I'm with @blankfist on this one, just like I explained in this discussion.

Edit:

By the way, in this particular case I'm quite surprised by the clear line that the German government seems to be following. No military action without a clear UN mandate, and preferrably no military action at all. Instead, they urge the Russians and the Chinese to help them drag Assad in front of the ICC in Den Haag.

Follow the proper channels, otherwise you'll just breed contempt for the law. Or I should say more contempt for the law than you already breed by selectively enforcing it in the first place (WP in Gaza, WP in Fallujah, mustard/nerve gas vs Iran, DU rounds all over the world).

So I'm voting diplomatic solutions, even though embargos are NOT an option for me.

Edit #2: Well, seems like Germany has folded already. Didn't take long...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'usa, howitzer, shockwave, mushroom cloud, big, gun' to 'usa, howitzer, shockwave, mushroom cloud, big gun, nuke, nulclear bomb, wmd' - edited by lucky760

@eric3579, here is a transcript. So you can get the info without the annoying delivery:


And finally, New Rule: there are scandals, and then there are scandals. And perspective is important. Yes, to explain Benghazi, Susan Rice used talking points. But at least she didn't have to read them off her hand! [graphic of Palin looking into her palm]

Now this week, someone was taken off a cross-country flight in handcuffs for singing "I Will Always Love You" for three straight hours. And that's still fewer times has said "Benghazi". I've seen this woman [Megyn Kelly] say Benghazi on my TV so many times, I don't know if it's a problem with the set, or I'm in an Asian horror movie, and there's a monster named Benghazi.

Congressman and friend of Real Time Darrell Issa is the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, and as most Californians know, he made his fortune in car alarms. And now, ironically, has become a loud, repetitive, but ultimately pointless device that you wish to God someone would shut off so you could get some sleep. (audience applause)

But here's the difference between Darrell Issa and a car alarm. Sometimes when a car alarm goes off, there's an actual crime. I keep looking for the crime here, I feel like Reese Witherspoon arguing with the cop. Why are you arresting me? Susan Rice said "mob" instead of "al-Qaeda"? Obama said "act of terror" instead of "terrorist act"?

Republicans are constantly coming up with these never before stated secret rules, that they only tell you about once you've broken them.

"You don't make important speeches from a teleprompter!"

OK.

"No golfing until we have a budget!"

All right.

"Thou shalt not criticize the President when he's on foreign soil, unless he's a Democrat, of course, then it's OK."

Congressman Peter King thundered that the President was almost four minutes into his first Benghazi statement before he mentioned an act of terror! Ah yes, the four-minute rule. Fuck, how could I forget?!

'Scuse me, Nixon ran a burglary ring out of the Oval Office. Reagan traded arms with terrorists. Bush ginned up a war where thousands died by sending Colin Powell to lie to the UN with props, remember that? He turned an American hero into General Carrot Top! But I let it go. I said this is the business we've chosen.

But please, don't tell me that freedom died because Susan Rice broke the scared bond between citizens and talk shows. In a poll this week, 4 in 10 Republicans said Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history. Second worst? Kanye West snatching the mic from Taylor Swift.

If you think Benghazi is worse than slavery, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, Tuskegee, purposefully injecting Guatemalan mental patients with syphilis, lying about WMDs, and the fact that banks today are still foreclosing on mortgages they don't own, then your hard-on for Obama has lasted more than four hours, and you need to call a doctor. (wild audience cheering and applause)

And while the press has been occupied with scandal, the biggest scandal, and the most important story of the century so far, happened last week. Scientists reported that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed the long-feared milestone of 400 parts per million. And unless you're a chimney sweep, that's bad news. Because humans have never lived through it.

You think Susan Rice gave bogus talking points about Benghazi? What about the bullshit talking points the entire Republican Party has been spewing on climate change since the 90s? (audience applause)

I wanna see the e-mails to find out who came up with the talking points that global warming is just a theory, and that it needs more study, and climate change is a hoax. The Obama administration isn't dirty, the air is.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

God I hated that movie. It wasn't because it was bad (and it was fucking awful), but more because it could have been amazing. It had the chance to be awesome high concept sci-fi with decent action thrown in. Instead it resorted to the worst kind of b-movie schlock and a stoned first year arts students idea of profound philosophy.
And that's ignoring how much the movie hates science. Honestly when that retard took off his helmet and said "don't be a skeptic", I nearly walked out at that point.
"Don't be a skeptic"? Are you fuckin' kidding me? Yeah, let's just ignore one of the fundamental tenets of science!
bah....


