An interesting report: basically a lot of worries on the part of the US president, with no corresponding fears on the part of al-Maliki. How did the US end up in such a weak, supplicating position? Maybe next time we shouldn't invade and ravage a country unless we absolutely have to...
This is dangerously insane. The US can no more produce all of its own petroleum than we can move our whole country to the moon, and yet Gingrich seems to imply that we could not only supply enough for our own needs, but that we could also "cheerfully" provide the Europeans with replacement oil after cutting them off from Iranian supplies. And all this "within a year"... These are dangerous demagogues; I am scared.
I reluctantly supported our actions in Libya, but for you to assert equivalency between a pro-war bias and an anti-war bias is absurd. A bias against US military action is much, much better than a bias in favor of it. In fact, I'd say having a bias against US military action is a feature, not a bug.
I'm with Jason. I lukewarmly supported what we did in Libya, but I respect those like Greenwald who argued against it on principle. If you are willing to forgo principle and rules and so on whenever civilians are in danger, then you are essentially taking the pro-torture position of the bush administration. Worthwhile ends do not automatically justify any means.
It was obvious to me from the very first glimpse of the headline that this was total BS. Nevrtheless, it's even more absurd than I imagined. The sheer incompetence of the USG and the US media never ceases to amaze.
If that is the point, don't muddle it up with a silly phrase like "nuisance traffic tickets." That was what got my goat, and seems to be what DR@CHASE was responding to as well. Dutch traffic tickets are not a mere nuisance; they are part of a serious effort to curb a menace that kills about 1,000,000 people worldwide every year--most of them probably pedestrians, which means poor people killed by rich people. OK, we should have a say; if I had a say, I would say go ahead and use the data, as long as it doesn't reveal individual identities.
I got a traffic ticket when I was driving a rental car in Holland; the ticket was produced by an automated camera/computer system. I did not regard the ticket as a "nuisance"; I say it as part of a reasonable attempt to create a decent human society. Cars themselves are nuisances, quite difficult to manage, and driving them at whatever speed we want is not a basic human right. Being able to walk down the street safely, however, IS a basic human right, and by speeding I was infringing on other people's rights to do so. I'm not thrilled about the prospect of a Security-GPS complex, but I cheer on Dutch efforts to keep cars under control.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Thanks, yes.
I'm also curious to know your take, Juan, on recent events in Syria.
An interesting report: basically a lot of worries on the part of the US president, with no corresponding fears on the part of al-Maliki. How did the US end up in such a weak, supplicating position? Maybe next time we shouldn't invade and ravage a country unless we absolutely have to...
This is dangerously insane. The US can no more produce all of its own petroleum than we can move our whole country to the moon, and yet Gingrich seems to imply that we could not only supply enough for our own needs, but that we could also "cheerfully" provide the Europeans with replacement oil after cutting them off from Iranian supplies. And all this "within a year"... These are dangerous demagogues; I am scared.
@Zandru: "taking absolutely NO ACTION themselves."
Speak for yourself, Zandru. For me, disappointment in Obama has led me to more focused, local, and participatory action than I took before.
I reluctantly supported our actions in Libya, but for you to assert equivalency between a pro-war bias and an anti-war bias is absurd. A bias against US military action is much, much better than a bias in favor of it. In fact, I'd say having a bias against US military action is a feature, not a bug.
I'm with Jason. I lukewarmly supported what we did in Libya, but I respect those like Greenwald who argued against it on principle. If you are willing to forgo principle and rules and so on whenever civilians are in danger, then you are essentially taking the pro-torture position of the bush administration. Worthwhile ends do not automatically justify any means.
It was obvious to me from the very first glimpse of the headline that this was total BS. Nevrtheless, it's even more absurd than I imagined. The sheer incompetence of the USG and the US media never ceases to amaze.
If that is the point, don't muddle it up with a silly phrase like "nuisance traffic tickets." That was what got my goat, and seems to be what DR@CHASE was responding to as well. Dutch traffic tickets are not a mere nuisance; they are part of a serious effort to curb a menace that kills about 1,000,000 people worldwide every year--most of them probably pedestrians, which means poor people killed by rich people. OK, we should have a say; if I had a say, I would say go ahead and use the data, as long as it doesn't reveal individual identities.
I got a traffic ticket when I was driving a rental car in Holland; the ticket was produced by an automated camera/computer system. I did not regard the ticket as a "nuisance"; I say it as part of a reasonable attempt to create a decent human society. Cars themselves are nuisances, quite difficult to manage, and driving them at whatever speed we want is not a basic human right. Being able to walk down the street safely, however, IS a basic human right, and by speeding I was infringing on other people's rights to do so. I'm not thrilled about the prospect of a Security-GPS complex, but I cheer on Dutch efforts to keep cars under control.