Obama

No, but when you list the "MASSIVE US embassy" in a list of other things that should be taken out of Iraq, it's fair to conclude that you're also saying that the embassy should be taken out of Iraq. Not to anyone who can read.

So, technically, you admit that you're arguing against positions you know I'm not taking. I think it's a good start. Of course, nothing short of an embassy closure seems to please you. There's hundreds of military troops and mercenaries in Germany and Japan, as well. Some degree of military presence is always going to exist in Iraq because that's what it means to have invaded. We're not closing our bases in Germany or Japan, ever, and we're certainly not going to close the US embassy in Iraq. Why on Earth would we? I never asked her to "debate" anything. I asked her to substantiate her accusations with evidence. She demurred with her grandstanding "offer" of a "Great Debate" topic - a smokescreen, in other words, because she made accusations she knew she couldn't support in the guise of her admin account.Shameful. Honestly "liar" is really the gentlest possible term I could have used to describe her conduct in the matter. Is there a response to my point in any of this? I don't see it. Would Republicans derail a Bush war crimes hearing, or not? Would such a hearing inevitably result in the full legal exoneration of Bush - given that Bush stacked the relevant courts with his own cronies - or not?If a fair and honest and most importantly useful trial is an impossibility, why not deny Republicans the chance to grandstand and move on? Because you want Obama to die on that hill, too? That's just not how the kid rolls.

Still no response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrayal"? Not surprised. This is just laughably specious. Really Pops, sometimes it is best not to reply at all, lest you remove any benefit of the doubt that you are indeed dishonest.Still comparing Germany and Japan to Iraq, huh Pops?The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is that America didn't immorally or illegally invade Germany or Japan. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is the people of Iraq don't want the presence of illegal and immoral occupiers. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is America wants to control Iraq's energy resources and politics. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is America wants to use Iraq to expand its hegemony among Iraq's neighbors. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is that our occupation is CAUSING instability and violence and the inevitable blowback/world terrorism. This was explained to you before. But as AdminPD correctly said: First: Obama pledged he would END the Iraq war. Not merely reduce it insignificantly.Second: Oh, how very, very, very generous of you. Without any concern about what the Iraqi's want or need, you alone declare, for the Iraqis, that they should see Obama's non-serious micro-step toward "justice" as "a good start."The Iraqi people didn't ask to be illegally or immorally invaded nor deserved to be illegally or immorally invaded. The invasion was COMPLETELY based on transparent lies. The assertion that the US has ANY legal or moral rights to be occupying Iraq is utterly false.If you didn't have a callous indifference to Iraqi's mass suffering, you might consider that since America's illegal and immoral invasion, today there are over one million Iraqi civilians dead, over four million Iraqi refugees, two million widows, five million orphans, inadequate electricity, inadequate clean water, children with chronic malnutrition, etc.. That's not even considering the constant day-to-day horrific violence.But since you don't have any degree of compassion, you declare that Iraqis "living" with the violence that 50,000 combat troops, 100,000 mercenaries troops, permanent bases, and a MASSIVE "embassy" that isn't being run as an embassy, causes is . . . "a good start."Wow.Those three words encapsulates every vile spin you have written in support of Obama's criminal actions in this thread.If you were raised with any sort of basic fairness and humanity, you would instead demand your representatives stop CAUSING harm, stop criminal activity, instigate legal procedures to punish war criminals, demand the US pays for reparations for damages and lastly pay full compensation to the victims of aggression.Now, THAT would be "a good start." So, regarding torture, you are basically saying: "Since Obama can't contain the epidemic, Obama might as well drive the infected monkey to the airport."Sorry Pops, that's both stupid and wrong.As I wrote before, torture is already illegal in every case. It is banned by our Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Title 18 US Code Section 2340A. You yourself wrote Obama reinstated the Army Field Manual guidelines to interrogations of terrorists by the US military and intelligence services, which prohibit torture.Thus, Obama doesn't have to write any new law (executive order) or even persuade any lawmaker to create a new law. Torture is already a crime.In adherence to the Convention Against Torture, Article VI of our Constitution requires criminal prosecution of torturers. And because Obama took an oath to defend the constitution and laws of the USA, he ONLY needs to enforce the law by appointing a prosecutor to indict all who violated the law.But that won't happen because, as Rrhain, Xongsmith, Oni and I have showed clearly and repeatedly, Obama is not a liberal.

