Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government

Why? "Black supremest racist"? You can hardly expect bluescat to give you a complete list of all the people who aren't Obama. Why, there must be dozens of 'em.

How about CNN, where it was the top item on the page when I saw it over two days, you brainless halfwit racist? When almost every media outlet is saying the same thing, you think your source is somehow right and everybody else is wrong?Oh, wait. It's Buz. Objectivity and facts and rational thought are foreign to him.I'm out. Continuing to participate in this thread is just going to piss me off until I get myself suspended. Have fun cowering in terror of "teh ebil Muslim stealth president," moron. You aren't worth my time.

You hear more than one voice in your head? You seem to have missed out a few demographic groups that preferred Obama. For example:* Asians
* Latinos
* Catholics
* Jews
* People living in cities
* People living in suburbs
* People living in any geographic region of the US except the South
* People between the ages of 30 and 44
* People earning less than $50,000 a year
* People earning more than $200,000 a year
* Every group when categorized by educational status
* Men
* Women
* THE FREE AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICADon't listen to the voices, Buz. They aren't good voices. No-one at all is covering it, which is, of course, why you've never ever heard about it. Like me, you didn't read about it in the news, which is why you have no more idea what you're referring to than I do. They're keeping it a secret from us.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hey Kuresu,(I could not access EvC forum yesterday afternoon from work and night from home. What gives?)If, IF ANY American troops are in Iraq after 16 months (now its 19 months eh?, nice goal-post moving Kuresu, nice goal-post moving Obama), that would be clear and more evidence of continuing Bush policy. Fact, 70% of Iraqis want ALL Americans to leave. It is their country, what THEY want counts. What Bush or Obama wants is hardly important. If Germany invades Poland, Germany does NOT get the choice to continue occupying Poland. The Iraqi invasion was based on lies. Thus, ALL American presence in Iraq is completely immoral and illegal. This particular situation would certainly be WITHOUT precedent. Your counter-argument about the USA having military bases in other countries is a straw man argument. Apples to oranges. ONLY WITH the approval of non-bullied or non-bribed people/government can the USA rightfully keep bases in other nations. (Indeed, recently Kyrgyzstan didn't approve, thus closed the U.S. base.) Again, 70% of Iraqis want USA out of there country. If Germany invades Poland, Germany does NOT get the choice to continue occupying Poland.U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement SOFA
U.S.—Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - WikipediaAccording to SOFA, there are some scenarios that might extend the occupation. (Perhaps a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?) Kuresu, do you really believe a mere paper "agreement" will bind the war-criminal-actions of the USA to its terms? Kinda like using the honor system at a maximum security prison. I'd like to point out the USA has a looong history of violating international law and treaties . . .Again, this is all speculation, I cannot use violations of SOFA for evidence, . . . yet. Kuresu, put this SOFA agreement in the folder marked "we'll see" and date it August 2010. To repeat, I would prefer to be wrong about Obama, and hope the US is COMPLETELY out of Iraq in the next 16, . . . err, 19 months. We'll see.Re FISA bill:
First Kuresu writes: [insert backpeddling noise]Then Kuresu later writes: BS. Obama has pledged to defend the constitution and uphold the law. Bush's warrantless wiretapping was unconstitutional and illegal. Obama's FISA immunity bill vote was simply treasonous and despicable. With it, there will be no investigation of Bush's wire-tapping crimes or telecommunication company's collusion. This point stands as an example of Obama enabling/furthering Bush's illegal policies by allowing the crime to go unpunished and giving precedent to future presidential law breaking. It might be helpful to remember that the governments, the agencies, the departments, the nations, the world, etc., all warned loudly and repeatedly that the Iraqis were composed of different religious tribes that could ignite into a civil war IF the Bush Administration disregarded the invasion advice.The Nuremberg Trials clearly showed: the country that illegally invades another country is wholly and fully responsible for ALL bad things that precipitates. By showing percentages for different causes of death, you attempt to marginalize the USA's responsibility. This is distasteful to say the least. The USA is responsible for ALL bad things in Iraq since the invasion. One doesn't deliberately run a bull into a china store and then unilaterally decide which broken pieces to pay for. Puhlease. How ridiculous. The two state-solution has been hindered/vetoed by the US and Israel for almost 40 years. Just implement it Obama. Or continue with Bush's policy.(One of my prior posts commented how Obama remained silent during Israel's recent illegal and immoral invasion of Gaza. Collective punishment IS a war crime. Gee wiz, how wonderful, when war crimes happen, Obama will merely have silent. . . "reservations".) Oh brother. Gosh, you really caught me there Pops. I'll have to re-construct my entire argument from scratch. Ummm, let's see . . . how about: "I don't believe we'll see foreign policy change, Obama will continue to follow Bush policies and other war criminal policies". How's that? Golly gee, it's like a completely different argument.You previously wrote: Dronester responds: Then Kuresu responds: Oh no no no, that IS the Obabma policy. Read my link again Pops. My counter-argument specifically and completely refuted your first counter-argument. As my evidence shows, Obama's current policy continues the Bush strategy of muddling through. Additional troops and their respective war crimes (more wedding party massacres) will increase in Afghanistan under an Obama administration. The immoral and illegal policies of Bush continues, you lose this battle. For the second time, no. Fact: USA IS muddlin' through Afghan. Kuresu, I'll note your good intentions for laying out a seemingly earnest Afghan strategy. But it is the exact same type of thinking that escalated the Vietnam war into MILLIONS dead: Which is why I previously wrote: Sorry Pops, my time and resources aren't limitless. It is a huge topic, but I'll try to expand with my next post.Regarding R. Gates influence. You wrote: Then you contradicted: So does Gates affect change or not? Seems you sunk your boat either way.A two-millisecond google search reveals:
Hillary Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran, she said after being asked what she would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
The Times & The Sunday TimesHer hawkish words were in response to a deliberately mis-translated warning from the Iranian president. Great, just the "change" we want from the Bush years. More blowhard cowboy talk. (Try looking up the word "diplomacy" Hillary) According to the Geneva Conventions, threatening nuclear annihilation is a crime against peace. I am unclear if it is also a war crime. The technical legal arguments are over my head.dronester writes: kuresu responds: Kurseu, note the question mark on the end of my sentence. That means the sentence is a question, not a statement. While . . . Who is claiming "to the t"? Now who's putting words into the opponents mouth? You might want to look up the word "hypocrite" sometime. Ok, I'll try Pops, I'll try. : )

