relativism).

@ Der Hauptmann (Kapitein) Andre 

As always, your 'method' of narrowly commenting on single sentences leads you astray.  It is better to focus on the central idea from the context of these sentences.

1) You claimed that the Security Council operated like a "cartel".  I disputed that on the basis that the permanent 5 are each others' natural enemies in the world today.  They do not operate like a cartel.  In that sense the composition of the SC is "meaningless". 

Of course, countries like Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India resent the current 'monopoly' of the 5 on the 'permanent' seats, but that does not refute my thesis that the 5 do not operate like a cartel.  The biggest opponents to a new 'dispensation' regarding permanent seats are China and the 'little' ones (France, and Britain).  These 3 all obtained their 'permanent' seats thanks to (rather foolish) American generosity at the end of ww2, over the objections of the other victor in ww2, i.e. the Soviet Union. 

2) Yes, I do believe that the way Americans vote can be "correlated in some way" with their degree of patriotism.  I could posit a couple of very simple criteria to measure "patriotism", judge a number of well-known people (say politicians) on the basis of these criteria, and could then easily predict how they would vote on important issues.  Do you have any doubt that selfhaters like Jimmy Carter or Al Gore would be prepared to have foreign 'judges' rule on the conduct of American soldiers?   Do you think that these people publicly attacking their own country and government on foreign soil, when their country is at war on the same 'soil', could be in any shape or form be construed as "patriotic"?  If so,  I got some choice words for you in store...

3) I agree with you that one can oppose the Bush Administration without "echoing the NYT's rant".  But I have not seen much evidence of that on your part.  In order to be able to do that, you would have to be able to relieve yourself of that 'elitist' and visceral anti-Bush attitude which seems to hinder rational exposition.

"It's clear that you don't know my opinions on the subject. So instead of lumping me together with this fellow with whom I am unfamiliar, keep my name out of your mouth and we'll keep it the same".

Sure, I will do anything to please a Liberal. Now, your sentence here is no answer. Your opinion on the subject? You've had so many opinions so far that it's just very difficult indeed to understand what you really think on this and other subjects. You are flirting with incoherence. So I will keep it cool and ignore your comments from now on. Hopeless.   

marcfrans: Also, you seem to think that there is a "cartel of powers" that dominates the United Nations. If you mean by that the permanent 5 members of the Security Council, then that is pretty meaningless.

 

The composition of the UN Security Council is not "meaningless" to countries such as India, Japan, Brazil and Germany. Irrespective of the UNSC's efficacy, the West retains the advantage in the current geopolitical balance of power; overall, the global north is far superior in terms of military, political and economic power than the south. Furthermore, "domination" in the UN does not necessarily imply domination through the mechanisms of the UN...

 

marcfrans: While it is true that there are "true Americans" in both blue and red states, it is also true that there are self-loathing Americans to be found in both blue and red states. The distiction between red and blue derives from election results between the two major parties. It does not equate with the distinction between patriotic Americans and self-loathing Americans, although some kind of correlation could be empirically established, no doubt.

 

So you believe that an American's vote can be correlated with their patriotism?

 

marcfrans: ...the adjective "true" becomes meaningless unless you are willing to define American patriotism...

 

My point to Norman Conquest was that those Americans which he referred to as anti-American, primarily for their opposition to the Republican Party and in particular the Bush administration, probably feel similarly about him. I suggested secession or civil war because Norman Conquest seemed unable to accept the Voltaic 'agree to disagree' option (i.e. respect for plurality), which seems essential to liberal democracy.

 

marcfrans: One could surely have a serious argument about the 'wisdom' of the policy, or lack thereof, both in terms of whether it is realistic/ achievable and/or whether the benefits justify the costs. But it is NOT reasonable to deny - as you do - that it is harder to defend this difficult policy compared with "echoing the NYT rant" (which is Norman Conquest's euphemism for joining the facile crowd).

 

Norman Conquest's euphemism is a loaded one. One can oppose the Bush administration without "echoing the NYT rant". Moreover, because he holds certain opinions in contempt, he prides himself on his ability to defend 'difficult' positions, which is an entirely different subject than evaluating the George W. Bush presidency.

atheling: You made an allegation about ALL American slave owners raping and impregnating EACH AND EVERY female African slave.

 

O.K...

 

atheling: I asked you for substantiation for such an allegation.

 

It's not worth my time and effort. The said "allegation" was not directed towards you, and is not a matter for debate. If you want to take an opposite position and bring evidence to bear supporting it, be my guest. However, I will be unlikely to pay attention...

 

atheling: You have ignored my request, and only responded with evasion, obfuscation and more lies when I pressured you.

 

Your preoccupation with "obfuscate" and its noun is becoming rather annoying. It is high time to consult your thesaurus. So much for  feigning articulateness...

 

atheling: So far you have yet to present any evidence, presumably because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

 

Presumably to you perhaps, but not certainly.

 

atheling: Therefore, either you are a fool who believes such a ludicrous statement (and try to think why it's ludicrous), or you are simply spreading malicious lies, which makes you an evil person.

 

This does not logically follow. You would have to prove that the statement in question is "ludicrous" first.

 

atheling: ...you will be called to the carpet...

 

[insert joke here]

 

atheling: I see you removed your photo...Your pointing that handgun, even in jest, violates one of the basic laws of gun handling... it is NOT A TOY...

 

Right..............

 

Go stalk someone else.

Norman Conquest: It's clear that people like Kappert and Kapitein Andre belong to the crowd of silly appeasers.

 

It's clear that you don't know my opinions on the subject. So instead of lumping me together with this fellow with whom I am unfamiliar, keep my name out of your mouth and we'll keep it the same.

@MARCFRANS:

No comment on my previous posting below?

No worries.

 

@KAPPERT

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/03/21/the_essence_of_liberalism_embracing_lifes_losers

@ Kappert

 

As usual you are not focusing on the issue. 

I have made the effort to address your nonsensical statement that "success stories of non-violence do not occur...with Europeans".   Indeed, it is just the opposite, I have explained to you that such SUCCESS stories were only possible because of...'Europeans' (in the broader sense of western powers).  And surely, if you make an effort, you could find numerous examples of great 'non-violent' individuals in European history, even in colonial European history.   There is also the 'little' question of what "success" really means in this context.   