Well, in point of fact we immorally invaded both of those countries. The legality aspect of the Iraq war is a conversation we've already had and settled (you lost.)The comparison is apt, and the point is that the continued presence of troops isn't inconsistent with the end of the war - the wars in Germany and Japan have long been over and yet our troops remain. This has all been asserted by you, yes. I declined to believe you because you're a liar. To the contrary, liar - I did not assert, in fact, that the Iraqi people should do or say anything at all. I don't presume to dictate the attitudes of Iraqis or indeed of anyone besides myself. All of that is true and it's a substantial moral failing of the president who started that war, knowingly under those false pretenses - George W. Bush. I'm sorry but is there a point to this ludicrous, boring grandstanding? You continue to avoid very direct and simple questions. Why should Obama be expected to close our "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq? Why should Obama uniquely be expected to close US military bases in Iraq when you've not demanded that in Japan and Germany?When are you going to stop this idiotic grandstanding and answer questions? Do you think you're fooling anybody at all? All that stuff is impossible. You're the one who insists his politicians die uselessly on hills. I'd prefer they just get work done. I fail to see how the analogy is apt. Regarding torture, what I'm saying is that structural obstacles in our system of government prevent Obama from doing much more than he's already done - restore the anti-torture guidelines of the Army Field Manual. He's the President, not Green Lantern. You've already agreed that such a prosecution would be useless, and would result only in exonerations and grandstanding. So why bother? Stop dodging the question and address it. What purpose is served by prosecutions that would only legally exonerate Bush and his cronies?Obama is a liberal as it comes. Unlike the four of you he's also a pragmatist. This discussion would be a lot less boring if you could find some way to actually address that point.

No, crash, you lost that one. It was only settled in your head because you're under the illusion that you were right. But as I pointed out before in this thread, Kofi Annan said it was illegal - that makes it illegal from the PoV of the Security Council, which is the determining factor.

quote:

---

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

---

That should settle the issue.- Oni

You mean like how you continue to avoid answering the following question? For the third time: Instead of sampling just a few items from my bountiful cornucopia of evidence (as if this forum was some Country Kitchen Buffet), why not specifically address ALL my points Pops? Try again: Yeah, that was/is my point. If you were less selfish, and showed the slightest understanding/empathy/experience from the Iraqis POV, you wouldn't praise Obama for doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of the victimized Iraqis by boasting that his nothingness is "a good start." You say "impossible," yet you still have not shown me where it has been engraved in stone and disseminated by Moses. What work is that? You mean like the work that will stop Child Torture? Ahh, what??? Where did I state that? It seemed Xongsmith eloquently stated, at the very least, Xong and I BOTH want to see Obama get his hands dirty fighting the good fight. But instead of Obama fighting AGAINST torture, Obama is CONSPIRING WITH war criminals (Instead of preventing the spread of the epidemic, Obama is driving the infected monkey to the airport. Get it?). Perhaps a few examples will clarify:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.Obama is not a liberal.*(You should have read my original unedited grandstanding text. It even put me to sleep)

I've responded to the argument, Drone, to the extent that your post contained one. I'm not going to respond to your every single post no more than you're going to respond to mine. Is there some part of that material that you feel has gone unaddressed? Please repeat it if so. Because most of them are nonsense grandstanding, and not worthy of reply. If you insist. Why don't you help me get started on that and tell me what great efforts you're making on behalf of the Iraqi people? I mean, you run an aid agency devoted to their needs, right? Oh, you don't? Well, you must be on the phone with your legislators every day trying to get them to reverse their stance on the Iraq War and the treatment of detainees, right? Oh, what's that, it's just easier to blame Obama and do nothing? Well, surely you must have donated substantial sums of your income to Iraq aid groups? Oh, you haven't done that either?Besides demanding that others show such incredible reverence for the Iraq people - many of whom, you know, have accepted money from the US and then engaged in the murder of volunteer US aid personnel and soldiers - what exactly are your great accomplishments in regards to the welfare of the Iraqi people? Be specific. To the contrary - I've shown you the direct Constitutional language and Senate bylaws that stand in the way of those actions. Why not address it? Why not name the 60 Senators who were prepared to vote for criminal sanctions against George Bush and Dick Cheney? Be specific - list the Senators by name. Are there 60 votes for that in the Senate? What bill, specifically? How will the United States regulate activities by other governments in other countries? Be specific. Who are the 60 Senators, and what bill did they say they would vote for? No, you want to see him fight the hopeless fight. You would prefer Obama be Leonidas, and make a brave last stand. I would prefer he be Aristides, and actually defeat Persia. Utterly wrong. Obama is a completely conventional American liberal, pursuing conventional liberal priorities where he can, in the face of strong structural obstacles against progressive outcomes. When are you going to address this position?

