Pangloss

The problem with the conspiracy charge is that there's been no conspiracy to commit any crimes presently under Florida statues.

This statement is incorrect. If killing is legal in Oklahoma, Florida has no interest in the case. If killing is illegal in Oklahoma, Florida has no interest in the case. You can extrapolate other, peripheral incidents related to the case in which Florida might become interested. Such as if Jim were to flee to Florida to escape Oklahoma authorities, or perhaps if Jim were to perpetuate his crime streak in Florida (the other crimes might have bearing as evidence in trial). You can also certainly make a case where the Federal government might be interested in the case, under certain circumstances. But Jim is suggesting that Florida would take an interest in Jim's murder of Pangloss in Oklahoma, a place where Florida has no jurisdiction, simply because Pangloss is a citizen of Florida. I don't believe that position is legally supportable. But if you guys can show me where I'm wrong, by all means, please do. Cite me a precedent.

But if I were to come to Oklahoma, Jim, and you were to kill me, what possible interest would the State of Florida have in the case?

So the justice system is for retribution?

(sigh) Yet another example of the anti-Positron bias on this board.

But if I were to come to Oklahoma, Jim, and you were to kill me, what possible interest would the State of Florida have in the case?

They will be unable to impose serious sanctions. A serious proposal won't even be made, because it's already been rejected. Most of the talk now is about compromise proposals with less-harsh consequences. The unfortunate thing there is that the test of whether or not the compromise proposal will pass seems to be whether or not Iran will accept or reject them. Never chain Berlin.

Okay. Now how do we determine whether or not they've done that?

Another analogy that might be useful here is the situation with Lincoln and McClellan. It probably won't come up in the media because it was played out with regard to the Wesley Clark campaign, and the media hates to repeat an analogy (plus it doesn't match up with the disestablishment agenda), but there's an interesting comparison there. I'm not suggesting that any of these retired generals are planning to run for President, mind you. But the dispute itself is a valid basis for comparison. McClellan thought Lincoln was a doddering fool and a complete imbecile. But in fact Lincoln had a much better grasp on the big picture than McClellan did. McClellan (in spite of the judgement of history) was no idiot either -- he was a marvel at training and leading men, which was something Lincoln had absolutely no knowledge of. What could have been a very productive meeting of the minds turned out to be a total log jam, mainly because McClellan just couldn't get over his preconceptions about Lincoln, and his stubborn pride about being ordered to do something he didn't want to do. But here's an interesting counter-point to the above: I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that every single general in the military knows that story like the back of their hand, and that it's absolutely front and center in the minds of every single one of the retirees who complained. They can't NOT know of it. It's just not even remotely conceivable, given their background and the way the military culture dwells on its own history. These are men who will inherently understand, as surely as you or I know our route to work every morning, the mistake that McClellan made, why he made it, and how he could have avoided it. That being the case, surely all of those men have thought about that comparison, and taken every step they possibly could along the way to ensure that they weren't making that mistake. That simple fact alone lends more credence to their claim than any MSM news piece.

It's legit, and it's got legs, IMO. The administration is spinning this as a rare thing amongst "thousands of generals and admirals" (as I believe Rumsfeld put it in an Al-Arabya interview on Friday). They certainly have a point there about dissent -- one would expect SOME number of generals to typically disagree with decisions that are made. But I think common sense tells us that that is really beside the point. Six of these generals in particular were directly involved in the planning of the Iraq war, and/or lead troops in Iraq. To say these men have first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground is an understatement in the extreme. These aren't random enlistment officers and training personnel. They're people who know what they're talking about, and they have every reason to believe that what they're saying is true. They're not "drama queens", either -- these are long-term service men, dedicated to what they do (or were doing). It is possible that SOME of this is based on loss of power or some other petty grievance. But so far we have no real indication that that's the case. I think there's also a valid story here in the fact that they're speaking out at all during what clearly everyone in the military considers to be "a time of war". The statement yesterday by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other officials denouncing these anti-Rumsfeld statements is a sign of just how much of an earth-trembler we've got here. We're in uncharted territory in some ways. Historically it reminds me of the transition from Eisenhower to Kennedy, and the questionable actions of Curtis LeMay and others, though the situation here is very different (almost the opposite in some ways, with perhaps the civilian leadership exerting too much control over the military rather than not enough, but perhaps I'm putting too fine a point on it). That having been said, it's going to be very difficult to separate the legitimate concerns from the stuff that they should have gotten behind because it worked or might have worked had they done so. This is a bit like being friends with a divorced couple and being asked to take sides. We'll never really be able to dig to the bottom of all the disputes and parse 'em out. But I think that ultimately, with the full hindsight of history, we'll have a pretty fair notion about most of it. We'll be able to determine more or less what happened during the run-up to war, including a reasonable understanding of how and why warnings from men like CJCS Shinseki (who said we'd need a lot more troops for the occupation) were downplayed/ignored. Probably my single biggest concern here is that too many people will pawn this off as just another thing to blame on Bush. Much of what's happened with regard to Iraq and the Department of Defense would have happened anyway regardless of who was in charge. It all goes back to stuff that got underway during the Clinton administration, regarding force reduction, restructuring, streamlining and so forth. SOME number of the complainers will ultimately, I believe, be revealed to be upset mainly because their own power was taken away by legitimate cost-cutting measures. That's something that we need to pay attention to, and not pawn off in a partisan manner. We WANT to get rid of those guys. Or at least I do, since I'm paying the bill tomorrow at the Post Office. (grin)

