does anyone else read counter punch?
- Thread starter minxnim
- Start date
VangelicSurgeon
Three Star General
deadair
Overly-Cryptic Jake
yea his name blows my mind.
you know, i have a distance cousin named dick liss. i swear to god. he used to own a religious store called 'mary's gift shop'. yikes.
you know, i have a distance cousin named dick liss. i swear to god. he used to own a religious store called 'mary's gift shop'. yikes.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
k, well...
first of all, I'm alarmed by COCKBURN's attitude that because the possibility or even likelihood of faked evidence exists, all such evidence should be discounted. just as we shouldn't assume if they find evidence the evidence is valid, we shouldn't assume if we find evidence the evidence is forged. yet people will do both across the world, based on their politics, and throw objectivity out the window.
iraq's WMDs aren't really the issue--iraq's human-rights record is the issue (the WMDs are simply what Bush decided to pretend the issue was, in order to scare americans and europeans and the rest of the world into agreeing with an invasion. "human rights" holds very little water in the international community). making them the issue was a mistake, and if Saddam "disarmed" tomorrow, that doesn't affect any justification for war at all, in my opinion.
however, the bottom line is that saddam does have "WMDs". everyone knows it (except, like, Janeane Garofalo, who took the bizarre position not even France has, that a chemical or radiological or bioweapon has never ever been even close to Iraq's borders, or something equally silly).
i guess an interesting question is: considering that WMDs are not Iraq's sin, assuming that Iraq 100% definitely has WMDs somewhere...would it be justified to fake evidence of something that we know exists because of the importance of "world opinion"?
I think it's a very bad idea while not being a very wrong idea; well, wrong, yes, wronger than saying "fuck world opinion and this WMD shit, we're going in for human rights", but righter than dropping the issue entirely and being like "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, CHALABI!"? but people should fucking realise that the truth will eventually come out, and that the U.S.'s moral advantage over other countries (like Iraq) comes from its relative honesty and commitment to what's right, and the U.S. must, must always maintain its moral high ground. so i think it's a terrible, terrible idea.
cockburn's declaration "Across the past few weeks the Bush/Powell rationales for attacking Iraq for possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction has been spectacularly demolished, not least by UN inspectors Elbaradei and Blix." isn't true, though. even though as you see above, i'm way anti-the-WMD argument, it still holds water if you care about WMDs.
i appreciate the iowa jab, though.
first of all, I'm alarmed by COCKBURN's attitude that because the possibility or even likelihood of faked evidence exists, all such evidence should be discounted. just as we shouldn't assume if they find evidence the evidence is valid, we shouldn't assume if we find evidence the evidence is forged. yet people will do both across the world, based on their politics, and throw objectivity out the window.
iraq's WMDs aren't really the issue--iraq's human-rights record is the issue (the WMDs are simply what Bush decided to pretend the issue was, in order to scare americans and europeans and the rest of the world into agreeing with an invasion. "human rights" holds very little water in the international community). making them the issue was a mistake, and if Saddam "disarmed" tomorrow, that doesn't affect any justification for war at all, in my opinion.
however, the bottom line is that saddam does have "WMDs". everyone knows it (except, like, Janeane Garofalo, who took the bizarre position not even France has, that a chemical or radiological or bioweapon has never ever been even close to Iraq's borders, or something equally silly).
i guess an interesting question is: considering that WMDs are not Iraq's sin, assuming that Iraq 100% definitely has WMDs somewhere...would it be justified to fake evidence of something that we know exists because of the importance of "world opinion"?
I think it's a very bad idea while not being a very wrong idea; well, wrong, yes, wronger than saying "fuck world opinion and this WMD shit, we're going in for human rights", but righter than dropping the issue entirely and being like "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, CHALABI!"? but people should fucking realise that the truth will eventually come out, and that the U.S.'s moral advantage over other countries (like Iraq) comes from its relative honesty and commitment to what's right, and the U.S. must, must always maintain its moral high ground. so i think it's a terrible, terrible idea.
cockburn's declaration "Across the past few weeks the Bush/Powell rationales for attacking Iraq for possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction has been spectacularly demolished, not least by UN inspectors Elbaradei and Blix." isn't true, though. even though as you see above, i'm way anti-the-WMD argument, it still holds water if you care about WMDs.
i appreciate the iowa jab, though.
VangelicSurgeon
Three Star General
sometimes i think cockburn just freaks out and wants so badly for everything on the right to be totally bad, that he doesn't take enough time to back his shit up.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
i mean, i would totally support someone's search for the relative truth of a situation but everyone seems to be picking up all this flotsam and jetsom and like, trying to use it as proof when really it's never making even close to an entire picture. i find reading viewpoints interesting mostly because it's good to know what other people are thinking. but i don't really think i've ever been convinced by any article like these ever.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
that's why i read yellowtimes.org (well, did) and nationalreview.com. i'm actually going to see this neoconservative guy Jonah Goldberg speak at Wheaton tonight (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_09_corner-archive.asp#004721). he's a really good and witty writer, who's right maybe 1/3 of the time, and makes good points 1/3 of the time, and is a stupid prick the other 1/3, i guess. but being able to discern which is which is the goal!
hmm i have never read that before. i will have to look it over once i am done doing this extremely morose task i am taking part in at the moment.
