Paul Vs. Thompson

[budney]

At least your negativity is consistent even if it is not honest. These are all opinions stated as fact, and some are at odds with the facts or based on untruths.

Elaborate if you wish.

You can start, if you wish, with the "embassy" we're building in the green zone that's as bis as the Vatican, which the Iraqis refer to as "George
W's Palace." Is that the sort of thing you build when you plan to be there for less than, say, the next few decades?

No one said turn Iraq into Canada.

The goal is/was to create a peaceful, secular, pro-western democracy. That isn't synonymous with "Canada," but "turn them into Canada" is simply a vivid way of referring to that goal.

--Len

 

[Chui]

How about explaining the fourteen permananent military bases being built there. Or are you aware of this?

The "embassy" you cannot explain. Don't try. You'll lose credibility.

 

[Michigander]

Maybe we're building the bases for the (some day to be, strong) Iraqi Army?

 

[Marshall]

There's a problem with the US having an Embassy in Iraq?

Here's our Embassies in other Mid East countries.

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA


• Algeria: Algiers
• Bahrain: Manama
• Egypt: Cairo
• Iraq: Baghdad
• Israel: Tel Aviv
• Jerusalem
• VPP Gaza
• Jordan: Amman
• Kuwait: Kuwait City
• Lebanon: Beirut
• Libya: Tripoli
• Morocco: Rabat
• Morocco: Casablanca
• Oman: Muscat
• Qatar: Doha
• Saudi Arabia: Riyadh
• Saudi Arabia: Dhahran
• Saudi Arabia: Jeddah
• Syria: Damascus
• Tunisia: Tunis
• United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi
• United Arab Emirates: Dubai
• Yemen: Sana’a

 

[budney]

There's a problem with the US having an Embassy in Iraq? Here's our Embassies in other Mid East countries.

It's actually a myth that ostriches stick their heads in the sand. They don't do that. People do, though.

--Len.

 

[Marshall]

What's the problem with having Embassies Len?

Oh yea, we're on your sand.


Here's a list of the 193 countries that Embassies here, on our sand.

http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm

 

[steelhead]

There's a problem with the US having an Embassy in Iraq?

The problem isn't having an embassy in Iraq. The problem is making it into another "Herod's Palace". It is going to be 6 times larger than the United Nations complex in New York and approximately a third smaller than the mall in Washington D.C.. How would you like it if China, Mexico or whoever, decided to build such a complex in the United States? The answer is you wouldn't like it at all.



"Ozymandias"

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart....Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Percy Bysshe Shelley

 

[budney]

+1 Steelhead. +5 for quoting Ozymandias, my favorite poem.

Marshall,

It's abundantly clear that this is no embassy. An "embassy" is the workplace of an ambassador and his support staff, and it doesn't need to be the size of the Vatican. This is clearly much more than that. Specifically, it's clearly intended to be the site of the American occupation government for decades to come.

The "head in the sand" remark refers to the fact that you can look at an embassy bigger than many of the world's cities, and say, "So? It's an embassy! So what?!"

Since the Vatican is the world's smallest country, it would be correct to say that this "embassy" is in fact "the size of a small country." Does that help put it in perspective for you?

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

It has a lot to do with the strategy of fighting a war. In Germany we built or took over more than a hundred small posts to fight the Russians. Since we have won the cold war we have given back all but a handful and the rest are not far behind. Like Len, Chui and others backing the Jihadists there were many people that were convinced that we could never defeat the Russians and communisim. They were wrong of course.

In Iraq it is easier to defend several large posts than many small ones. 144,000 military personnel at last count plus another 30,000 contractors have to live and work somewhere over there. Rather than put them in the Hyatt or leave them exposed in the field why don't we build a secure base where we can protect soldiers and equipment? As we transition over to Iraqi Army control we can let them have the bases.

These answers won't satisfy the anti crowd. I can't help that because I don't have the answers that they want; since they suppose that everything that the federal government does is evil they look for evidence to support that position only.

Huge embassy? A couple of things with that. In Iraq we will have only the one embassy. In many other countries the embassy has consulates located throughout the country. We also have more than 200,000 Americans living in the country full time now. We might need a lage embassy for that. And yep a lot of people will be working there for years to come. But when you are closed minded there are no other possibilities.

 

[Marshall]

No, it doesn't. Now you're b*tchin bout the size of buildings. Heck, if it was an ant hill you would still be complaining, just because it's there, on your sand. I guess we should have contacted you for the proper dimensions.

 

[budney]

Like Len, Chui and others backing the Jihadists...

Very high-road of you!

Since I oppose ALL initiation of force, I certainly don't back "jihadists". In this particular case, I neither back the jihadists NOR the administration's invasion. Both are guilty of initiating aggression.

The only form of force I can endorse is self-defense, and an invasion is not self-defense. Compare Switzerland, which has a defensive military and occupies NO countries, with the US, which has an offensive posture and occupies 131 countries.

--Len.

 

[budney]

No it doesn't. Now you're b*tchin bout the size of buildings.

That's what I mean by "head in the sand." You can look up in an encyclopedia what an "embassy" is, and it doesn't require the construction of an entire city. It's blazingly obvious that this is no embassy.

If the Soviets built an "embassy" in Washington DC roughly the same size as the Capitol district itself, I imagine you'd suddenly start "b*tchin bout the size of buildings."

--Len.

 

[Marshall]

If the Soviets built an "embassy" in Washington DC roughly the same size as the Capitol district itself, I imagine you'd suddenly start "b*tchin bout the size of buildings."

First of all 104 acres does not a small city make.