---

Cogito, ergo Deus non est

I see you're still overreacting. And you're no longer even making the slightest sense. First, pulling out of Iraq is the opposite of what Bush continuously wanted--an open ended presence in the country. Do you know why the SOFA actually has a pullout date? Because the politics of Iraq and the US finally woke him up. What you've said is basically that if Bush said red, and Obama said blue, that Obama is actually saying red.Second, this is not moving the goal posts. Moving the goal post is an informal logical fallacy where the demand for evidence is raised once the initial demand has been met. I ask you to show evidence of speciation, you show it, and then I claim you need to show me evidence of new taxonomical families (I'm sorry, but the creationists are much better at giving examples of moving the goal-post). Moving back the pull-out is not moving the goal-post. From the person who claims that every (or at least most) US action in the world has been about resource exploitation, this is quite funny. Do you know why we have bases in Germany and Japan? Are you seriously arguing that we did not bully or bribe Germany, Japan, or South Korea? Did you forget the unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan? Did you forget WWII? In this sense, keeping bases and troops in Iraq is certainly not without precedent, as they are not the first country which we have fought only to later keep troops. So the argument is neither straw-man or false comparison. Further, the stationing of troops overseas always requires a pay-off. In fact, we got bases from Britain in exchange for destroyers. True, it's not a SOFA, but it's the establishment of a US armed presence on British possessions, and while it's not a bribe, it circumvented the American Neutrality Act, so the legality of the exchange is questionable.On the other hand, I guess you think we could not rightfully keep troops in Germany and Japan after WWII because we bullied them. Same goes for Korea, since we installed our own favored dictator.Kyrgyzstan's actions regarding our base there is readily explained: Russia is a more effective bully over Kyrgyzstan that we are. Russia demanded that Kyrgyzstan shut down the base or else they wouldn't get any money. That certainly had more persuasive power over the Kyrgyzstan government than any wish of the people there.If Germany invades Poland, they certainly do have the choice to keep troops there. I think you meant the right to keep troops. Jesus Christ, do you not read? I already said that we would most likely be in Iraq after the current SOFA expires. I said that we wouldn't be there with 140,000 troops is all. Is a Gulf of Tonkin situation allowed for in the SOFA? Since the white house link is broken, here's an unofficial transcript. Article 27 may have some helpful information. Basically, if escalation is to happen, Iraq has to request it and we have to agree. It's fair to say that unless the situation gets drastically worse, escalation is not going to happen because it would be political suicide for Iraqi politicians. And so long as we're looking at escalating in Afghanistan, we cannot re-escalate in Iraq.Finally, as to the legality of the war. UNSC resolutions 1483, 1546, 1637, 1723, and 1790 affirm the legality of the war. Note that most of the resolution were passed after the lies were exposed, and most were requested by Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki. The current SOFA also legalizes the current occupation until. So the war is certainly not illegal.Anyhow, you still haven't shown how pulling out of Iraq is the same thing as continuing Bush policies, other than to claim that it is. Especially since we know Bush did not want to leave.Since these posts are beginning to get a little long, I think I'll continue in another post with the next subject.