Now, are you 'big' enough to recognise your mistake?  No, you obviously are not.  What is your response to my argument?  It is to irrelevantly to complain about "pacifists have always been easy to eliminate" and to refer again to "fundamentalists of all colours" (including, no doubt, in your prejudiced mind, the one in the 'White House).  

Try to get 'real', and get your head out of the sand.

And, NO, sainthood is not hypocrisy. That is a nonsensical statement to make, and no amount of gobbledygook of yours about "dualism" can hide that.  It is Mandela - a real person - who is a hypocrite.   

Thanks. I was pretty sure you would say that and I must say I share your point.

However, don't you think that people like you and me, or like Atheling and Paul Belien, would have been silenced a long time ago if we had posted these comments of ours with the same content on "Liberal", "Leftist" and/or socialist (sorry for this repetition) blogs?

It's clear that people like Kappert and Kapitein Andre belong to the crowd of silly appeasers.

To put it simply, appeasement leads nowhere. The West appeased the Moslem world for too long, hence 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, the current war in Irak, events in Pakistan, etc.  

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (roll down the homepage to see update of all the terror attacks performed since 2001 by the captain's appeased friends around the world).

As far as I know, Moslem terror started way before the first Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's regime (not the now free Irak) was also a terrorist act. The West negotiated with Kapitein Andre's friend for over 12 years, to no avail.

As regards Jesus-Christ and christianity, it's true that it's better to turn the other cheek, but only up to a point, i.e. as long as your very existence is not in danger. And this will probably surprise you, I am amongst those who believe that there was a link between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Read Stephen Hayes. His findings are not just hypotheses.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Well, this does not come from the NYT. But like you've rightfully said, "we all need to hear different viewpoints.  How else, can people clarify - in their own minds - their own thinking, unless it is challenged by other viewpoints".

Moslem terror is like cancer on this planet. The supposedly anthropogenic global warming is the wrong priority, a bit like the tree hiding the forest.

Do you treat cancer with homeopathy? Well, you can try. Tell me if it works. I doubt it. Moreover, it is also impossible to negotiate with cancer. Or what's the deal then? "Oh cancer my cancer, do not kill me please and I'll give up drinking, smoking, eating, whatever, but don't kill me". Do you think that's enough to stop this illness?

The only thing to do is to use strong therapy, including allopathy (war) and, if necessary, chemiotherapy (the bomb).

atheling: Don't give me that "merit a response" garbage, KA...

 

It's Der Kapitein to you, m'lady.

 

atheling: ...you were caught with your foot in your mouth and you know it.

 

Not really. If you wish to challenge any of my claims, do so with evidence, not with insults and melodrama.

 

atheling: Your anti Americanism has made you a fool.

 

I fail to see what is anti-American about either the slavery comment or the denouncing of Bush's public speaking skills. You are merely echoing marcfrans' assumptions about my attitudes towards the United States.

 

atheling: You blurt out stupid comments and when someone calls you on it, you obfuscate, evade, and make stupider comments.

 

Thus far you have only challenged me on that singular slavery-related comment. As far as your contributions to the Brussels Journal are concerned, if they can even be referred to as that, they merely regurgitate the positions of the article in question or previous responses to it. Never have I associated you with dynamic, thought-provoking or innovative commentary, which is why I tend to tussle with marcfrans, with whom I can split the finer hairs.

 

atheling: You really embarass yourself - and I'm not just referring to the bad haircut.

 

On the contrary, I'm quite pleased with my hairstyle, and dare say that it has garnered its fair share of compliments. I can only assume that the aforementioned comment struck a nerve somewhere. Perhaps you have some African-American ancestry, although I seem to recall you claiming to be an American Roman Catholic female of Korean or Chinese ancestry. In any event, you do not interest me. Instead of embarassing yourself discussing serious subjects such as abortion, perhaps you need to venture out into that complex realm of sex and relationships, get yourself a date and heaven-forbid forgo the whole 'no sex before marriage' thing. No one here has either the time or energy for your PMS meltdowns.

...that Kappert is "looking ...at the TBJ".  He needs it, more than most!

@ Norman Conquest

You do not have to "understand" why he is looking here.  Be happy he does.  Because we all need to hear different viewpoints.  How else, can people clarify - in their own minds - their own thinking, unless it is challenged by other viewpoints?  

 

 

I still don't understand what Kappert is looking for at the BJ. To me he's more like a reader of the Frank-Farter Algemeine.

Kappert wrote "....success stories of non-violence... do not occur with Europeans", and he then went on to express his reverence for figures like Ghandi and Mandela.  Kappert is a perfect example of the naive westerner suffering from perverse western self-hatred.

The crucial facts here are NOT that Ghandi and Mandela are nonwesterners, but rather that they faced (culturally) 'western' governments or powers. Ghandi faced the British government, and Mandela faced Dutch and British South Africans.  It is precisely because they faced 'western-type' governments' that their campaigns of non-violence were able to achieve a significant measure of success.  If they had campaigned in such a way against typically ruthless nonwestern governments, one would never have heard from (and of) them again.    Kappert should ask himself, why we don't know about any Ghandi's today in Cuba, in China, in North Korea, in the Arab world, etc... These people did and do exist, but they are dead or rotting away in dungeons, out of sight of the naive Kapperts of the world. 

And before Kappert bestows 'sainthood' on someone like Mandela, he better consider first Mandela' s hypocrisy.  Mandela was a brave man.  He was also 'generous' on his release (after having reached a reasonable political accomodation with De Clerck), and he restrained a natural desire for immediate revenge.  But, what was his first international 'gesture', after he became President?  He went on a state visit to 2 of his 'friends', running totalitarian governments, Libya and Cuba. (This was in the days before Khadafi's 'rehabilitation' and before Castro's sickness).  These regimes have their own 'Mandelas' rotting away in jails.  Did that stop Mandela?  No.  In short, he was all for freedom for his 'own' people, not for the freedom of other peoples.   In some respects, Mandela was a great man, but he is also a hypocrite!

Kappert,I'm sure you'd like to join myself,Ann Coulter and President Bush in wishing Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe a very  Happy Kwanzaa.I have no doubt Gandhi would have approved.

"I wouldn't kill anybody".

 

So,you wouldn't even kill to defend your own life or the lives of your closest family members?