You hit the nail on the head. They had so many of the right elements actually sitting there, ready to use... But, they really needed another writer or two. They needed one writer to make sure the story wasn't "all-over-the-place", to streamline it while leaving its intellectual side intact and at full throttle; in fact it should've been increased a bit in a few areas, which is my next writer. They needed to keep some of the more unrealistic elements in check as well, like the crashing spaceship...rolling...and her running, IN-LINE with it, such a stupid and corny seen; just CRASH the damned thing!

The second writer needed to shore up all the inconsistencies with the characters and their supposed "psychological persona" created for the movie. We all hate the fact that scientists are in a VERY foreign environment and yet he takes his helmet right off and shows everyone that his science degree was from a Bible University... This trend continues the entire movie, with of course in-line running girl, because that is where the camera is! And, so, so, so, many more to be enjoyed in drinking games to come. This writer would've made sure these idiocies were stopped dead in the script, secondly he would also interject about how certain characters would react to various scenes--in a REALISTIC fashion, not some cheesy SyFy Original movie of the week release...

The aliens themselves, who have seeded life, SENTIENT LIFE (planned out to the extent that the sentient beings would appear very far down their original "release" of DNA material into the environment--that is called ULTRA-INTELLIGENCE!) screw up minor details on their "WMD". This is another ridiculous notion, because if they can plant sentient life around the Galaxy then setting up a spaceship properly would be "kids play" to them... Another hole that needed a script fix or major change.

This movie just needed more development and perhaps less "ego" on-set and more realistic planning and even a real script with insight into the fields being used in the show: anthropology, biology, engineering, and all the other trades and skills used within--they needed to invite REAL scientists on set and to read the script, and to highlight things that were obviously things that wouldn't happen--even IN a "big business" scenario. The actors could've used real "shadows" of their job and a good idea how that scientist would do their job, with advanced technology and knowledge.

BTW, *quality

Yes, it's possible to hide evidence. Yes, it's technically possible there were WMDs and they were missed somehow. But all sides who are close to the issue now agree there were no WMDs. It's only wingnuts like you who haven't gotten the memo who still think that's the party line. It's OK, you can now drop the Fox talking point. Even Fox has dropped it. Or don't. It makes for entertaining poll results.>> ^lantern53:

If I think you have peanut butter in your house, and I announce that I am looking for it and am preparing a warrant to search for it, how difficult would it be for you to remove it?
Hey, isn't Keith Olbermann on? I think Rose O'Donnell is making an appearance! Joe Biden will make a prepared remark! lol
See how easy that is?

It's easy if you don't understand the point they are making in the video.

Your analogy sucks. It'd be more applicable if you were manufacturing peanut butter in your basement and had to get rid of all your equipment, ingredients and all of the records that you'd bought any of it. But then, that would be difficult to do…

What does Olbermann or O'Donnell or Biden, for that matter, have to do with it? Did you watch the video?

Let me summarize: TYT cited a poll that showed a significant number of Republicans (more than Democrats on the same issue) believed a well-publicized lie. That there were no WMDs for the US to find is a fact. Bush and Cheany have both admitted it.

Bush and Cheney switched to saying the region and the world are better off that the US invaded, even if there were no WMDs. This argument is nearly impossible to disprove with facts. It forces you to weigh the indirect results of the war (our failing economy, our loss of prestige on the world stage, our soldier's health and civilian casualties) against a hypothetical alternate future.
Most people, Republicans and Democrats, believed this lie when it was first made. At least, it wasn't 100% clear it was a lie until after the US invaded. That's not the point. The point is that there are a disproportionate number of Republicans who are unable to change their minds when presented with updated information.

TYT are blaming this on Republicans, their elected officials, their voters and their news network. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't double down on crappy leadership by believing nonsense.