Backpeddling? Hardly. You put words into my mouth. I was specifically referring to whether the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 was unconstitutional. That's because you claimed that Obama threw out the constitution by voting to give phone companies immunity for having participated in warrantless wiretapping. You, of course, completely ignore his vote against the Protect America Act of 2007, which legalized warrantless wiretapping. I never once argued that warrantless wiretapping was constitutional. Actually, I think you should read the FISA amendment act of 2008. Notice what investigations it prohibits. The individual states are prohibited from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons. It also protects the telecom companies from lawsuits regarding their participation. But guess who can investigate? Ta-dah! Congress. The Federal Government. Independent commissions created by the federal government. Just not California or Virginia or Texas on its own. Bush was not given immunity from prosecution by the FISA amendment act of 2008.Also, you still do not acknowledge the limitations placed on warrantless wiretapping by the FISA AA 2008. I'll remind you. Must keep records for 10 years, court-permission in order to wiretap overseas americans, prohibits wiretapping foreigners in order to wiretap by proxy americans without court approval, and prohibits the use of war powers and like in order to supersede restrictions. It did expand certain powers (warrantless surveillance was extended from 3 to 7 days, detailed descriptions of the target are no longer required, for example).Further, it was the Protect America Act of 2007 which legalized warrantless wiretapping, not the FISA AA of 2008. And as you have yet to acknowledge, Obama voted against the PAA 2007.I know people wanted the phone companies' blood over participation in warrantless wiretapping, but given what the FAA 2008 did, I don't see the big problem with Obama voting for it, especially when he voted against the PAA 2007.I think it would be fair to argue that you have misinterpreted the FISA AA 2008 as well as confusing parts of it with the PAA 2007. Overall, the core of your argument is quite wrong.

You're not reading what I'm writing. I did not say that US is not responsible for the 400,000-1,000,000 deaths. I even said we sparked the war that caused the majority those deaths (that is, most of the deaths have come from the civil war we unleashed, not our direct actions against civilians and enemy militaries)! You're contention was that we killed those million with illegal weapons. What, exactly, is an illegal weapon? Weapons that were obtained illicitly? Weapons used in an illegal war? Weapons of mass destruction? This is not an attempt to weasel out of responsibility, but to measure the validity of your claim. As far as I am aware, no chemical weapons, nor biological, nor nuclear weapons have been used. It is a stretch at best to say they died from illegal weapons in war.Let me repeat this: I am not trying to minimize the culpability of the US in causing these deaths. I'm just calling BS on your claim. I see that your specialty is in making vacuous arguments. You have not seriously attempted to deal with how to implement a two-state solution, or whether it really is even possible any more. You also ignore the history of the two-state solution. There's a reason this place is as messed up and as diplomatically difficult as the balkans have been, and insisting that its entirely Israel's and the US's fault that it hasn't happened is silly. Did you not even read the Friedman article?Obama has come out in favor of the Arab Peace Initiative. Obama is in favor of peace in the region. I'm sorry you can't accept that this is what he thinks. Can you be any sillier? You say Obama continues Bush policy of sovereignty violation. I say sovereignty violation is not unique to Bush, and in times the responsible action (and launching airborn missiles into Pakistan might very well be such). You then claim that I am suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan are similar to Rwanda and Sudan (two places where we should have violated sovereignty). Which, of course, was not my argument. I tell you this, and the quoted statement is your response? I can see you're not interested in actually building a cohesive, persuasive argument. In other words, you're pulling a limbaugh.

Let's walk you through this. You haven't actually proven a thing so far. Okay, so first things first. Obama demands an end-game scenario. This is something that Bush never figured out for either Afghanistan or Iraq. So here he breaks with Bush immediately.You contend that Afghanistan is going to be a Vietnam. I showed you how it will not be so long as our strategy changes. You have nothing substantive to say on this. In fact, you have nothing to show that Obama is going to keep the same strategy of muddling through, other than relying on quotes from the JCOS (and ignoring his response to them). You have nothing to say about the Afghanistan Policy review he's ordered.Do you even know what those 17,000 troops are to be used for? Do you realize how long it will take to deploy those troops? Let me remind you: the surge in Iraq took five months. 28,000 troops in the course of five months. Or, one combat brigade per month. The afghanistan surge will take roughly the same amount of time. 8,000 marines should be in afghanistan by late spring. 9,000 army soldiers (4,000 combat, 5,000 support) will arrive sometime in the summer. In other words, the first troops won't show up until after the policy review, and we know that the strategy is going to change.Your link, nor any of your counter-arguments have actually substantively dealt with how Obama and his team are tackling Afghanistan. Your only recourse is to shout "war crime! war crime! Bush!"The key thing to remember here is that your claim is that Obama is going to continue Bush policies in Afghanistan. First, Bush muddled through, and Obama is not going to accept that. Second, Bush never put the manpower and resources even necessary into play (he did the same thing in Iraq). By actually allocating the necessary resources to achieve the mission, Obama is breaking with Bush policy.