All in all, you propose homeopathy vs. allopathy. Both are complementary, dear. It all depends on the illness you want to cure...
Moreover, I am not sure that all the anti-war and anti-Bush demonstrations were that pacifistic. The demonstrators both in the US and Old Europe were so aggressive. Very far from the idea you want me to have about Ghandalf. There were lots of alter-something supporters. Although I am an alter-socialist and an alter-islamofascist (it's about the same), I was not there of course.
Why are pro-Bush Conservatives afraid to show their support for this President? Why does the left, especially the MSM, not tolerate contradiction? What's this large-scale manipulation and intellectual terrorism?
Again, e.g. when the question of multiculturalism is considered, it's only in one direction. What's the agenda? So do not teach us lessons of peace and tolerance, please!
At least, with the Right, you immediately understand what the rules of the game are all about. There is no hidden agenda, even if for some, I can only agree, some pills may be hard to swallow...

Q: Is there ANY cause for which you would be prepared to kill? If so,name it and give your reasons why.

 

Thank you.

atheling: You're wrong on that. marcfrans is VERY familiar with the US...And my observations of the times that marcfrans frequents this site gives me reason to conclude that he probably lives in the US - the west coast...

 

I always did imagine marcfrans in Dickies, chillaxing to Sublime...

 

atheling: ...I'm not asking for marcfrans' confirmation - privacy issue

 

Yes, I am sure he would prefer to answer for himself.

 

atheling: so far from what I have observed YOU are the one who is unfamiliar with America's history and culture, i.e. your absurd statement about American slaveowners raping and impregnating "each and every" female black slave - talk about ludicrous!

 

I noticed that you thoroughly enjoyed that one. :)

 

atheling: So, are you going to give me your source for your statement on American slaveowners? Or are you just going to stand there and bleed to death?

 

I could have been on blood thinners: you don't know what you do to me atheling. In any case, I don't think you quite merit a response. Nor am I concerned as to whether or not you take personal issue with the comment.

Traveller: "Ghandi was hiding behind Nehru and spoke about peaceful actions while hundredthousands were killed and millions displaced".

 

Gandhi: " It is better to be violent,if there is violence in our hearts,than to put on the cloak of non violence to cover impotence".

 

Kappert: "Maybe,if there are proofs ( a US President should have sent) a dedicated team to get Mr bin Laden".

 

Gandhi: "I am prepared to die,but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill".

 

Kappert,THINK about it!

  

I repeat,sending in an assassination squad to "get" OBL is NOT Ahimsa "Gandhi-style".

All in all, you propose homeopathy vs. allopathy. Both are complementary, dear. It all depends on the illness you want to cure...

Moreover, I am not sure that all the anti-war and anti-Bush demonstrations were that pacifistic. The demonstrators both in the US and Old Europe were so aggressive. Very far from the idea you want me to have about Ghandalf. There were lots of alter-something supporters. Although I am an alter-socialist and an alter-islamofascist (it's about the same), I was not there of course.
Why are pro-Bush Conservatives afraid to show their support for this President? Why does the left, especially the MSM, not tolerate contradiction? What's this large-scale manipulation and intellectual terrorism?
Again, e.g. when the question of multiculturalism is considered, it's only in one direction. What's the agenda? So do not teach us lessons of peace and tolerance, please!
At least, with the Right, you immediately understand what the rules of the game are all about. There is no hidden agenda, even if for some, I can only agree, some pills may be hard to swallow...

You all have been very busy, although there is little substance. The reactions are no surprise, as non-violence is normally seen as something ridiculous, absurd and unreal, not coping with the 'nature of human' as we are pretty violent beasts and, yes, we do kill innocence. It should be clear that the concept of non-violence is no dichotomy. There is the right of self-defense, law and order guaranteed by police forces, etc. It is also very clear that the success stories of non-violence (Lao-tsé in China, Jesus in Palestine, Gandhi in India, Mandela in South Africa, ...) do NOT occur with Europeans, including those colonizing the 'New World'. Further, it is needed a big amount of courage to behave in a gandhi-style, it's easier to call Mr Murdock for some propaganda (inventing funny words) and send B-52s. Or watching 'Ben Hur' with rifle-star Charlton Heston. May I indicate another book: Mohandas Gandhi: All men are brothers.

@ Comrade Kapitan Andrey Anybodybutbushovich Anythingbutbadfaithov of the Red-lativist Army:

Great! I like it when Libs are furious, a bit like in November 2004. That was better than the guy responsible for the discharge of the light brigade into the mouths of some trainees.

@ Kapitein A

 

1) I agree that an opinion should be held independently of the number of people in the world who are holding it.  That number says nothing about the quality of any opinion.  Also, you seem to think that there is a "cartel of powers" that dominates the United Nations.  If you mean by that the permanent 5 members of the Security Council, then that is pretty meaningless.  As you well know, these members essentially cancel each other out, since they are each others' natural enemies in the world.   Security Council resolutions in practice are meaningless, unless 2 conditions are fulfilled: (1) China and Russia are willing NOT to block reasonable resolutions, and (2) the US is willing to put up blood and treasure to implement them.   If these conditions are not met, then you can be sure that we are not talking about "reasonable" resolutions.  So, this is not really "a cartel dominating".  If, on the other hand, you mean the countless resolutions being passed by the General Assembly (either in NY or at the frequent 'jamborees' held around the world), to vent either irrational and/or cost-free (to the majority passing them) sentiments, that is pretty meaningless too, and not really comparable to the actions of a real "cartel" with genuine consequences in markets. 

2) Your extreme moral relativism (in the sense of refusing to make NECESSARY moral judgments) is again hurting your credibility (among serious people).  While it is true that there are "true Americans" in both blue and red states, it is also true that there are self-loathing Americans to be found in both blue and red states.  The distiction between red and blue derives from election results between the two major parties.  It does not equate with the distinction between patriotic Americans and self-loathing Americans, although some kind of correlation could be empirically established, no doubt.  Certainly, many anti-American Americans will consider themselves "true" Americans.  That does not mean that they actually are.  This would require further clarification of specific criteria for defining and determining the presence of "patriotism", which I am not going to do here.   My point is simply that the adjective "true" becomes meaningless unless you are willing to define American patriotism (at least to yourself).