Please note: None of this suggests that Democrats are blameless. Its childish to respond with "nu-uh, Obama is the devil" to any criticism of Republicans. In fact, look up some other TYT videos, they are pretty critical of the president and Democrats when it's called for.

Was going to write witty reply, but @messenger already nailed you.

Hey, I think Rush is on, better get back to your AM radio, you old fogey.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Yes, it was a sly insult of your analytical powers, but between the lines it also was a rebuttal to your argument. I'll explain: The point is that you think Saddam's having WMDs in 1988 has some impact on the fact (not the opinion) that there were no WMDs in 2003. What happened in 1988 doesn't change facts in 2003. But 63% of Republicans (seemingly, including you) still think there were WMDs, even when all the top Republican leaders say so. If your position is, "There were WMDs in 1988 therefore there were WMDs in 2003," that's illogical. We know there were none.

The implication in the joke is that the reason you still believe there were WMDs is that you watch Fox News, which is notorious for wilfully spreading misinformation, particularly following Republican party lines, including about the existence of WMDs.

@KnivesOut, sorry for ruining your joke by explaining it.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Ha, lantern is one of the 63%. Good job "use'n the internets", but I think you're missing a hot episode of fox&friends. Better get back to your idiot box.>> ^lantern53:

Hussein used poison gas on Kurds.
Does that count as a WMD?
What percentage of Democrats think Obama gives a crap when he's quaffing Dom Perignon with George Clooney?

Hussein used poison gas on Kurds.

Does that count as a WMD?

What percentage of Democrats think Obama gives a crap when he's quaffing Dom Perignon with George Clooney?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Liking the new channel! Really covers the bases and creates something new that we didn't have before.

Good choice!


>> ^longde:

africa

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Wait, didn't we invade Iraq to curb Saddam's destructive ambitions and keep his WMDs out of terrorist hands. Wait, didn't we fight in Iraq in order to expel the Al Qaeda operatives that had flocked to Iraq due to our involvement there. Wait, since when are we fighting in Iraq to counter Iranian influence in the region.

I'm very certain I've missed quite a few shifts in the vindicating rhetoric on our involvement there. You can write whatever boogieman you need into that country and for certain people, that war would never end.

DFT,

I think Sam is prepared to make the distinction between moderate and radical Islam - and I believe he does. Still, it is true that he writes that religious moderation creates the foundation for religious extremism.

The problem is Hedges is greatly misrepresenting Sam's sentiment. He does not present the scenario in the detail or terms that Sam does in regard to the nuclear first strike or the use of torture. To generalize as he has done paints Sam's comments as advocating for a nuclear first strike against 'muslims'. That simply isn't true.


I think Sam would say if any group (religous, political, ideological) came to power somewhere in the world and had the means and will to deploy WMD we may be forced into a 'First Strike'.

I agree with you that the Middle East despises the US for its constant violence and meddling in their affairs. However, it seems that a perverted form of Islam is still used to motivate many of the 'foot soldiers.' It really isn't an either/or. You have blow back that expresses itself through the regional religion.

Chris Hedges, like David Eagleman, wants to represent the 'new atheists' as something that they are not - closed minded zealots with a blood-thirst. Having read of Sam and Hitchens' work do you really believe that represents them?


The smearing that Hedges is doing is similar to how atheist were dealt with near the turn of the 20th century when they were grouped with the unpopular fascist, socialist/communist, and darwinist. "Stalin was a socialist atheist, look what he did!"

Are Sam and Hitchens intolerant of people or of bad ideas? There is a big difference, and I reckon it is the latter.



Furthermore - Hedges here states that there is nothing in "human nature or human history to support that we are collectively morally moving forward as a species." (2:01 in the video) Really? Has Hedges bothered to read Sam's book Moral Landscape?

Steve Pinker on the Myth of Violence

Does Hedges posit then that we cannot progress morally? Slavery has been abolished, women were finally given the right to vote and equal rights, violence is on the decline globally... yet we are not collectively improving morally? Sorry Chris but the evidence is not in your favor.



I am pleased to see atheist coming back out. Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Thomas Huxley, Richard Ingersoll...Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. Marching foward.

In closing - All opinions matter, but informed opinions matter more. That is why knowledge is good and ignorance is evil.

-Kevin