Kofi Annan doesn't determine legality for the Security Council, so him saying it was an unauthorized invasion doesn't "make it illegal" from anybody's point of view but his own. Moreover the Security Council has not ever ruled on the legality of the Iraq War - indeed it has not ever even been asked to do so.That's implicit evidence for the legality of the war, at the very least. Sorry, but no. It may be true that the War in Iraq is an illegal one under international law, but you need more evidence than one statement from Kofi Annan. He doesn't have the authority to make that kind of binding determination. If he's the best you have, then sorry, you've failed to meet the burden of evidence.

With hand-waving like that, you can become the next Doug Henning.Seriously, it seems more probable that you are using a dishonest debate tactic. If my post was unclear, why not just ask instead of remaining silent and having me repeatedly beg you to respond?
The above argument is SIMILAR to all my other arguments: Obama's overt and willful neo-conservative actions directly support corporate world over the public's interest. From my post (Message 217), here it is once again (for the fourth time):

quote:

---

BREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality

---

quote:

---

President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
. . . the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content.

---

They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't. What the mainstream media isn't reporting | Media | Before It's News
BREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality | HuffPost Impact Are you referring to my "MASSIVE embassy" words again? Oy vey. I've already CONCEDED that someone who dishonestly takes the quote out of context could, theoretically, willfully misconstrue it as you have done. That is why I went on to clarify it countless times. Oni, and Xongsmith stated I resolved it. AdminPD also agrees, and asks us to drop it and move on. If you can't get past this, stop replying, no one has a gun to your head.Now, how about responding to my OBAMA CONSPIRING WITH FCC argument above or the OBAMA CONSPIRING WITH WAR CRIMINALS argument from my very last post Message 246?:
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. Here's a clue for you Sherlock, the Iraqis, not the Americans, are the victims. What your snarky comment really reveals is that you have an ass-backward, racist attitude and hateful contempt toward the Iraqi VICTIMS:1. Civilians are more valuable than troops. International law says so, they are not to be targeted (although Obama illegally and enthusiastically supports the Israelis in targeting women and children with weapons made in the USA).2. Illegal (show me the UN Security Resolution that specifically authorized the invasion. You know, not Resolution 1441, but rather the one that Bush Jr. frantically bribed and threatened other countries to get, but FAILED) and immoral invaders and occupiers, basing their actions on transparent lies, are MUCH less valuable than civilians.3. The radical disproportionate death of civilians versus troops means one should have an even MORE preferential consideration FOR Iraqi civilians. [Grandstanding alert] Keeping in mind the Iraq invasion was /is illegal and immoral, today there are over one million Iraqi civilians dead, over four million Iraqi refugees, two million widows, five million orphans, inadequate electricity, inadequate clean water, children with chronic malnutrition, etc.. That's not even considering the constant day-to-day horrific violence.This MASSIVE Iraqi civilian atrocitieS (millions!) does not compare to the much SMALLER American troop casualties (thousands) that were instigated by Americans.With those three points above, I would think an intelligent and moral person would sympathize/empathize FOREMOST with the innocent Iraqi civilians. But apparently, . . . not you. And I showed you before, REPEATEDLY, Obama's OVERT and WILFULL ACTIONS directly SUPPORT war crimes, illegal actions, corporations over public welfare, and directives against human rights and liberties. (Obama is not preventing the epidemic, rather, Obama is driving the infected monkey to the airport, get it?) See the two examples in this post. Why not address those? "Last Stand"? How about ANY stand? ANY stand. ANY.Re-re-read Xongs (Message 191) and Rrhains (Message 71) posts.Instead: Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT war crimes. Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT illegal actions. Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT directives against human rights and liberties. Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT the corporate world over the public's welfare.In many cases, like the torture issue, Obama simply has to enforce laws ALREADY on the books, but he won't even do that. Instead, Obama will get involved to allow the transgression to stand (as in the example in my last post Message 246). Obama SUPPORTS the transgression. Obama continues to drive the infected monkey to the airport, get it? Oh, . . . by COMPLETELY changing the OP topic, is this your special way of admitting that you are completely and utterly wrong, and you do not wish to continue the established topic? Hmm, I think it may be yet another dishonest debate tactic. So, before I reply about my activist activities, please confirm.Obama is not a liberal.Edited by AdminPD, : Made links to posts functional.