3) Again, while it is true that the veracity of an argument does not depend on how fervently one argues for a particular position, you are certainly being DISINGENUOUS when you deny the obvious, i.e. that it is harder to defend President Bush's foreign policies than "echoing the NYT's rant".  This argument depends, of course, on the meaning of "harder".  It is "hard" to defend Bush's foreign policy essentially for 2 reasons: (1) because it is extremely ambitious (in terms of its goals) and represents a sharp break from the practice in preceding decades and, (2) for that very reason it is bound to be unpopular (at least in the short term) because it will be inevitably costly.   One could surely have a serious argument about the 'wisdom' of the policy, or lack thereof, both in terms of whether it is realistic/ achievable and/or whether the benefits justify the costs.  But it is NOT reasonable to deny - as you do - that it is harder to defend this difficult policy compared with "echoing the NYT rant" (which is Norman Conquest's euphemism for joining the facile crowd).

marcfrans: One can reasonably assume that Kapitein Andre does NOT live in Belgium, nor in the Netherlands.  I base this conclusion on the fact that he has never commented on the Dutch-language part of this website.  A man of his 'character' could not forego that if his Dutch language skills were good enough.

 

Oh really? You know what happens when you ass|u|me, right?

 

marcfrans: At the same time, he chose a Dutch/Flemish pseudonym, and it is obvious that he is very familiar with the 'details' (not so much the big picture) of both Western-European and North-American history and politics. It is also clear (at least to me) that he enjoys it when people are speculating wrongly about his background and location. So, rest assured that he will derive (let's call it) "psychic income" from reading this post.

 

My "psychic income" is derived from your consistent rising to the bait. Perhaps you need to brush up on the "details" yourself before tackling the "big picture". Your comments on the United States betray a marked unfamiliarity with it such that I do not believe you have ever set foot on American soil, although I cannot rule out visitation.

 

marcfrans: Perhaps his (recent) ancestry lies in Flanders (or in the Netherlands), but he himself resides in Canada? That would certainly fit his anti-yankee sentiments and Bush-bashing tendencies, and conform with Canada's cultural transformation of recent decades since the Trudeau days. It could also account for his "au contraire".

 

Ah the guessing game continues! As far as Canada is concerned, even a cursory glance at its history indicates a certain anti-American sentiment present since the American Revolution or War of Independence. Canada's ambivalence towards its largest trading partner and military ally is as obvious as the past resentment of Great Britain by Australia and New Zealand, due in no small part to the misuse of the latters' soldiers as pure cannon fodder in the Boer and Great Wars. Furthermore, "anti-yankee sentiments" and "Bush-bashing tendencies" can be found throughout the world and English is the latter's great lingua franca.

 

marcfrans: But, this is all pure speculation, and be assured that the 'Captain' wants to keep it that way. That is his good right. But, I hate to see people groping in the dark, and hence this post is intended to help you faster separate the facts from the fiction as far as the Kapitein is concerned.

 

I sound like such an ominous fellow...

Norman Conquest: You seem to pay a lot of "multicultural respect" to people who would not hesitate to decapitate you, captain oh my captain of the "dead foe society".

 

De Kapitein: Not exactly. If one must respect the true opinions of the international community, as opposed to the cartel of powers that dominate the United Nations, one must therefore respect those of less advanced societies rife with ignorance, resentment and jealousy of the West, as well as other assorted problems. I do not. Were the entire world enamored of the president's orations and of the United States itself, my opinion of the former would remain the same.

 

Norman Conquest: Having been busy all day, I first did not want to respond to your bad faith, but the temptation is just too strong: I needed to provide you with a reply.

 

De Kapitein:

"bad faith"? Amusing that blogosphere arguments cut through your daily grind.

 

Norman Conquest: The worst Anti-Americans are to be found in the US, not in Old Europe. Not even in Moslem countries, including France. Several Republicans should be blamed for succumbing to electoral pressure, no doubt.

 

De Kapitein:

Perhaps a new Civil War is in order? Or the secession of so-called 'blue states' to Canada? Your so-called 'American anti-Americans' are no less convinced that they are true Americans...

 

Norman Conquest: Defending President Bush's policies is something difficult, more difficult than echoing the NYT's rant. You could acknowledge this because you know it's true. Your approach is much more comfortable than mine. No risks.

 

De Kapitein:

This is nonsensical. Arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth is not a test of one's mettle. The proposition that the Earth revolved around the Sun was no more or less difficult in 14th Century Europe than today. An argument's reception by those unwilling or unable to understand it is besides the point.

 

Norman Conquest: You've been using French phrases throughout your text. Are you upset that I know French, dear? Is it my fault if I sit in between two great cultures?

 

De Kapitein:

I couldn't care less which languages you are fluent in, mon ami. I cannot comment on your last claim, as I am not quite certain which "great cultures" you are referring to.

 

Norman Conquest: I love Flanders very, very much.

 

De Kapitein:

It's all right I suppose. The Great War immortalized it in the same way that the Thirty Years War did for Magdeburg.

Be asolutely sure that I greatly appreciate your direct & indirect support and God knows it is badly needed in this world of lunacy. I am not quite sure what those people are actually looking for at the Brussels Journal. They are so tightly entangled in their  political correctness.  

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I know that and you know that but maybe HE doesn't.

Atheling,please,don't start introducing facts so early in this particular debate.If you do I'm likely to lose Kappert forever.

...Martin Luther King,Anwar Sadat....

 

 

"It would be an enormous step forward to proclaim non-violence as only reasonable objective for mankind".

 

 

"If there are proofs,send a dedicated team to get Mr Bin Laden".

 

 

So,after the events of 9/11, GWB should have proclaimed non-violence as the ONLY reasonable objective for mankind

 

Then

 

obtain irrefutable 'evidence' as to OBL's guilt,before sending in a hit squad to liquidate him. 

 

Ahem! Leaving aside all other practical considerations,I've got news for you,this ain't  Ahimsa the way Gandhi would have understood it,either.  

@ Norman Conquest

One can reasonably assume that Kapitein Andre does NOT live in Belgium, nor in the Netherlands.  I base this conclusion on the fact that he has never commented on the Dutch-language part of this website.  A man of his 'character' could not forego that if his Dutch language skills were good enough.

At the same time, he chose a Dutch/Flemish pseudonym, and it is obvious that he is very familiar with the 'details' (not so much the big picture) of both Western-European and North-American history and politics.  It is also clear (at least to me) that he enjoys it when people are speculating wrongly about his background and location.  So, rest assured that he will derive (let's call it) "psychic income" from reading this post.