Secondly, the Iraqi Goverment isn't b*tching Len, you are.

 

[budney]

Secondly, the Iraqi [Puppet] Goverment isn't b*tching Len, you are.

Sigh. When you take your head out of the sand, blow your nose; sand up the nose is itchy.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

Len- You serve their agenda and share many of their goals. Just as I serve the agenda and back many of the goals of the Federal Government even if I disagree with them philosophically. Whether you back their philosophy or not matters little the result is the same.

 

[budney]

Len- You serve their agenda and share many of their goals.

Sigh. OK, demonize away. If politely requesting that you avoid demagoguery doesn't work, I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you.

Ironically, when the botched invasion ultimately fails, you'll accuse "Len and people like him" of "sabotaging" it. So you're already completely safe from any danger of ever reconsidering a bad idea.

You'll never realize that you have it exactly backwards. The current administration is acting against the best interests of the American people, and folks like RP are voices of sanity.

--Len.

 

[Kentucky]

Sigh. OK, demonize away. If politely requesting that you avoid demagoguery doesn't work, I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you.

You are the one who started out calling us bigots and racists. Typical double standard!

 

[Titan6]

Len- You should be the last of all people to accuse of demgoguery. Nearly half the posts you make are you getting on your high horse and accusing the federal government of all the world's ills.

You have started to make yourself irrelevant as we all know what you are going to say next.

 

[budney]

You are the one who started out calling us bigots and racists. Typical double standard!

I did nothing of the sort, as I've already explained. Since then, SOME individuals have certainly done their best to prove that they ARE bigots, though.

Anyone who suggests that the Iraqi people generally, or any Iraqi who objects to the occupation, should be "whacked," or who casually speaks of how "they" hate us, want to kill us, etc.--and then says out one side of their mouth, "I only mean the 'jihadis'," and out the other side, "You notice that no muslims have condemned the terrorists," is clearly enough bigoted.

On the other hand, I have never expressed any support for the terrorists. Your insinuations to the contrary are dishonest. The accusation is based on the fact that I don't blanket condemn all Muslims--or at least all Muslims with a beef against wrong-doing by the US government. But refusing to paint them all with one brush is what it means to be... wait for it... not bigoted.

You have started to make yourself irrelevant as we all know what you are going to say next.

Sort of like Ron Paul is "irrelevant" and "doesn't have a snowball's chance." You know what I'll say next because I've already said it: any initiation of aggression is always and unconditionally wrong. The golden rule. It's as simple as that. Anything else I say is simply an application of the golden rule to the topic at hand.

--Len.

 

[Kentucky]

Recent post by budney:

budney: Republicrats won't like him because he doesn't support carpet-bombing uppity desert darkies…
… nobody questions either the carpet-bombing of camel-jockies

...but don't you dare call us bigoted!

Marshall,

"They... they... they..." Meaning all of the world's one billion muslims. But you're not bigoted. Not at all.

Yeah, THAT'S really likely. Don't wet your pants, Marshall.

All we have to do is shoot enough of them that the rest will get it through their thick skulls? Sigh. The idea that we can forcibly better another person is unbelievable hubris. God couldn't do it in 6,000 years, why the hell do you think you're better at this than He is?

 

[budney]

Recent post by budney:

Double check: all but the first are replies to specific bigoted comments. The latter is indeed a swipe at Republicans, but I do realize that lots of Republicans are disgusted with the current administration.

--Len.

 

[Marshall]

The only form of force I can endorse is self-defense, and an invasion is not self-defense. Compare Switzerland, which has a defensive military and occupies NO countries, with the US, which has an offensive posture and occupies 131 countries.

I feel badly for your wife, girlfriend or, boyfriend. If someone threatens to kill them, especially one that has killed others like her, she'll have to watch you sit and smoke a cig while waiting on her to be killed or mamed before you'll take agressive action.

 

[Titan6]

Deleted- Marshall beat me to the obvious conclusion.

 

[budney]

I feel badly for your wife, girlfriend or, boyfriend. If someone threatens to kill them, especially one that has killed others like her, she'll have to watch you sit and smoke a cig while waiting on her to be killed or mamed before you'll take agressive action.

Self-defense is not "initiation of aggression." The current Iraqi invasion, however, is not self-defense.

The gay-bashing is noted. You've left the high-road far behind, it seems. My wife has something funny she says in reply to that kind of trash talk, but I'll keep it to myself.

--Len.

 

[budney]

So you would not stop a man from a rape of a woman since he had not intiated violence against you?

I can defend others, as is pretty well explained in several sources, because their right to defend themselves includes the right to request defense from another agent. Just as I can hire a bodyguard, if I wish, so a passer-by can voluntarily provide such services to me or on my behalf.

However, if in the course of stopping the rape I shoot up the neighborhood and leave a trail of bodies behind, I don't get to say, "Eh? Collateral damage!" My authority to defend others doesn't include the right to kill innocent bystanders.

Note, Marshall and Titan, that this particular tangent is done to death whenever any libertarian talks about the "initiation of force." Defense is not an initiation of force, because it's a response to a specific attack or threat. The accent is on "specific," though. In a rough neighborhood I can't gun down black men dressed like gangstas because "They look dangerous and this is a high crime area." Similarly, a generalized fear of all things Arab doesn't constitute sufficient threat to start whacking people. The threat has to be specific, real, and imminent.

Since you're both trained in the defensive use of firearms, you actually know all this. You just aren't applying it to threats such as a terrorist attack, because you believe that that's a different arena with different rules, where for example killing bystanders is something you try not to do but that, ultimately, is allowed.

--Len.