Hoist this up on your shoulder, crash: You are being really some kind of major asshole here.I wish you weren't, because you seem like you are on the right side. You have many good points in this forum.But no.Instead you are dying on the hill refusing to admit your fuckup.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Participants,When you reference a post on EvC, please write it so that the link is functional. Use the peek to see how I fixed the message references in Message 249.Referring back to a post without linking seems rather insincere.Please don't respond to this message in this thread.Thanks
AdminPD

I'll be honest, I don't know who Doug Henning is. I'm not but you are. I'm seriously not going to reply to every line of your messages - nor, in all likelihood, to every single one of your posts. I'm excerpting the arguments which are most pertinent to your general point and addressing them. Your irrelevant grandstanding, or quibbling about minor points, is going to be ignored simply for brevity's sake. We're not here to write novels. And my response is the same - Obama is constrained by the nature of his office, by the nature of Congress, and by the nature of modern American politics into those outcomes. This is grandstanding, not something that actually happened. Except that this is grandstanding, not something that actually happened - the FCC didn't "enshrine" anything, they merely declined to force net neutrality rules on private cell phone networks because there's not yet any identified need for them. And these decisions were made by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, not by Barack Obama. What would I respond to, Dronester? The notion that Obama "conspires with the FCC" is insane. It's literally nothing but paranoid nonsense. How would he "conspire" with an executive branch regulatory agency?I'm not going to respond to delusions. So what have you done to show your sympathy, besides call me and Obama racists? Be specific. I asked you before but you dishonestly eluted question that from your reply:

quote:

---

Crash:Besides demanding that others show such incredible reverence for the Iraq people . . .

---

What's your explanation for not including the totality of that sentence? Is it because you have no answer to the question? But you've been shown to be wrong in every case. Like I said:

quote:

---

I've shown you the direct Constitutional language and Senate bylaws that stand in the way of those actions. Why not address it?

---

Why not address the argument, Dronester? Can you? I confirm that I am asking you about what great measures you've taken on behalf of the Iraqi people that justify your histronic grandstanding. I trust you're similarly confirming that you have no reply to the argument I've made about Obama's actions being constrained by political and legal reality.

If you had an argument namecalling would hardly be necessary. But I am. I've amply demonstrated that Dronester has made the claims he has; Dronester has amply demonstrated it. If Dronester wasn't saying what I said he said, he'd have an answer to Panda's question about what he really was saying. But as we saw, he didn't. If I'm really out in left field about Dronester's complaint that Obama hasn't closed the "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq, why are so many people - so many more people than you, Oni, and Purpledawn, who all have your own reasons not to agree with an argument I'm making - emailing me to tell me how right I am?How can so many people be getting it wrong? Did Dronester say:

quote:

---

Obama has NOT withdrawn ALL troops from Iraq. He has re-labeled "combat-troops" with "counter-insurgency personal." 50,000 US troops are STILL in Iraq. I note you didn't respond to the 100,000 mercenary troops, PERMANENT bases, or MASSIVE US embassy.

---

quote:

---

The US "embassy" in Iraq is the largest in the world, the size of the vatican, and is not going anywhere.

---

quote:

---

The ridiculous size (the embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York!) of the US embassy is clearly NOT for diplomatic reasons. This is yet another Bush Jr. illegal and immoral hegemony policy that will continue under the Obama Administration

---

or not? How can you not "continue a policy" of diplomatic relations and embassy presence in Iraq except by closing the embassy? But why would Obama do that?Did Dronester write those words or didn't he, Xong? Do words have meanings in English, or don't they?

Wrong question. Should be: You simply replace the foul thing that's there with an ordinary sized embassy staffed with a normal State Department Ambassador and staff, like is done in so many other countries by so many other other countries. That's how. Why is that so hard to see?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Why does the size of the embassy mean so much to you?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.