Perhaps his (recent) ancestry lies in Flanders (or in the Netherlands), but he himself resides in Canada?  That would certainly fit his anti-yankee sentiments and Bush-bashing tendencies, and conform with Canada's cultural transformation of recent decades since the Trudeau days. It could also account for his "au contraire".  But, this is all pure speculation, and be assured that the 'Captain' wants to keep it that way.   That is his good right.  But, I hate to see people groping in the dark, and hence this post is intended to help you faster separate the facts from the fiction as far as the Kapitein is concerned. 

 

@kappert

 

And just remind me again,how did  Gandhi die? John Lennon...

You seem to pay a lot of "multicultural respect" to people who would not hesitate to decapitate you, captain oh my captain of the "dead foe society".

Having been busy all day, I first did not want to respond to your bad faith, but the temptation is just too strong: I needed to provide you with a reply. 

My new comments are preceded by the acronym NC. 

Norman Conquest: There is always an Anti-American hiding behind a Bush basher. More of the same, I am afraid.
 
One can say little for what is behind a Bush-defender these days. I suppose your comment can be translated as: "you're either with us or against us". Again, more of the same. Since when did Bush acquire this Hitlerian association with the American nation? Do you believe that all those Democrats, undecideds and Republicans that oppose the Bush administration are anti-American?

NC: Yes, absolutely. The worst Anti-Americans are to be found in the US, not in Old Europe. Not even in Moslem countries, including France. Several Republicans should be blamed for succumbing to electoral pressure, no doubt. Call it "opportunism" at best or "cowardice" at worst. Just as one can say that the May 1968 Revolution in France was against what Europe was standing for at the time. Given this generation is in power now, you can see the result. Defending President Bush's policies is something difficult, more difficult than echoing the NYT's rant. You could acknowledge this because you know it's true. Your approach is much more comfortable than mine. No risks.

Norman Conquest: President Bush has courageously implemented difficult policies that are good for America, even they are not necessarily popular (who cares about popularity?). You simply don't get it.
 
Au contraire, my comments pertained to public speaking not policy-making. If you are going to cover the latter, then you will have to account for the 'credit' that Congress and the rest of the executive should receive for these "difficult policies that are good for America", in your opinion. I for one was under the impression that democratic republics were designed such that absolute rulers were no longer required and that their offices were relegated to figurehead roles...

NC: You've been using French phrases throughout your text. Are you upset that I know French, dear? Is it my fault if I sit in between two great cultures? I don't consider President GWB as an absolute ruler. He was elected and re-elected with an overwhelming majority. That's democracy. And he was elected to do a job. Like I've said, I will get back to you with more on the Bush legacy LATER, not now, because the moment is not appropriate. Well, if you want reform, you need committed people, not assholes (gosh, I am being rude) such as the new "provisional" Belgian government, provisional till 2009 for sure. I hope to be wrong, of course. 

Norman Conquest: According to you, Americans are idiots.
 
Actually I never made that claim. I indicated that anti-Americanism existed and also noted that it was "insupportable". If you knew how to read properly, we wouldn't be hashing this one out.

NC: You're right, sorry. How much do you take to teach a committed Republican Bush backer how to read?
 

Norman Conquest: You've been in Flanders too long...
 
Really?

NC: I was just kidding you here. I love Flanders very, very much.

Well, you've made fun of me with "conquerors". So I just wanted to show you that I could make fun of you as well. I am very good at satire, better than you may think. A real master.

Now let's be serious for a sec: all you are proposing is Ghandi, right? I mean, it's a bit weak, not to say irrelevant, to deal with Moslem extremism.

Should anything more "ballish" ever cross the blind pacifist's mind of yours, then please do no hesitate to let us know. Thanks.  

Thank you,Kappert.So,if,as you claim, Gandhi is the reason why India is the "greatest" contemporary democracy,perhaps you could suggest how,in your opinion,the next U.S. president could learn from Gandhi.Any ideas? 

Norman Conquest: There is always an Anti-American hiding behind a Bush basher. More of the same, I am afraid.

 

One can say little for what is behind a Bush-defender these days. I suppose your comment can be translated as: "you're either with us or against us". Again, more of the same. Since when did Bush acquire this Hitlerian association with the American nation? Do you believe that all those Democrats, undecideds and Republicans that oppose the Bush administration are anti-American?

 

Norman Conquest: President Bush has courageously implemented difficult policies that are good for America, even they are not necessarily popular (who cares about popularity?). You simply don't get it.

 

Au contraire, my comments pertained to public speaking not policy-making. If you are going to cover the latter, then you will have to account for the 'credit' that Congress and the rest of the executive should receive for these "difficult policies that are good for America", in your opinion. I for one was under the impression that democratic republics were designed such that absolute rulers were no longer required and that their offices were relegated to figurehead roles...

 

Norman Conquest: According to you, Americans are idiots.

 

Actually I never made that claim. I indicated that anti-Americanism existed and also noted that it was "insupportable". If you knew how to read properly, we wouldn't be hashing this one out.

 

Norman Conquest: You've been in Flanders too long...

 

Really?

@ kappert

 

Still waiting for an answer to my first question.Meanwhile,here's my follow up.

 

If India is the "greatest democracy", a) How did India achieve that status? and b) Where in the world league of democracies do you place the USA and why?

@ marcfrans

 

I'm the "sly old fox",remember? But thanks for the analysis anyway.(Spot on, as per usual).

 

Brian,if you're reading this,kindly take note.

@Marcfrans

I agree with you “Brain” from “hot air” is wrong.

I would just like to expand on your 2nd point. Mr. Sharif was pardoned by Pakistani president during the time when Mr. Mushraff was Chief Executive of Pakistan. Mr. Sharifs father known as elder Sharif submitted an application on behalf of his sons to then Chief Executive Gen. Mushraff asking for pardon from all charges Gen. Mushraff signed it on condition that sharif’s would go in to exile and forwarded it to Pakistani president that time name Mr. Tarar. Mr. Tarar pardoned sharif brethrens and they were sent to Saudi Arabia. Sharif brethrens were allowed to contest in 2002 elections. according to some reports Saudi’s brokered an agreement between Mushraff and Sharif’s that Sharif’s would not contest 2008 election but would be allowed to contest in next which some Pakistani’s believe would be before 2010.

Hillary probably understands Pakistan better out of all candidates may be McCain is also at same level.

NYC under Mayor Giuliani there is nothing to argue about. In my view Giuliani should remind US Public more about his days as NYC Mayor. I lived in NYC during Giuliani era and I admire his work. Without a question city became safest under Mayor Giuliani.