Hey kuresu,Wow, your post has many fallacies and miscommunications. Just a quick one: reasons for the existence of USA bases in Germany and Japan are similiar to reasons USA bases are in Iraq? Really? Did USA use lies to invade Germany and Japan? Look up the word "aggressor" sometime.Also, I tried to incorporate the latest news of the pullout from the big news yesterday. That info supersceded your info. My apologies, I should have indicated that clearly.However, you are correct, too many fallacies to correct at once. I'll try to go over the parts in sections.Thanks for patience, they will be slow coming.

I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between military policy and foreign policy? There is no contradiction. Gates affects change in military policy, and carries out the changes Obama has ordered (read: Afghanistan review, Helicopter program review, etc). Military policy does affect foreign policy (or perhaps better put, foreign policy affects military policy), but foreign policy is created and orchestrated by the President and the SoS and DoS. Yes, I've been doing homework on East Timor. And the only thing I'm finding is that Holbrooke was the undersecretary of east asia and the pacific at the time that Indonesia under Suharto was occupying East Timor. That your paragraph that was supposed to link Holbrooke to East Timor actually mentioned the UN ambassador under Ford is telling.You also ignore Holbrooke's impressive contributions later on in life. You like to condemn people for eternity for actions you do not agree with no matter what else they had done that is good. I suppose you're the proverbial sinless man who can thus cast the stone? Thanks for digging up the quote. Now then, who deliberately mistranslated the Iranian president?Anyhow, since she's been SoS, she hasn't said anything quite so caustic, which is a good sign. So far though, I haven't seen anything about her performance as SoS that raises any flags. That simply could be because she hasn't really done anything yet. Yes, a person who says one thing, does another. Since I never said that I did or would not put words into your mouth (by accident or on purpose), I'm certainly no hypocrite. Although I could suggest looking up hyperbole.Sorry if I mistook your question for a rhetorical statement. Still, given that I wasn't even talking about the validity of violating Sudan's or Rwanda's sovereignty to begin with . . .

What's your point buz? Is this suppose to support your view that the Muslims are dangerous? God is telling people to kill their kidsOH MY God tells yet another to killYet anotherWHO IS COVERING THESE STORIES? It's being hidden from us... the murderous acts of the Christian right.

Religious intolerance makes strange bedfellows. There's a branch of atheism that demonizes almost all religions on the grounds that they are dangerous, and Buz probably shares their opinion about all religions but his.--Percy

Okay, so SoD Gates looked into the policy forbidding the photography of dead soldiers' caskets at Dover as they entered the country. This was Bush policy even before the war started (to be fair, it was started by Bush Sr., inconsistently applied by Clinton, and re-enacted by Bush Jr.).Gates has lifted the blanket ban: family members now decide if they want press coverage.I am unsure if Obama specifically asked for this review after he was inaugurated (I want to say yes, but I can't recall it, nor can I find any articles supporting this). However, Gates first looked into it a year ago.Small potatoes perhaps, but preventing photographs from being taken helps hide the human cost of the war and is just one more piece of Bush secrecy.Given time, you will see substantive change in policy direction away from Bush. This is just a start. AP ArticleEdited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

Bare Assertion Bare assertion

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well hello there, madear official EvC princess. If nothing else, my message moved you to grace us with your input. We need to see more of you.Now, come, let us reason together. Your first two links were nothing Biblically sanctioned. Likely some demonic entity got into some people who were on some meds or illegal narcotics. The third did not seem to work. I gave up on waiting for it to come in.My point, Asgara, was that it was via some radio and Fox news that I learned of the bloody barbaric act of this notable Muslim who saw fit to impose Sharia Islamic Law on his wife by decapitating her for filing for divorce. He, like his prophet Mohammed considered women as his possession to be under total dominance of his power. None of the other major media gave this significant story the time of day.
Ironically, this Muslim man was in the business of rendering Islam as compatible with the world. YOU NEED TO SEE THIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBANTc63z58NOTE: Contrary to the opener of this Utube show, Islam official doctrine does sanction brutality to women.Btw: Guess what: This man is charged with 2ND DEGREE MURDER for intentional decapitation honor Killian Honor my arse!! As you recall, Onifre's message to which I responded appeared to demeaned me for getting my info from Fox.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.