I'm starting to wonder if the situation with Iran is becoming a matter of realpolitik -- a situation which transcends partisan bickering and standard diplomatic approaches, and requires thinking along the lines of what's realistically possible and/or likely to happen. I see a lot of people speculating about Iran, but a lot of that speculation centers around how (specifically) President Bush will handle it. That's understandable, of course, but it also strikes me as somewhat... off. For one thing, the situation is just not analogous to that of Iraq. It's more like that of 1930s Europe. An emerging power, highly motivated to solve its problems against the grain of diplomatic pressure, and coming into the possesion of the necessary physical might to do so. It almost doesn't matter if there's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. If we reach a this point (and I know there's a lot of "ifs" here, but bear with me a moment): - Iran has nuclear weapons - Iranian leadership expresses a willingness to use them - Deployment/delivery systems are objectively assessed and determined to be "up to the task" Then doesn't war become inevitable, regardless of who happens to be in charge in which country? Isn't the situation more like that of 1930s Europe than 2003 Mid-East? As for countries refusing to sanction Iran, that seems analogous to Never-Chain-Berlin, does it not? It took a while for many countries to come around to understanding the real situation then as well, did it not? I don't mean to predict doom and gloom -- in fact I think the situation is very salvagable. What concerns me, however, is that attention is being paid to the wrong issues. This is not and should not be a platform for Bush-bashing. Nor should it be a reason for justifying Iraq or the War on Terror. Those may be factors in what motivated Iran to follow this course, but in the end Iran is hoisting itself by its own petard. Nobody made them do this.

Oh you ain't kiddin' about that. My whole freakin' life is time-shifted these days....

PBS Frontline has produced another gem. "The Tank Man" is a 90-minute episode about the man who stood before the line of tanks near Tiananmen Square in June of 1989. His identity is still unknown, but the episode does not only a stellar recap of those events, but also delves into the modern perspective on the story, talking about how dramatically China has changed since those events and what those events mean to China today (including the current dialog and accusations about companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco aiding the Chinese government in not only censoring the media, but in capturing and detaining dissidents). In one of the more interesting moments in the story, four students from Beijing University are showed a picture of the man standing before the tanks and are asked what the picture depicts. I won't spoil it for you. The entire program can be viewed online. Unless, of course, you live in China. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

This seems like a good moment to remind my fellow readers that Iran exports something like four million barrels of oil per day. That is not a country that is in dire need of energy resources.

Well by your own statement, whether it's punishment or not is moot, right? They'd just ignore it and remain below the radar, in your view. So what difference does it make whether it constitutes sufficient retribution for the criminal act of entering the country? Isn't the real issue whether or not the Senate compromise constitutes *encouragement* for more illegal immigration? Personally I don't agree -- I think if they went to all that effort to get here and then ended up staying for five years, then this would look like a good option to them. But at the same time, I still don't see how the current Senate compromise actually encourages more illegals to immigrate. Assuming (yeah I know this is a big "if") we have a closed border and the "amnesty" requires five years of service, a fine, and learning English, I think a great many would actually think twice about coming.

The question won't even come up. Nobody will be the first country to use nuclear weapons since WW2. Even if not one single human being is injured, the backlash would be monumental and historic. Not that that stands to reason, mind you. From a strategic perspective it may make perfect sense. But that's just not how nukes are viewed. Blame it on the popular media, backed by politically-correct scientists around the world.

I'll believe that Seymour Hersch is shilling for the White House when I can pull flying monkeys out of my derrier with a 20-foot-pole (which is the pole I use for things I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole) while watching Heck freeze over. Maybe if you put a black wig on him and call him "Judith", but otherwise no, I think not. What's happened here is that Hersch has dug up some war game scenarios and called them "news". This is about making the administration look bad.

Basic guidelines for this list: 1) The entry must be a broad-based comparison (i.e. a sweeping generalization). 2) It needs to be ideologically-based, founded on preconceptions or base understandings about a specific social/cultural/political group. 3) Racial stereotypes are excluded from this list. (Per forum rules.) 4) The poster must include his or her opinion on the characterization. Do you agree or disagree with it? 5) The characterization may be viewed by the poster as right OR wrong. (You can post something you agree with, or something you don't agree with.) ----------------- Here's a couple to start us off. I'll post one from each of the two main-line American political groupings. (I'd be really interested in hearing some from our friends in the UK and Australia!) - Liberals are unpatriotic because they oppose the war and/or President Bush. - Conservatives are opposed to immigration because they believe in securing the national border. (I don't agree with either one of those.)

Some interesting points being made here. I think I need to ponder this some more before I can come to a conclusion myself. The Affleck quote was amusing. You know, they never did prosecute Bill Clinton for sabotaging Ron Brown's 737 either. Those darn presidents, always getting away with murder!

Wow, you guys are really disturbed by someone quoting Ayn Rand or criticizing Bill Moyers. I didn't realize I was causing such consternation. Tell you what, blame me for being trite with the initial poster and setting a bad precedent if you like. But I know a bad trend when I see one, and getting painted as an Ayn Rand apologist is a pretty bad sign. Thread closed. Feel free to start threads on Bill Moyers and/or Ayn Rand if you like, but I expect you to provide reasoned debate, not assumptions and generalizations. This isn't the Religion board.

I wasn't discussing legalities. Nothing you just said refutes my point, Jim, at least so far as I can see. It's interesting and it may end up being relevent in a number of ways, but we're almost on a completely different subject.