President Bush’s Pakistan policy is reasonable in current situation. Although I disagree with putting all chips on Mushraff but on the other hand administration is very well connected with New Army chief Gen. Kiyani so in my view things are not so bad.

If Obama wins presidency I see a disastrous change in Pakistan policy. A Giuliani presidency would possibly keep BUSH Pakistan policy with some improvements.

I would say America you are going to chose not just an American president but free world’s leader also. so if  ya’ll are thinking about voting for Hussein Obama or “vote for Hillary get Bill Clinton free” think about it before you vote……  

 

@HenrikRClausen

It’s absolutely naïve to think about Dividing Pakistan. I don’t think if you even understand anything about Pakistan.

Pakistan was never a democracy never will be. The real custodian of Nukes and State of Pakistan is Pakistani Military. Politicians and Pakistani Public are not policy makers nor do they have any say in policy making Military establishments sets the policies. The best way to deal with Pakistan is to keep Pakistani military establishment US & west friendly. Pentagon and CIA have strong links and are well respected with in Pakistan Military and almost all of current commanders studied in UK or US and are mostly pro-West. Musraff is Sandhurst graduate, Gen Kiyani(New Army Chief) is C&GSC Fort Leavenworth graduate. Destabilising Pakistan or trying to divide Pakistan is like giving Islamofascists carte blanche. Pat Buchanan wrote a good article about Pakistani military establishment that we should never closer our military collages to Pakistani military and keep training the next leadership in western Military collages. It’s not perfect solution but that’s the best way to keep them on our side. And lastly don’t forget Pakistan’s “all weather friend” China.

 

@atheling

You are no different then a “9/11 Truther” they blame President Bush and you are blaming ex-president Clinton. People blaming any administration for horror’s of 9/11 disgust me.

marcfrans: As to Giuliani?  Well, it would appear that you are too young to know or understand what NYC was like (crimewise, economy-wise, and corruption-wise) before Giuliani cleaned things up, quite effectively.  The last thing NYC needs is to go back to Dinkins-style government.

 

A correlation does not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect situation. Certainly Levitt, Donohue and Dubner would counter that New York's fall in crime had little to do with Giuliani's policies...

 

marcfrans: ...in defense of Bush, it must be said that everybody can have brief memory lapses, and it also depends a bit on when a particular question gets asked. Perhaps Bush was 'ambushed' by journalists...

 

President George W. Bush should be prohibited from public speaking on the grounds that he is degrading America's image. Either the man is an utter goof or he is playing dumb. From general ignorance of myriad facts to ridiculous grammatical errors, Bush's addresses only confirm that global consensus that Americans are idiots. Of course this prejudice is insupportable on the face of it. Nonetheless it exists, even if it merely stereotypes American 'white trash'. Ultimately, I do not see how you can defend him at all. His idiocy boggles one's imagination, although so does Hillary's lack of femininity.

Huntsman: Pakistan is surely the tinderbox upon which the West must deploy its greatest skill to encourage it to stability. The alternative, that it and its nuclear arsenal might fall into the hand of Muslim fundamentalists, is too awful to contemplate.

 

It is already evident that weapons of mass destruction cannot be denied to the West's enemies. Time for plan 'B'.

 

Huntsman: Pay careful attention to the role of the internet in general and blogging in particular as I believe both will play an increasingly important part in politics both there and here.

 

True.

 

Huntsman: Elsewhere keep a careful watch on the military build up of both Russia and China. Each of these is a potential enemy for the middle quarters of the 21st. Century. The USA and the UK must not allow themselves to be totally distracted by Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and in particular must not allow their Armed Forces to be dominated in terms of doctrine, equipment, training and outlook by the sort of light wars now being fought in the Middle East.

 

Agreed. The West should concentrate on integrating Russia with Europe such that strong political and economic bonds can constrain the former's isolationist and anti-American stance. Naturally, Western Europe could benefit greatly from the fervent nationalism and market-friendly attitudes in Eastern Europe at a time when its welfare states are no longer compatible with increased global economic competition and the ascendancy of the tertiary sector (esp. finance and speculation), and it suffers from cultural malaise.

China is a tricky one. On the one hand, Beijing may be the single largest Westfalian threat facing the West and its greatest competitor for natural resources. On the other, encouraging secessionist and pro-democratic movements may backfire, especially as Beijing seems increasing conciliatory.

The victory in this lawsuit will not be the eventual disposition of the ruling.  The victory will come when a judge accepts the suit and permits it to go to trial.

The Discovery Process is the goal here.  Once a judge accepts this case, Savage is going to demand a total accounting of the internal finances of CAIR.. and that will be where the damage is done.

 

@ Atlanticist

Let's think briefly "out of the box" - very briefly only - and say something in defense of Hillary Clinton.  It would appear that "Brian" from "Hot Air" got it even more wrong than Hillary.

First, at the beginning of the little video, Hillary used the word "assassination" clearly in reference to Benazir Bhutto, not to her father.  So, the claim that Hillary did not know that Benazir's father had been executed (rather than assassinated) is false.

Second, at the end of the tape, it is not entirely clear whether the word "he" refers to Musharraf or to someone else. It could be interpreted to refer to Nawaz Sharif or to some other candidate (either from Sharif's party or Bhutto's).  So, the claim that Hillary is not aware of the difference between the past election for the Presidency and the coming one for the Prime Minstership, is not substantiated.  

At the same time, it is true that Hillary seems unaware that Sharif 'technically' (as a convicted felon) cannot run for the Prime Ministership.  But, it is also true (if I am not mistaken) that the Pakistani government has not made a clear statement on that.  They certainly did not block him from returning from exile.  It could be argued that Hillary left that matter 'open'.

Finally, these 'subtleties' are not really comparable with Bush not knowing the name of Musharraf.  However, in defense of Bush, it must be said that everybody can have brief memory lapses, and it also depends a bit on when a particular question gets asked.  Perhaps Bush was 'ambushed' by journalists, whereas Hillary entered a TV studio to discuss current events just before an election.

Conclusion (I think):  Hillary is generally better 'thinking on her feet', but often has 'bad' instincts and goals.  Bush has better 'instincts', but is not a 'smooth talker' about foreign policy.

Remember how much flak George Bush got at the time for not knowing the name of the President of Pakistan? Well,...

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/01/video-smartest-woman-in-the-world-doesnt-know-the-first-thing-about-pakistan/

 

Enjoy!

I might be mistaken but I have a feeling kappert's response will switch from 'Kant' to 'Cant'.

 

Happy New Year !

I hope Michael Savage wins this suit.  If he does, it will strike a blow at the Islamic tentacles in the US.

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

Be sure to scroll down to the 45th paragraph and beyond of the amended complaint - that's when it gets interesting - and is the meat of the suit.  A victory would set a great precedent in eliminating Islamic influence.

Hey,please,don't give our friend 'Kaputt' any help on this one...

Answering this question is a challenge. However, I would like to suggest the following:

First, our Germaniac Freu(n)d Herr Kassper von Munchausen would have set up an observatory of terrorism desirably funded by the EU. Clooney would have asked: "What else?"

Second, Herr Kassper von Munchausen would have called for a demonstration in central Brussels against US architects who "take huge bribes to build weak structures". A bit like the Berlaymonster, if you like.

This ugly building is home to the European Commission.

Third,  Herr Kassper von Munchausen would have invited terrorists to have talks about how to end terrorism, just as you would have talks with the mafia about ending mafia activities.

Fourth, the conclusions of these talks would be submitted to the UN. A few amendments would be introduced, e.g. the zakuskis have been omitted. Shit!

Fifth, America is the enemy and more action needs to be taken against it. Come on, America, be less capitalistic. Adopt the EU social model and subsidize your economy.   

Q: If you were president Bush,how would YOU have responded to the events of the morning of September 11,2001?

-What was it, what upsets you? The islamic creationist? Not knowing about Kant has nothing to do with being religious or not

NC: YOU've referred to protestantism. Look, I don't care about Kant.

-it's a philosophy affecting everybody.

NC: Well, I am not affected by Germaniacs.

-Kant invented, just like Freud, a framework which convinces human beings.

NC: So Kant is an inventor now. That's news to me. I thought he was a philosopher. I don't like the "framework which convinces human beings". It sounds rather like the box [the straitjacket] that convicts human beings. As regards your friend Freud, he does not mean anything to me.  

-Clever, ei! Specially when it has nothing to do with science. We have a lot of these charlatans through the centuries. The terrorists who seized power in Germany in the 30s were elected, just like Bush and, surprise, even Saddam. Only kings usurpate the throne!

NC: I don't see why GWB is a terrorist and how he seized power. America is the world's greatest democracy, wezzer you leik it or nawt, Herr Kassper. Granted, Herr Kassper of the SSigmund Leuft, the US has its flaws. But when I look at Old Europe, I want to vomit and I do - hang on, bear wizz mich, I am going to the loo right now - ach, feels better nau.

You're an exss-kapper-ating relativist for sure. 

 

You ton't laaff, Herr Kassper?

The Bhutto assassination leaves a deep wound in the 'democracy' of Pakistan. Quotes, because it just doesn't function, and didn't for decades. Corruption, coups & radical Islam is making a mockery of it. Killing Bhutto may be just what it takes to utterly destroy it.

Or destroy Pakistan. Which just might be the better option.

Pakistan is actually an artificial state, composed of 'nations' of varying ethnicity and language, and wildly varied geography, too. It's a composite left behind after the British left India in 1947, but in contrast with India proper, Pakistan is a failed state. With miserable politicians, too. Bhutto may have been popular, but her acts when in office were not amazing. She let the Islamist groups grow stronger while neglecting such important issues as the public education system. Perhaps she is even the victim of her own policies towards the Islamists. There are many other than Al-Qaeda, for instance the equally brutal Laskhar-e-Toiba, which merrily mounts severe suicide attacks.

Corruption is the bane of confidence in the political system, and it is traditionally rampant in Pakistan. Bhuttos husband earned his nickname "Mr. 10 %" for a reason. I have a notion that corruption tends to be a worse problem when politicians need to plan an "early retirement" - being kicked out of office or towards jail. Bhutto herself didn't make it that far, though, which is worse. Able persons probably will steer clear of politics as the risk of untimely death is rather significant. But able persons are needed.

Now, what if the provinces were given greater autonomy, with a direction towards ultimately dissolving Pakistan? Locally elected leaders with a greater feeling of responsibility and identification towards their own ethnic group, which would be who they are supposed to benefit. Less corruption, possibly. And an identification that lies somewhere outside of Islam, for a change, which would make an interesting barrier against the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Jihad Islamea etc. groups who want to take over all of Pakistan in one fell swoop.

Yes, there are nukes to worry about. Possibly one or two of the mini-Pakistans would be responsible for those, probably with Western aid. It can't be any more difficult than our current need to keep all of the country afloat - a venture that looks increasingly doomed.

I think we should quietly consider that Pakistan falling apart might not be such a bad thing, after all.

You can keep your allusions and insults for your fellow Liberal Leftists, Mister.

Who cares about Kant? He is "passé", because he has been superseded by much better philosophers since then.

Moreover, I really Kant understand why Kant should be any Kant of reference here.

I am not living in the Middle Ages, nor in the Rennaissance, my dear.

In the word "German", there is the word "germ". Do you know what they do with germs?

Now this will be my last response to your nonsense. Thanks for your input with no output.

I have enjoyed this exchange anyway, knowing you do not have any relevant argument. Only intellectual blackmail.

My comments:

-Who's talking about America's friends? - I am.

-Unfortunately, I'm talking about mankind! As far as I know, Kant was a German, a protestante, - Who cares? You're not religious anyway.

-who practically never left his home and whose philosophy is still predominante in circles who believe that man is the outmost invention in this world. - This seems to contradict Comrade Charlie, doesn't it?

-I was talking about young people who do not have any moral or values any more, because modern politics does not deliver these values. - Yeah, but it's neither Bush's, nor Hussein's fault!

-I do not use categories like you describing people in a burocratic manner to put them to Guantánamo, we had that in the 30s to learn as History is full of these kantian superbeings judging on others. - Well, Gitmo would have been a pre-emptive solution for the terrorists who seized power in Germany in the 30s, no? But ok you don't like pre-emptive solutions.

-Al Queda is not a country and human races do not exist, I don't know where you got that idea in my text? - True, that was in another Bosch (what's in a name?) Ferretti posting. Sorry. I mean it.

-Thank you for admiring my courage, the Geneva Convention is one of the few highlights in human existence. - This remark was only ironical. YOU raised the issue posed by the GC, assume it.

You're the David Kapper[mine]field of politics.

I mean, you do not even address the points that are made to you.

The only response we get is tantamount to intellectual blackmail.

According to you, America's friends are people who: 

"lack morality and ethics that conduct right to manifested ignorance of international conventions, and turn society fragile to misuse. These shallow behaviors allow a distortion of values which end up in juvenile delinquency, as we can see in Germany, France and Holland this very week, and we experienced in several school shootings. Instead of defending the indefensible, one may meditate while young people are simply beating the elder ones. How is it possible that there are no values or ethics anymore and anything goes".

Great! I admire your courage.

So, is this all you have against us? Apparently, you haven't even bothered to read what I've posted in relation to the Geneva Convention. Of course, it's certainly rubbish to you. Well, do not raise the issue then. 

Moreover, I did not know that Al Qaeda was a country, in which case, we, the West, really, really have a problem, and I didn't know that Islam was a race, something you haven't suggested, of course.

Hey Dave, whose side are you on, chap? Have fun, hey!!!

Oh and before I forget, I am a creationist. You see, Papa Tango Charlie [Darwin] has failed to entirely convince me that man is ONLY an "intelligent" ape. And yeah, I've found the missing link between ape and man: Leftists!!!

Hey Bosch, keep plugging away, everyone needs a thick skin here, including me, you, and your detractors.

 

Now then, and interesting point with: “Being a policeman is different than being an invader. The Bush Doctrine is about pre-emption: it rejects the notion that we should respond, which is what cops do, and favors attacking first.”

 

It could be argued that cops do not necessarily only “react”. If they see a house with drugs and weapons flowing into it, they most certainly are going to “react” to that, rather than wait for the drugs to be dispersed down the line, or for the weapons to be used. If those weapons DID kill a couple kids while the cops were just sitting there with binocs watching the house, the Chief of Police and even the Mayor might have some explaining to do.

 

This, amazingly enough, segues directly to another issue on this very posting; namely Mr. Giuliani’s leadership. Virtually his entire policing strategy relied upon “Broken Windows”. That theory says that a house with a broken window that stays broken for a while, will soon see another broken window, then another, then a broken door, and eventually be looted entirely, because as long as that broken window stays, the message is sent to the entire neighborhood that no one cares about this house, do what you will.  

 

In policing, you do NOT ignore the subway jumpers, the pickpockets, the panhandlers, etc to focus on the murderers and rapists, because the former will CREATE an environment where latter can run rampant. Crack down on the former, and the latter will get the message real quick.

 

So Mr. Bush and many others could say quite truthfully that it is the refusal of the UN, most of Europe, and (if I may tip my hand), assorted lefty nitwits, to continually apologize for terrorism and tyranny, to place blame for it anywhere but where it belonged, etc etc, let the “broken windows” of Palestinian thug politics fester forever, rabid tyrannies go unconfronted forever, and so forth, that allows these problems to grow from a broken window to a looted house. Add WMD, and the house is now burned to the foundations, all because a window broke and everyone turned away and said it’s not my problem.

 

Mr. Bush said, post 9-11, "this is what a looted house (in Manhattan) looks like. And it IS our problem."

 

Does that make it pre-emptive?

 

So be it.

You're just great.

As regards President Bush's record, we'll get back to that later. There are lots of positive things to mention. Actually, given the difficulty of our times, I think that overall GWB has a good, if not excellent, record.

"Thinking out of the box" or "outside of the box" means that you don't want your judgement to be paralysed by political correctness and/or preconceived ideas that are supposed to reassure your interlocutors. The correlation also implies that you don't fear contradiction. The French have invented the pret-a-porter (ready to wear) and the Left, the "pret-a-penser". After the separation of church and state, shall we eventually get the separation of socialism and state, of Hillary and state, of global warming and state?

"Giuliani's foreign policy advisors are the most reckless of the reckless neocons, led by Norman Podhoretz, a man who would have us bomb Iran tomorrow "

 

Talk about reckless!  Letting Iran have the bomb is suicidal.

I didn't know that, given President Bush's and the GOP's ratings, the Republican position was mainstream. If so, it's good news. But I really doubt it, sorry.

However, I've just received this good news highlighting another big difference between Right and Left: the latter fears contradiction whereas the former does not. At least as regards the latter this was true till today: Times defends hiring The Weekly Standard's conservative Kristol

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=27C89DDB-3048-5C12-00ED609D9DC371C5

Apparently, things are changing for the better at the NYT.

 

Thank you very, very much indeed for this brilliant piece of disinformation inspired by superb moral relativism. Your brains have probably been neutralised by the NYT and the like using the Goebbels propaganda technique. Each of your points is subject to misinterpretation, Sir.

I don't care about terrorists. You want to apply the rule of law to those people who would not apply it to you. A very Leftist reaction, after all.  

 

 
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/29/2007-12-29_freed_to_kill_again.html
 
In fact, I just hate it when the uninformed cite the Geneva Convention to back up their claims of supposed abuse.  These people clearly have never read the Geneva convention wrt POWs.  It is actually quite clear; the GC applies to POW's, and to be considered one, you have to be clearly identified as a being part of the uniformed military.  Obviously, none of the GITMO detainees meet this criterion, and therefore the GC does not apply. Why there has been a continuing failure to point this out in the media is obvious, in part made possible by the Susan Sarandon ilk.
 
Moreover, the Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed members of foreign militaries -- anyone found outside of a uniform can be summarily shot. Further, it only applies between states that have BOTH signed the GC. First, al Qaida is not a state and could never under any circumstances sign the GC. Second, we didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan so therefore did not recognize their rights under the GC, the Taliban never signed or recognized GC rights and in fact believe that they have every right to kill all the non-Moslems they want. Third, no Afghan gov't has ever in history signed the GC -- unless the Karzai gov't did in the past couple of years.
 
So, to the guys caught in Afghanistan -- either Taliban or al Qaida -- have no GC protections at all. And they have no protections from the criminal courts because they have not been charged with crimes and, until they are, are not treated as criminals.
 
Of course, if you read the NYT...
 
Dear Fellow Conservatives, do you understand that Bush hatred started well before the War in Irak? Do you understand that the manipulative Left has got an agenda whatever it takes, e.g. undermine the US President's credibility and America's together with it as a mean revenge for Mr Gore's failure in the 2000 elections (you remember the "Bush stole the election" bullshit)? The Patriot Act was also a good thing as there have not been any terror attacks on US soil since 9/11.